Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This proposal is to add to policy so that gender neutral language becomes a default for Wikipedia policies, help and guidelines. It will make Wikipedia a more welcoming environment for all genders, including non-binary readers and contributors who may feel excluded by avoidable emphasis on gendered words and phrases, such as "he or she". The proposal does not apply to articles, any type of discussion page, or individual users referring to themselves or others. -- Fæ (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Amended to cater for the suggestion at #Guideline, policy or addition? to add to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content, with the example and detail remaining in an essay, rather than creating a stand alone policy. No substantive content for this RfC has been changed. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

StAnselm's comments about a modification to Fæ's wording
:Edited to make the statement neutral, per WP:RFC. StAnselm (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Temporarily restored non-neutral wording while discussion takes place. StAnselm (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes about voting

Please consider breaking out longer discussions into the discussion section. If you are unsure if your question or choice of words may cause offence, consider asking separately at WikiProject LGBT studies first. This is not a vote or discussion about transgender or nonbinary rights. See Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+ for some off-wiki channels if you have concerns or want to discuss any related issues with LGBT+ friendly volunteers.

Support

1. As proposer. --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Support - Even without broader discriminatory implications, he/she is so exceedingly stylistically awkward it makes me cringe. With those boarder implications, there's just no reason not to. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - I support the use of gender-neutral language wherever possible, especially as I'm agender and prefer singular they pronouns for myself. Funcrunch (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Support - I typically use the singular They anyway, unless someone has explicitly stated their preferred gender-based nomenclature. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC) That's right, I know long words

   Ah, but why use a long word when an apposite diminutive synonym will suffice? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

5. Support with the comment that the singular 'they' can be confusing to native English speakers as well as others. The pronoun-free construction used in the "best" example should be used in every case where it is feasible. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Support I did not see the need for this proposal until I read the initial opposing comment below, and now I fully realize the importance of this proposal in creating an environment that is welcoming to all readers and editors, one that truly fosters collaborative editing between users who treat each other with respect and good faith, as opposed to an environment that caters to a small group of loud squatters who conflate hostility with dissent and free expression. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Support this does no one any harm at all and could potentially make some small amount of people feel significantly more welcomed. Absolutely no reason not to (though I like the singular they!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
8. Support with the proviso that singular pronouns ought to be avoided where a better alternative is available. Noting that "it’s the policy of current English Oxford Dictionaries to use plural pronouns and determiners such as they and their in definitions in cases where, formerly, singular forms such as he and his would have been selected." "'He', 'he or she', 'he/she', 's/he', or 'they' | OxfordWords blog". OxfordWords blog. 2012-06-06. Retrieved 2017-04-18. Mduvekot (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC) updated Mduvekot (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
9. Weak support - Changing to gender neutral language is definitely a good thing, and could help us retain a tiny bit more editors. The reason why my support is "slightly weak" is discussed in my comments. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC) (addition: I think that I would fully support this if it were implemented as a guideline) (edit: After the change to guideline with an essay, I fully support this proposal)
10. Support Opposes nrs. 1 and 2 show why such a proposal is warranted. Being inclusive and respectful in project & policy wording is simply the right thing to do. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
11. Support As someone who lightly (by which I mean I won't be offended by your pronoun choice) identifies as agender, this would be very welcome. Sam Walton (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I agree that this might not need to be an entire policy, and could probably fit somewhere else. Sam Walton (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

12. Support Gender-neutral language is a good rule for Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
13. Support Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
14. Support For general policy/guideline/help pages - in those pages, we are all, in fact, addressing everyone, without regard to whomever they are. (The first sentence of the proposal is not needed but I won't oppose on that basis.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
15. Support with changes I think the "singular they"--although superior to singular he--is generally inferior to "she or he", "he or she" or "s/he". The problem with "they" is that it can confuse the reader into thinking two or more people are being spoken about. Someone who didn't know my gender here on WIkipedia referred to me as "they", and for a while I was puzzled about who else in addition to me was being mentioned.
    I read an interesting article long ago proposing a novel solution: "he or she" becomes "ze"; "his or her" becomes "zer". Obviously it did not catch on, but it has an elegance I find admirable. Apparently, people are still talking about it: [1], Vanderbilt tried it?. Also mentioned in table of our article Third-person_pronoun, here under non-traditional pronouns. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
16. Support – Really, I don't see this as having a big impact. It makes sense to make the language in policies/guidelines more inclusive to non-binary contributors. There is some room for confusion with the singular they, but notice that the proposal actually recognizes that potential and agrees that it should be avoided in favor of avoiding pronouns entirely. The proposal also explicitly does not force the style upon anyone's contributions and communications outside of writing policies and guidelines. Overall, I think that this is a well-formed proposal that addresses points of opposition without being unnecessarily complicated. Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
17. I have no issues with this being done. Assuming proper grammar is maintained, I think that this can probably be done without an RfC. Though perhaps the opposition here proves otherwise. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 5:21 pm, Today (UTC−5)
18. Support – Any opportunity to be inclusive should be considered. This is not only for the health of people marginalized by gender binary language, but helps shift the culture for the health of the whole community. We are better and stronger together. Jackiekoerner (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
19. Support. Sensible change to the style we use to write about this project and how everyone can participate in it. The current gendered conventions are needlessly exclusive, and the proposed solution -- to use second person, singular they, or reframe the sentence so that pronouns are not needed -- is sound. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
20. One of our problems is policy bloat, this is a suggestion that could actually shorten policy by debloating it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
21. Support. Anything we can do to be more inclusive will make a difference. It can be hurtful to misgender someone, and it's awkward to try and guess what pronouns they use. Let's be a shining example of gender inclusivity! = paul2520 23:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
22. Support - per I JethroBT Ijon (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
23. Support - May not have a big impact, but seems like a move in the right direction. "He or she" is awkward and doesn't include everyone. The suggestions presented above seem like good guidance and should be relatively uncontroversial. Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
24. Strong Support - Huge step in the right direction. Inclusivity should be a very high priority. It isn't exactly on the top of the list of requirements for a wiki, but it is part of having a welcoming editing environment. I really fail to see why this has any problems. Tamwin (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
25. Support - Not fond of singular they, but even less of he or she and the other stilted alternatives. I prefer to avoid when possible. I will also propose 'e (pronounce like the second half of he or she) as a genderless singular pronoun for English, though I don't expect much support. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
26. Support - This is the right thing to do. It will help present a welcoming editing environment to those for whom this is an important issue. Other editors are unlikely to notice as the proposal covers only a small minority of pages and only a few sentences within those pages. The proposal is flexible, acknowledges that some editors are uncomfortable with "singular they" constructions, and makes it clear that the end result should not result in clunky language. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
27. Support - Like others have said, it's not really something you notice if you're not looking for it. A proposal that has a positive effect on a relatively small group of people and doesn't affect the rest is great in my book. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 14:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
28. Support I am not a fan of gender-neutral language. However, I believe it is essential for Wikipedia because of anonymity and the impossibility (even when self-identified) of knowing for sure if a user is male or female. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
29. Support Support updated proposal. I think it is a minimally invasive update to our policy on policies and guidelines that can be used to set a principle that Wikipedia strives for neutral language in terms of demographic groups in the future. I also think a smaller change such as that will be much easier to implement than a brand new policy, and reduces the risk for disruption. I'm sympathetic to the no-language-policing opposes still, but I think having it in the content section will allow a descriptive update to our policies that is common sense and can be implemented easily. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
30. Support It does not affect others but helps those, who do not use he or she as pronouns. Using they is also shorter than writing he or she. --Freddy2001 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
31. Support About time. Ckoerner (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
32. Support - Important to have gender neutral language so all feel included. "They" is a better choice all around. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
33. Support -- I’ve been trying to do this already while writing here, and it isn’t that difficult, though for a grammarian the devil is sometimes in the details (as I am not fond of the singular “they”). I’ve had to write non-gendered language in the real world for decades, so it’s high time to be putting it into policy, at least as a goal. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
34. Support - Doesn't hurt anyone and could help some editors feel more welcomed. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
35. Language in our policies and guidelines should lean toward the inclusive—why not? Like Tony, I, too am "sympathetic to the no-language-policing opposes." But as Tony also mentions, this is "a minimally invasive update." Why not set an example confirming that Wikipedia is modern and progressive. El_C 10:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
36. Support purely because singular "they" is a lot less clumsy than constant "he or she", "his or her", etc. The number of traditionalists fighting against singular "they" continues to decline, and here in Australia at least, singular "they" is very common. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
37. Support Like David Tornheim, I think "she or he" or "he or she" is superior to "they", but that may just be the internalized voices of my English teachers. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
38. Support - Wikipedia should strive to be as welcoming and inclusive as possible for all people, and this is a small, simple step in that direction. I think a distinction needs to be made, too, between potential alienation as a result of language that denies one's existence (i.e. the use of “he or she” as if that covered all people) and potential alienation as a result of language that challenges one's worldview (i.e. language that allows for the existence of more than two genders). One of those is much greater problem than the other. -- Irn (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
39. Support Gender neutral language includes more editors, and getting rid of outdated language that excludes non-binary editors can only help us to grow the encyclopedia - the proposed changes are in service of our common goal here. There is a no actual harm or downside from making small updates like this, but a lot of potential for good. Gendered conventions are becoming outdated elsewhere, let's not fall behind. Siko (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
40. Support The "strive to" strikes just the right tone, I think. I might tweak the final example sentence, to say "An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's Wikipedia username and any other usernames that editor has used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years." But that's just a minor modification. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
41. Support Just plain common sense. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
42. Support, a no-brainer. Renata (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
43. Support. No reason why we should unnecessarily make gender non-binary people feel not included in the editing community. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
44. Support. The proposal is sensibly worded, and suggests language that is inclusive and welcoming. Making small but important changes like this can only be good for Wikipedia and our community. Anasuyas (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
45. Support - Good idea, no negative impacts. Jusdafax 06:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
46. Support, per TimothyJosephWood, pretty much. He/she is just terribly awkward phrasiology. Just use the singular they when it's needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
47. Oppose. I'm not opposed to gender-neutral language, but this is instruction creep. {{sofixit}} applies. Maybe add a line to the policy policy which says "language should be gender neutral" - it might be possible to do this without any serious objection - and then write an essay for the examples, variations, explanations, proscriptions, etc. But we don't need a whole gender language policy page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Zzuuzz: Quick ping to notify you that the proposal has been altered slightly, to do just this. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks, yes, since the change and I move to Support the new version. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

48. Support; common sense. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
49. Support per @Siko. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
50. Support Completely in favor of policies which are more inclusive. The procedural change doesn't make it mandatory, providing for common sense application, while at the same time, addresses an important issue. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
51. Support Inclusive language is always a good idea and a best practice in most modern workplaces as well. We should strive to use best practices that help make more Wikipedians feel welcome. It's not burdensome to use "they," and as a person who has "stepped in it" assuming gender while discussing issues on Wiki, I think it would help stop any problems before they start. It never helps to assume gender. Cheers to Fæ for bringing this up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
52. Support great idea!--Sue Maberry (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
53. Yup. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
54. Pretty obvious... don't buy the arguments against: it is clearly offensive or alienating for some communities, and we need to be super aware of that within our policies and community documentation pages. Sadads (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
55. Very weak support I think it is generally a bad idea to start making meta policies about the wording of policies, and it should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. However, I think the current version is acceptable, with the addition to the policy page being very general guidance in favor of inclusive language, and not requiring any specific language or terms. It seems like a very reasonable compromise. Monty₈₄₅ 02:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
56. Support. People making claims about Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Newspeak might wish to consider that current language choices are not value-neutral. Trankuility (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
57. Support per @Siko. —M@sssly^✉ 08:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
58. Support - and endorsing the comments by TonyBallioli, Siko and MichaelMaggs. The Land (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
59. Strong support: Use of gender-neutral language should be second nature by now in any collaborative enterprise, as it helps make people feel included by respecting their choice of gender identity. Given the prevalence of singular 'they' in modern usage throughout the English-speaking world, even in the USA* – as well as its long history of use – I'd prefer to see that used as the gender-neutral pronoun in our policies, but I'm also content with re-casting into the passive to eliminate the use of a pronoun altogether, where practical. (* ref is http://americanspeech.dukejournals.org/content/91/1/62). Kudos to Fae for instigating this eminently sensible proposal. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
60. Support per nom. -sche (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
61. Support in cases where going gender neutral does not obscure readability or meaning (which should be almost all, if not all cases, I expect). For the same reasons, I prefer "singular they" and oppose the notion of using non-standard third person pronouns such as "xe" or "ze". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC).
62. Support. Makes complete sense. Thank you. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
63. Support. This suggestion advocates sensible, fair and non-gender specific language use, which is a hallmark of quality writing anywhere. It's needed as a policy so that people who don't currently write in this way can have a sound source of advice and exemplars of how to use non-gender specific language. MurielMary (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
64. Support. I support the proposal and gender neutrality at Wikipedia. Lklundin (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
65. Support avoiding pronouns altogether when possible, oppose the use of "they". See my oppose vote. feminist 13:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
66. Support inclusive language in principle, and the use of the singular they. Strongly oppose a policy about avoiding pronouns, because Wikipedia needs to be clear as well as inclusive and this would lead to dense circumlocutions and periphrasis. Strongly oppose using recently-invented, non-standard pronouns such as "xe".—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
67. Support - The proposed amendment doesn't actually take a position on what is a controversial societal issue that many find alien. As written, it's literally harmless to everyone. Sad that even the most trivial token change to be less male-dominated is met with such resistance. Swarm ♠ 05:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
68. Support - I can't not support this; its not only the right thing to do, it will make our policies and guidelines better (I personally find he or she far worse for readability than the singular they, even if a re-write of the sentence is not performed). However, I fear that repeated bursts of unpleasantness will break out if this isn't implemented with care. There is no rush to change everything in a day and people (for various reasons) do feel strongly about this. It is all too easy to mangle the text and change its meaning in during such re-writes so please go slowly, don't bundle these changes with other policy amendments, listen to legitimate criticism and avoid casting aspersions as to the motives of others in such cases. Scribolt (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
69. Support The oppose votes are a great illustration of why this proposal needs to pass. Many are reacting as though it's unusual for an encyclopaedia to have a style guide, or as though Wikipedia has nothing to learn from professional publications, or shouldn't aspire to the same standards. The suggestions make the language of guidelines more elegant anyway, whatever the semantics. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
70. Support. "He or she" is binary and thus exclusive. Singular they is fine, and has been for a long, long time, no matter what your English teacher may have said. Opposes based on "PC newspeak" or some variation thereof completely miss the mark: what is new, if anything, is that we become more inclusive for editors and readers who were always there already and have always been excluded from that binary. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
71. Support Selecting a style of writing that avoids gender implications when speaking about people in general is always best, and when that seems awkward, I have no problem with the singular "they". Our language is evolving and I consider this a very positive development. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

    I also have no problem with the singular they and use it myself, but I am not going to support a requirement that everybody else is compelled to use it too. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

    At issue here, Xxanthippe, is our community decision about our house style, as we go about writing our policies and guidelines, not the style that an individual editor may choose in talk page conversation. This type of writing is the product of consensus, and I truly believe that our consensus here ought to favor inclusivity. If an editor contributes to developing a consensus, they are in no way "compelled" to accept every word as if it was their own. There is no compulsion visible to me here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

72. Support The AP Stylebook now supports the use of singular they for nonbinary people, and I understand that this is a widely respected stylebook. As others have said above, gender neutral language doesn't even require the use of singular they in most cases. Since gender-neutral language excludes no one and need not be confusing, and since gendered language such as "he or she" is by nature excluding, I see no reason not to go ahead with this proposal. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
73. Support Inclusive language is important. We want to attract a diverse range of readers and contributers, while avoiding systemic bias. The singular they has a long and distinguished history in English. Claims that it is incorrect rest on nothing more than prescriptivist ipse dixits. Neljack (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
74. Support. This RFC has some issues. It experienced a fairly major rewrite after a full day had passed and (by my count) forty-eight !votes had been !cast, at time of writing roughly forty per cent of the total. A second rewrite took place after two weeks but was reverted quickly. The proposer took an opposer to AN/I, which just looks bad, irrespective of whether it was warranted (no action was taken). Further, I feel that the proposer's Notes about voting may have set the wrong tone for this conversation, specifically the phrase If you are unsure if your question or choice of words may cause offence…. This RFC is written to address inclusivity, not offence, and the concepts appear to have confused some editors. Inclusivity is a strictly higher bar to clear than merely not giving offence; see this comment for example.

    I have read through the opposes with some care, and to my eye there appear many opposers who have misinterpreted the proposal's scope and priority: the language used in policy, guideline and help pages should strive to be inclusive and gender-neutral whenever reasonable. (All emphasis mine). Certain opposes seem to think the proposal adresses article space, or talk space, user space, essays, &c. At least two make this misconception explicit. Many opposers mention that refactoring guideline-space prose to eliminate gendered pronouns will cause loss of clarity, particularly the lack of distinction between singular and plural they. The whenever reasonable clause addresses this: if a guideline-space rewrite using gender-neutral language cannot be achieved without reduction in clarity, a rewrite is not reasonable.

    There have been further misconceptions about the grammatical gender of singular they. Singular they is not merely a "neuter pronoun", but includes masculine, feminine, neuter, null, and all genders. Thus referring to someone with singular they – although it might not be the referent's preferred pronoun – by definition cannot misgender or exclude them. Singular they may not be popular with some grammatical prescriptivists, including many of our English teachers, but that it is standard English is undeniable, even in the time well before trans people entered the popular consciousness. As to the "genderless he", I'd consider it as having been obsoleted in the late 1990s, but I wonder if it was not always a lie that men told himselves.

    Many opposers cite WP:RGW as a reason for their oppose (and, apparently, at least one support). This concept is part of article space policy (specifically WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP; see WP:ADVOCACY). The RFC under discussion here does not adress article space, so I don't feel there is a valid connexion.

    WP:CREEP is a serious concern, and I agree with the opposers citing it as a rationale. Many editors, both supporting and opposing, agree that the language adressed by the RFC is a relatively minor issue, with the supporters arguing that there is thus no reason not to make the change, and the opposers arguing that there is thus no reason to codify the effort: WP:SOFIXIT applies. The proposer has stated that the purpose of this RFC is to avoid separate consensus discussions for making these rather small changes, and I do not doubt that should this close as unsuccessful then WP:SOFIXIT will indeed apply and most of the minor refactoring to policies and help pages will happen anyway, presuming a sufficiently clear wording can be arrived at.

    Finally, at least three opposes seem to reject the existence of people outside the gender binary. I'm glad it's not me who has to close this RFC, but if it were I'd discard those three !votes as not understanding the issue under discussion at the most fundamental level. Snuge purveyor (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

75. Support I support the use of gender-neutral language in order to make everyone feel welcome here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioatrylia (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
76. Support I consider singular they to be standard English usage and I use it on a regular basis when I am uncertain of what somebody's gender may be when engaged in discussion. This should most definitely be adopted. EDITED: After some consideration I have decided to give this my full support. Patient Zero^talk 13:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
77. Support A 21st-century community should strive towards new ideas of acceptance and openness. TheValeyard (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
78. Strong support, this is long overdue.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
79. Support (deliberately ignoring the impending premature closure). I can’t remember offhand with whom Apple did the deal for the current corpus in MacOS (presumably Oxford American again), but according to Apple Dictionary 2.2.1, ©2005-2015:

    usage: The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since at least the 16th century. In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they became more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person, as in anyone can join if they are a resident and each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, though less widely accepted, especially in formal contexts. Sentences such as ask a friend if they could help are still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly.

    English, however, is not the only language where common usage defaults to a plural pronoun where gender is not known whether or not done to address the sensitivities of persons who do not identify themselves as, or do not wish to be identified as belonging any particular or binary gender, while for which purpose other languages do not have non-gender-specific pronouns (either as singular or plural) at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
80. Support while I support not using gender-specific pronouns, my understanding of the English language indicates to me, that the pronoun "they" is entirely gender-neutral. the casting in second person, i support, but because it makes the intended subject clearer, not because some strange microaggression might be taken from using a pronoun. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
81. Support Pundit|utter 10:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
82. Strong support Ecritures (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
83. Support. This applies to our own internal policies. Within these policies it is perfectly reasonable and is definitely best practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
84. Support Niedzielski (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
85. Support Hmlarson (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
86. Support I would love to see gender-neutral language policies across all Wikimedia projects. Having it in the largest Wikipedia seems like a strong precedent for future efforts ^Andy_cyca | Hola! 18:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
87. Support. This is a respectful, common sense proposal. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
88. Support - promotes a more inclusive environment for non-binary-identifying editors, thus promotes a more diverse pool of editors, thus helps to counter WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and promote neutrality. Well proposed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
89. Support Based on discussion, it seems clear that this issue will continue to arise, and the revised proposal seems a reasonable approach. It's permissive enough that it should discourage the tendency to dispute the mater. It is also possible that it might be seen as permissive enough to let disputes continue, but it should at least decrease the intensity of disputes, I deplore the tendency to make an issue of this in terms of being a litmus test of tolerance. It is excessively divisive to think that a person's opinions on this necessarily reflects their attitude to LGBT+. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I do not support altering our text to the proposed doublethink new-language at the behest of a small minority of non-conformers who perceive micro-aggressions from standard wording. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

   The language being used here to demean a minority is disgraceful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

   Please WP:AGF, this is not a worldwide accepted point of view. You have every right to your opinion, but keep it towards content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

   Perhaps in the discussion section below, you would like to clarify who you believe the "small minority of non-conformers" are, and what the "micro-aggressions" being claimed are? AGF is not followed blindly, nor is it used to overrule the five pillars which includes Editors should treat each other with respect and civility, which this opinion fails to meet by a wide margin. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Fæ, those are two separate comments by two separate editors. You seem to have accidentally read the two as one comment. — Gestrid (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks, to avoid any misreading, @Knowledgekid87:. Having previously asked Chris to reconsider their comment, and asked for independent advice about it, my question is not directed at them. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Fæ, you still seem to be misreading it. Knowledgekid (who starts his comment with "Please AGF.") is replying to MichaelMaggs (who doesn't seem to be AGF with Chris' comment), who is replying to Chris. — Gestrid (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   A complaint about this vote was taken to ANI [2] by the proposer. ANI took no action. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

   Nevermind. It's obvious I'm probably misunderstanding something about what Fae said, but I'm not gonna pursue it further, as I don't think it really relates to the outcome of this RfC. (And I already know about the ANI thing anyway.) — Gestrid (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

2. This is not needed and in my opinion will just open up more areas for nonsense requests. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

   Oppose not because I don't like gender neutral language. I actually actively try to use it myself. I'm opposing because this would be next to impossible to enforce and has the potential to cause a lot of disruption. I can see this devolving into edit-warring of gender-neutrality, which is the exact last thing this project needs. The biological solution is the simplest solution: as people who are more aware of this become of age to edit Wikipedia, our language will follow the common usage, which tends to be gender-neutral among younger people. As people who were less exposed to this idea move off of Wikipedia for whatever reason, then the usage shall decrease as well. We don't need a policy on this. WP:GNG isn't even a policy! TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose proscribing language. For all the reasons Jordan B. Peterson so eloquently provides. Moreover, since Wikipedia in general, and the English Wikipedia in particular, is highly international in nature, requiring this kind of nonstandard language may actually confuse a lot of people for whom English is not their native tongue. Kleuske (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose This is not needed. --Tarage (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose Agree with Kleuske. Policies and guidelines are meant to be clear statements of rules and accepted practice for everyone in the community to follow. Thus, the first priority should be ease of understanding. Forcing a specific writing style is overreach. If adopted, I can see this easily becoming a can of worms or an excuse for some users to put the letter of the policy before the spirit of the policy. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose Yes we have editors that identify as non-binary, however, altering the text to non-binary alternatives can be seen as off-putting for those that do not identify similarly. I would say that the reverse of Fae's policy should be adopted. In fact, we do this anyway. Anyone can choose to identify their gender on Wikipedia (via preferences), those that do not are usually not called by either gender unless they specifically state they prefer this. Oppose as un-needed at this time.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  19:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

   @KoshVorlon: "altering the text to non-binary alternatives can be seen as off-putting for those that do not identify similarly" I hope you appreciate the irony of this statement. Changing to gender neutral language is more inclusive, and I don't see how it could be off-putting for people. Could you elaborate on what you mean by adopting the reverse of this policy? Sam Walton (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   Samwalton9 Sure! Let me state that I support anyone's right to be addressed with the pronoun they choose, binary or non-binary. However, re-writing the policies to conform to non-binary pronouns would be off-putting to those of us who do identify as binary (male or female). I'm going to try to be as careful as I can when I say this, though I readily admit to not being a "politically correct" person.
   

   To me Wikipedia is like the world, on a mini-scale, we have politically correct, politically incorrect, we have gender binaries and gender non-binaries, we have straight, gay, bisexual , pretty much people of all stripes and colors, and I believe that needs to be reflected in the policies of Wikipedia, the best way to do this is with binary language. As evidence, I point to the policies in place already, while they're not perfect, they work well for us , as written. They'll never be perfect, because humans wrote them, that's understood, but to re-write the policies to be non-binary somehow whittles away at the diversity that IS Wikipedia. That, and the policies work as they are, so why fix them.
   

   Instead, I submitt that the current policies should stay as they are, and that people be addressed in personal message or posts, in the way they prefer to be identified, which is visible on anyone's Wikipedia page. Those who are binary can be referred to with male or female pronouns, those who don't identify their gender, or identify as non-binary can be referred to as the pronoun of their choosing, if it's "they", so be it. Which is what we're doing now anyway.

   Does that make my first post clearer?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

   @KoshVorlon: Not really. You say that we should use binary language such that we can include the most amount of people. Allow me to (greatly) simplify the situation. Lets say there are people who identify as male, female, or neither, and each is a valid category. Using binary language includes 'male' and 'female', but does not include 'other/neither'. Non-binary language makes no distinction, and thus includes 'male', 'female', and 'other/neither'. I'm really struggling to understand why you think the former is more inclusive than the latter. Sam Walton (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

7. Oppose. We don't need to have mandates requiring our policies to use or not use certain languages. In addition, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is no way that internal Wikipedia documents using "he or she" could be deemed "oppressive" as noted below. That's not what oppression means. The purpose of the targeted documents is not to be welcoming (with the notable exception of our welcome templates), but rather to inform people of our policies and processes as clearly as possible. Singular they pronouns are more likely to be more confusing to non-native speakers (and even some native speakers of older generations) than the widely accepted practice in standard written English, so this proposal would be a net negative for our purposes. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose No! No! No! We do not need to attempt to dictate to editors what kind of English they use. There is far too much instruction creep on Wikipedia anyway, without starting to move into this area too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

   Weak oppose - Although I agree with the intentions, it seems that this is definitely not policy worthy. I would be ok with maybe a sentence in some guideline saying that the most gender-neutral language in polices, guidelines, etc., is preferred. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ah, nevermind. Will unstrike previous vote.

9. Oppose I'm sure this is well meaning, but proscribing language in this way could well cause more problems than it solves. In fact what is this meant to solve in the first place? I can't see the use of "he or she" will be offensive to gender-fluid contributors, unless they've got very strange sensibilities. The article Singular they discusses many of the problems associated with this approach. The real risk of alienation of contributors is a risk, at having non-standard English thrusted upon them could change their commitment to this project. Honestly if people have a problem with "he or she" maybe the problem exists within themselves. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose. We are not the language police. KMF (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose per JamesBWatson, who concisely explains why this is a horrible idea. Lepricavark (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose, language should not be proscribed in this manner, even for the best-meaning of reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Clarity should be our focus. I like singular they, mainly because it is more concise (one word instead of three). Genderless he, would be even more concise (less characters). However, he or she is probably least confusing to all readers. "Sentences should be rewritten to avoid unnecessary pronouns altogether" would lead to awkward constructions. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
14. WP:NOTYET/WP:TOOSOON for this far-reaching change to be enacted, because there is no settled consensus as yet. WP:CONLEVEL: Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus... Furthermore, clarity of policy-language is of paramount importance, welcomingness of policy-language is about 9th place on the priority-list methinks. WP:NOTPART: ...the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors. I appreciate this RfC is an attempt to generate and/or confirm community-wide consensus, but it actually refutes that premise. The oppose-section is full of people that believe this is a bad meta-policy. Moreover, the proposal itself is filled with internally-contradictory options: it deprecates *some* valid grammatical constructions such as the traditional he and the later-vintage construction of he or she but does not specify a *specific single* kind of all-purpose replacement (rewrite to use singular they OR rewrite to use second person you OR rewrite to eliminate all pronouns). I personally use the singular they, on usertalk and article-talk, but would I wanna write all the policy-pages using the singular they? Fuck no. I don't force the use of singular they in mainspace either, and for the same reason: the point of mainspace is to summarize the what the RS have said on a topic as clearly and correctly as possible, and the point of policy-pages is to summarize what the actual current best-practices are as clearly and correctly as possible. Using a controlled vocabulary is a bad idea for policy-pages, because it gets in the way of the purpose thereof: to accurately reflect widely-held project consensus. Which brings us back to the main point here: it is NOT yet the widely-held project consensus, that avoiding the use of "he or she" will in fact be a best-practice in terms of making the policy-pages as clearly explanatory as possible. I can guarantee from personal experience, that some people fail to understand singular they construction. I can state without hesitation that eliding pronouns altogether is also gonna cause confusion. It is very likely impossible to rewrite all the policy-pages in the second person, because policy-pages are vastly more complicated than a simple list of thou-shalt-and-thou-shalt-not. (To be clear I would *support* a massive rewrite of policy-pages to *make* them that simple... but I just don't believe the WP:PAG currently *are* that simple.) My suggestion to the authors and supporters of this proposal, is that they^(heh) work diligently over the next few months trying to find the portions of policy-pages which are toughest to write up in a gender-neutral fashion without any loss of clarity, and that they *measure* this by doing A/B testing of the standard-english-version versus the gender-neutral-version, using a randomly-selected subset of newbie ESL editors. If and when there is no statistically significant differential in how well the toughest thorniest least-easy to alter portions of policy-pages are correctly understood, by beginning wikipedians, who are not native speakers, then I can definitely see myself supporting. But not yet, more effort is needed before this proposed multi-policy-changeset can even be close to ready-for-implementation. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    With respect, I don't see how the proposal is "internally contradictory" at all. The proposal merely suggests three viable alternatives to using the problematic and honestly rather clunky phrase "he or she" and ranks the alternatives in order of preference. Among the three, singular they is the least preferable precisely for the concerns you mention. Sometimes, however, it's just convenient. As far as the impact of the proposal goes, it surely isn't as big as "rewrite all the policy-pages". If you look at, say, Wikipedia:Civility, the wide majority of it already conforms to the proposed guidelines, only using the phrase "he or she" (or "him or her") thrice or so. This strikes me as an indication that most policy pages, in fact, already do consider the spirit of this proposal best practice. I envision that it really wouldn't take much effort at all to tweak a few pronouns here and there. Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    I must have missed the part where we were nominating gender neutral language for adminship, but... given the events of the last week, it might be a possibility. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    (Ahem. WP:Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan closed as successful :-) The point is, this is an attempt to change meta-policy, aka the policy-which-applies-to-all-other-policies. It is too soon for that to happen, hence the linkage to TOOSOON, and the time is not yet ripe for that to happen, hence NOTYET. Meta-policy should only be altered when #1) there is a really solid consensus with very few dissenters and #2) the proponents have unified themselves around a straightforward single proposal. Neither of those is the case at present; plenty of people oppose the meta-policy that all policy-pages MUST be made gender-neutral (since that can interfere with clarity among other reasons), and even people that are in favor of the meta-policy change *disagree about specifics* (singular-they versus second-person-you versus omit-pronouns-entirely). This is not even counting options NOT mentioned explicitly, such as s/he the contraction, quasi-historical yo, as well as stuff like ze/co/ou/thon/etc. If clarity is the goal, he or she is likely ideal, despite being "awkward" and not third-gender-inclusive. Nobody is gonna be *confused* by the sentences containing that stock he or she type of verbiage. By contrast, if enwiki policy-pages start using an ad hoc mixture of pronoun-alternatives, there is guaranteed to be confusion. That's what I mean by internally contradictory: any specific sentence of a policy-page can only use one technique (he-or-she/(s)he/they/you/omit/ze/thon), but the proposal suggests LOTS of options, which means our policy-pages will lose consistency, whereas at present all the policy-pages consistently utilize he or she (when that phrasing MOST CLEARLY and efficiently conveys the meaning of the policy-page in question) that I'm aware of. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

15. Oppose I think gender neutral language should be encouraged but not written into policy. AniMate 00:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    @AniMate: Quick ping to notify you that the proposal has been altered slightly such that it would no longer policy, but part of the procedural policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Sam Walton (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

16. Oppose this being policy. Attempting to "avoid using pronouns entirely" would lead to a whole lot of awkward and hard-to-follow instructional pages, especially so for those for whom English is not a first language. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Starblind: please note the "in many cases" part of the statement. Each idea should only be applied where it makes sense. Tamwin (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

17. Oppose. I'd be happy to support the singular they version, not only because it's more inclusive but also because it's less cumbersome than "he or she". But I disagree with the implication of the rest of it that the second-person and the passive actorless versions are even better; they're not. And there are also issues of WP:CREEP here; this can be dealt with on a page-by-page basis through the normal process of editing and discussion without making a mandate out of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
18. Oppose. It is not the place of policy to dictate such things. To the extent that the proposal would impose large-scale changes, it is undesirable, and if indeed "the proposal covers only a small minority of pages and only a few sentences within those pages", as noted in a support vote, then why is a policy needed at all? This can and should be discussed in a case by case basis. The versions touted by this proposal as the two best (second person and pronoun-shunning) can become very clunky very fast. And inaccurate to boot: no it's not my username that must be sent, I'm not the banned editor! I personally heavily favour they, and where it doesn't sound good, the generic he or generic she -- which are still perfectly serviceable, so long as one does not go out of one's way to take issue with them. The one point where I agree with the proposal is that he or she is terrible -- unless the subject is "Bob or Alice". — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
19. Oppose not something we need a policy on. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC).
    

    @Rich Farmbrough: It will now be implemented as a guideline, with an essay describing the best, better, etc. stuff accompanying it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

20. Oppose Don't see the point in legislating such a tiny thing. But singular they is in my personal opinion the most efficient phrasing. Jakob (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
21. strong oppose. The "better" examples are better than the initial statement, agreed, we should have them, but this is the wrong reason. We should aim for those because we want policy to blear short and clear, gender, whatever it is, is irrelevant. Also, the general idea - to treat others with respect - is already embodied in policy, enough in my opinion, e.g., in the Five Pillars. We do not need good faith edits to be blasted as "against policy". Finally, we do not need to go such effort to avoid all perceived offences as to turn the language arid, boring and un-welcoming to everyone (and the supposedly "best" example is on that way. It is correct, but it feels like written by a lawyer, not for a wide audience) - Nabla (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC) PS: changed to "strong", which I rarely use - because it doesn't really mean much... Anyway, the battleground-ish behaviour displayed by the proposer is a strong hint that they (singular and plural) should not be given any more weapons to go on witch hunting - Nabla (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The language has developed to identify sex where possible: we use "he" and "she" when we know. The language and its users know that "he" (instead of the neutered "it") is also used when the sex is unknown. OK, some people don't like it, but Wikipedia is a publisher of information; it is not an agency of change whose mission is to right great wrongs. Glrx (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Glrx: I just wanted to clarify that "he" and "she" refer to gender, not sex. And per my post elsewhere here, many other organisations are already adopting gender neutral language; we would be 'with' the times rather than behind the times if we adopted this now. Sam Walton (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

23. Oppose. I agree with Kleuske. Our policy pages need to be focused on clarity and not on the language they use. When editing a policy page, I (and likely many others) don't want to have to be thinking about whether or not my wording is gender-neutral enough. I (and definitely many others) want to be thinking about whether the policy is clear enough. — Gestrid (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    I also agree that this is instruction creep. — Gestrid (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

    I also agree with Rebbing's !vote. — Gestrid (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Gestrid: "I (and likely many others) don't want to have to be thinking about whether or not my wording is gender-neutral enough" - Sometimes we should consider making our own lives less convenient for the sake of improving the lives of others. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

    Probably Oppose. The purpose of WP is not to reform the way the world uses language. People here come from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultural traditions, and write in styles leaned from their society, reading and education. When they discuss things on WP pages , they should use whatever style is clear and natural and helps communication. There is no version of these pronouns that eveyone considers preferable, so there is no reason for forcing people into one prescribed variant. My own use nowadays is very close to that being suggested here, but if something else should come naturally, I don't usually go back and change it. In some way, its like EGNVAR--I try to respond in the style of the discussion so as not to look singular. This is different than if I were writing political tracts--I would then try to use the most acceptable language to those I was supporting, and if they were people who use the current vogue, I would try to do so also. But WP is not tied to any particular persuasion. In writing WP rules in particular, the problem is to be clear and unambiguous. Most of our rules are failures in this respect, full of hidden assumptions and conventions. That's what we need to work on. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Hi @DGG:, dropping in as we've discussed some LGBT+ related stuff in real life, and so I have a better idea of your context. Could you take another look at the proposed change please, you appear to have misunderstood something about scope and intent. It does not apply in any way to discussions between editors, nor does it attempt any reform or promotion, just adopt where reasonable to do so established and well regarded guidelines that the AP and many other organizations have published, and consider publishing industry best practice for modern English usage. I agree that "WP is not tied to any particular persuasion", and my understanding of making that work is to make effort to be welcoming to everybody, including our valued nonbinary or genderqueer identified readers and contributors, which from my view is worth a, very minor, transitional 'discomfort' in changing the odd easily avoidable gendered pronoun in our policies for a few of us dinosaurs and old fashioned grammarians. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    (I'm not DGG) Fæ, is there anything in current policy that will prevent you to change "the odd easily avoidable gendered pronoun"? - Nabla (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    See the discussion below, the question already came up. Basically without this being supported by guidelines, it will be the same long off putting, and all too easily offensive, argument every time. What is being proposed is already a publishing world English standard, which in other contexts such as BLP guidelines are sources for style choices made with hardly any debate. I honestly expected this to be no big deal. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    OK, I'll continue down there - Nabla (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Fae, it is equally awkward to rewrite rules in what this considers an appropriate form as to write comments in that form. We have a greater priority in getting our rules unambiguous. In particular, the inevitable use of the passive is usually a move in the wrong direction. (the practical alternative is "he or she" or "xe", both of which I think exceptionally clumsy and always avoid, as they unmistakably emphasise the problem instead of solving it) I have no actual objection to the general statement of the policy, except that everyone will differ in what is sufficiently neutral, but I am looking at it as interpreted by the examples in the essay. And , as I said, I have learned to myself usually write in the style the examples suggest (though I find I cannot always avoid "they") and if used very carefully they can work without sounding absurd. I apologize if "persuasions" sounded insensitive, but I was trying to find as neutral a word as possible that would be applicable in other circumstances also. The difficulty in finding the wording is part of the problem.

    However I shifted to probably oppose. basedo n your comment and some others. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks for shifting to "probably", and your explanation. --Fæ (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    Now changed to support. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

24. Oppose until the point where we have created an effective gender-neutral personal pronoun; 'they,' of course, lacking the precision required in this project. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 10:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
25. Oppose—just as we can't right great wrongs in our article editing, we can't try to do so in our policy editing either. By its very nature, Wikipedia has to follow, not lead. Imzadi 1979 → 10:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Imzadi1979: Then lets follow. I know that Wikipedia is typically 'behind the times' in terms of reporting on things that have already happened, but why not be 'with' the times on this topic, rather than falling behind everyone else first? Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    "Xe" and "hir"? A cultural shift "to where asking for chosen names and pronouns is the standard practice"‽ Outside of liberal arts university "safe spaces," this simply is not a thing. Rebbing 18:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Not only is it a thing, but you could improve Third-person_pronoun#Transgender_pronouns if you wish, however none of this is relevant to the proposal this RfC is about. --Fæ (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

26. Oppose Newspeak is around enough at this point, but saying that we should not offend people who are "not binary" is a tad beyond reasonable. Unless the topic of a sentence is specifically about a person's sexuality, it is not offensive to use ordinary English language in the normal use of "he or she" to be inclusive. If we really wish to be "inclusive" we should bar the use of any "gendered words" from any language at all. An interesting thought, I suggest. Collect (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    It's baffling why you would think sexuality has anything to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps you meant gender? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Very Weak Oppose per RileyBugz's crossed out !vote. This feels like instruction creep. I'm fine with recognizing people's gender, and I don't want to offend, but singular they just isn't proper English, in my opinon. Sadly, there isn't a fully accepted gender-neutral third person pronoun. I do agree that gender-neutral language should be used whenever possible, but I don't understand why there has to be an RfC on it, rather than just inserting the sentence "try to use gender-neutral language" in a policy page. If the proposed text was shortened to just a couple sentences of advice, I'd move to support. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    ThePlatypusofDoom, the actual change is in green. Its a two sentence update to the policy on policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    @TonyBallioni: I didn't see that, thanks. I'll strike out my oppose, but I still think the link to the essay should be removed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

27. Oppose. In principle, I could be in favor of "inclusive language", but:
    1. We would not agree as to what phrases are "inclusive"

       (I fail to see how "he or she" would not be inclusive), and

    2. Not at the expense of clarity or a significant loss of readability.

       (Use of the singular they in discussions of sock puppets or meat puppets would be bad.)

    In fact, none of the "better" examples (other than changing "he" to "he or she") is at all better.. The specific examples in WP:GNLPOLICY: "they" is bad; "you" is reasonably good in this context.

    "He or she" is probably the best 3rd person usage, other than adding a disclaimer

    The pronoun "she" is used to refer to the banned editor in the following section....

    or use of formal variables:

    "An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's (called X) Wikipedia username and any other usernames X has used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years."

    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Hi Arthur Rubin, with respect to how "he or she" would not be inclusive, nonbinary people exist. The essay is a draft and should evolve by consensus, reliable sources and be influenced by credible best practices elsewhere. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Well, I still don't see it, but I accept the possibility. However, as this the English language Wikipedia, we should conform to the English language, which does not yet include the singular they. We would be better off using our own specialized language: ze and zir and xe and xir, with occasional links to WP:Ze, an essay on our use of ze and xe as genderless pronouns. As for the specific examples, if another person were allowed to appeal on a banned editor's behalf, then only the formal variable or the disclaimed pronoun would be acceptable translations of the existing guideline. All the examples in WP:GNLPOLICY would be significant changes to the existing guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Many of the oppose votes are the exact opposite of your view and say that the changes are insignificant and hence do not need a policy change, perhaps they can explain better than me. As for worries about 'singular they' all the reliable sources I've seen about this make it part of the English language, the most convincing being the Oxford English Dictionary, which has use for undetermined gender as the second meaning out of six. If you wish to expand on these points, I suggest moving to the discussion section. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    None of us are qualified to estimate depth of offense, but I'm sure many more people would be offended by "singular they" then by "he or she". The first goal should be to have policy be unambiguous; then sufficiently readable; then to avoid offense.

    I could accept singular they as an acceptable alternative (not necessarily "better") if linked or footnoted at each occurrence. But we're discussing implementation. I could possibly support so-called inclusionary wording if made secondary to clarity and readability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    Changed my mind. I could support the change if the essay were nullified, as it (the essay) makes it clear that clarity is secondary to "gender-inclusive" use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    The policy addition states "should strive to be inclusive and gender-neutral whenever reasonable", so not at all costs. Similarly the essay is written as a series of "reasonable", "should" and "may" qualifications, none of which expects us to reduce clarity or readability in any significant way. With regard to removing pronouns, it says an editor may have to "rewrite to remain clear", i.e. maintain the same level of clarity in policy or guideline. We could spell that out even more clearly, perhaps you would like to add to the discussion section if you feel it needs that re-enforcement. --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    I don't see how the proposal, as written, makes it even apparent that "gender-inclusive language" is secondary to clarity. If it were rewritten to indicate that it is secondary to clarity and readability, and the essay were removed (as the details as to which alternstives are better is disputed here, if not there), I could support it. If/when a gender-inclusive pronoun is accepted (which has not yet happened), it could then be used without further debate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

28. Weak oppose. By default, I identify someone by preferred gender and I try to use neuter in any other encounter. This is a minor sticking point but I feel that, since my gender preference is clearly noted on my user page, people who refer to me with neuter pronouns are misgendering me. If this is a goal worth achieving, there's no satisfactory way to do it as suggested without sacrificing clarity. The only solution I can think of is to rewrite the policies so that none of them even need to use gendered or nongendered language. (And should the supports get this done, I've never been more okay with being on the losing side of a discussion. I hate that I'm aligning myself with the sort of people who are promoting hatred for fellow humans because they don't understand that languages evolve, excusing themselves with references to a book they've never actually read, and missing the irony even as it steamrolls them.) CityOfSilver 22:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    The policy addition proposed explicitly excludes how one editor might refer to themselves or others. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Fæ: But if you were the absolute unquestioned dictator of Wikipedia, wouldn't you add an anti-misgendering policy? I imagine there's an exclusion because policing people's behavior is impossible, not because taking steps to get everybody to be decent to each other isn't the right thing to do. CityOfSilver 22:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    @CityOfSilver: One could (likely) just replace "they" with "the editor" or something of the sort. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    @RileyBugz: I, personally, have this thing where I just go on and on in messages, reports, replies, etc. After a paragraphs-long manifesto, me constantly using "the editor" is going to have a profoundly adverse effect on the message's readability just because you won't be able to get through it without wondering what it is about my prose that's making it seem stilted and awkward. CityOfSilver 22:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

29. Oppose per zzuuzz. Policies should be written in whatever way most clearly communicates the information. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
30. Oppose WP:CREEP. Our policies are horribly complicated enough already. --Rschen7754 04:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
31. Oppose Not opposed to the idea of gender neutral language but completely opposed to dedicating an entire set of guidelines to it. If you don't like the language being used now, then do the sensible thing and change it. —Frosty ☃ 05:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Frosty: The RfC has been altered since it started; the change would now be one extra point in a procedural policy alongside an essay, rather than an entire page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

32. Oppose I agree with Jules #10 & Collect #28 re Newspeak. No one here claims to have been "offended" by the common language in current use.-- and no one has evidence of lots of actual readers being offended. Rjensen (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Rjensen: No one is claiming anyone is offended by this. There's a difference between being offensive and being unwelcoming; this proposal is about being more welcoming, not about whether we're being offensive. Sam Walton (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

33. Oppose roll-out of PC newspeak defining what we can or cannot write, as well as to guideline bloat. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    Singular they is not newspeak and never has been. The proposal is based on Wikipedia being welcoming. It mentions some may feel excluded, but there was never any mention of having lists of "offended" people. That appears to have been invented during rhetoric in the oppose vote comments and I don't see why we need to go to the extremes of canvassing for statements from offended minorities before believing that change is needed. If you have some reliable sources for your views, please add them to the discussion section. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    Um, I never asked for a list of offended people... But really, this doesn't need to contribute to guideline bloat. I would use the singular "they" in most cases anyway, when unsure of gender... Simon Burchell (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    Sorry I was reading your oppose and Rjensen's words running into each other. With regard to 'bloat', this adds one bullet point to a list in an existing policy, I don't feel bloated reading it. In fact as you use it already, being more welcoming in this way would add no burden whatsoever to your editing of policies or guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    I honestly don't feel this is necessary, has a problem really been identified that needs to be fixed? Otherwise it's just yet more micromanagement of language use... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

34. Oppose. Further prescriptions on the use of language are undesirable, see George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. The proposal is an attack on the diversity of Wikipedia by attempting to impose a monoculture of language and (as Orwell argued) thought. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC).
35. Oppose as instruction creep. MER-C 04:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
36. Oppose policing non-offensive common language as a matter of principle, and as not needed in this specific instance. Editors can already improve the language of any policy and guideline via the regular consensus-based processes. Admittedly these processes can be tedious and frustrating at times, but that's no convincing argument to skip them in favor of a general decree. GermanJoe (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
37. Oppose: I choose to use gender-neutral language most of the time, but I do not believe everyone should have to. While I think the people in this section whose arguments are "you can't tell me how to write" and bringing in Nineteen Eighty-Four terminology ("doublethink" and "Newspeak") are going way too far (this is about a style guideline, not an attempt to prevent freedom of speech), I think I agree with the sentiment that there should a little bit of flexibility in allowing people to use their preferred style of writing. I would prefer people to not use "he" when referring to someone of unspecified gender, but I would also prefer that they not use "xe"; anything in the middle is acceptable. With the proposed essay, I would not rate the four example sentences there in the order given — I think the singular "they" sentence is the best version, while the one marked "Best" sounds strange to me ("any other usernames used to edit Wikipedia"? Used by whom?). That's just my personal view: I had an English teacher just last year who repeatedly insisted that singular "they" is a grammatical mistake, and not to be used for formal writing, so my favourite sentence would be their least favourite. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 23:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
38. Oppose: clarity of expression is of paramount importance. Jonathunder (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
39. Oppose We have too many specific MOS statements on too many things, and this is just begging for drama that far exceeds any benefit. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

    There is no proposal in this RfC to change or add to MOS. --Fæ (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

    That is both true and false: this proposal does not add to the MOS, which is about articles in mainspace, sure. This proposal further codifies the beginnings of a vastly complex house style for policy-pages, however! So in a sense, it does not add to the MOS, it creates a whole new and different HOS. Thus, the point Jclemens was making remains 110% valid: there are lots of WP:LAME wars related to the MOS in mainspace, and making this meta-policy about house style is gonna lead directly to a lot of WP:LAME wars in policy-pages. I do understand the irony, that this RfC was put forward in good faith to try and *AVOID* edit-wars over pronoun-related changes across a lot of policy-pages... but if enacted, this meta-policy change will lead to drama. The so-called "house style" for policy-pages at present is very simple: clarity first, everything else second. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

40. Oppose While I absolutely support inclusive language, the text of the amendment is not the way to achieve this: it focuses on one very small area of inclusivity while ignoring many others, and proposes an over-specific solution. It fails to define what is meant by gender-neutral (many people would still assume "he or she" to be gender neutral, and it doesn't account for people's choice of pronouns - if the intention is to use "they" as a default pronoun, then it should say so, but personally I think that's unnecessarily prescriptive and takes it from a statement of values to a style requirement). It says nothing about gendering assumptions, e.g. "X is an item of clothing normally worn by women". Additionally it privileges gender difference and says nothing about other forms of non-inclusive language, e.g. use of AD/BC vs CE/BCE or other calendars, expressions like "Christian name", heteronormativity, assumptions that the western nuclear family is universal, idioms that may offend different groups, language about illness and disability, access to people with disabilities, etc. So by all means have inclusivity as a value, but not just for people who like the pronoun "they". --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
41. Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:WORLDVIEW it is impossible to please everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
42. Oppose english wikipedia is not for english speaking countries only. Many of our editors do not speak english professionally and they might get confused by gender neutral language. I believe, that this proposal has future, but it should be implemented, when gender-neutral language is on the same level with he/she in basic english textbooks. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 08:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

    Though this has been claimed before, there is no evidence of it. The use of "singular they" is taught in modern English classes aimed at non-native speakers (TEFL), because it is a part of normal English, have a read of this article by an experienced TEFL teacher from 4 years ago, that includes a list of excellent sources—post. In practice the changes to "he or she" type phrases are going to be a tiny number, and if those changes are poorly done, they should be reverted and discussed to deliver better copy editing. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

43. Oppose the use of "they". Our policy, help and guideline pages are difficult for new users to follow as is. We should not make them even more difficult to understand for the sake of political correctness. Far more people do not use singular they than people who are neither male nor female. I would support avoiding the use of pronouns altogether. feminist 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
44. Oppose as needlessly bureaucratic. This also seems a violation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We follow established usage, we don't lead the way. StAnselm (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

    It occurs to me there's a meaningful distinction between trying to right great wrongs in article space and choosing to perpetuate great wrongs in project namespace. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

    The thing about any sort of "great wrongs" is that some people think they are great wrongs and others don't. That's why we don't try to right them. StAnselm (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

    Indeed. History is chock-full of people who made molehills out of mountains. My point was simple, and I fear my wording may have obscured it. Sorry. If you're interested, try substituting "perceived" for "great". Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

45. Oppose. Singular "they" is considered ungrammatical by many readers and risks making our policies and guidelines less accessible to non-native English speakers unfamiliar with the political fads du jour. Worse, the pronoun game suggested by the proposal is a measurable blow to clarity.

    Moreover, I'm disappointed that the proposer disregarded our custom (and requirement) that RFCs be worded neutrally, and I'm dismayed to see that he berated the first "oppose" voter at length on his talk page and, when no capitulation was forthcoming there, hauled him off to ANI to be shamed. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs or grinding political axes. If adopted, this proposal is liable to diminish the readability of our policies and provide fuel for drama and harassment—neither of which furthers our ultimate goal of writing an encyclopedia. Rebbing 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

    Sorry, no--"singular they" is not considered ungrammatical by many readers. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

    I have no objection to a singular they and use it myself. I do, however, object to its use being forced on everybody else. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

    I concur with your second paragraph. I had not seen that an/i discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

46. Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
47. Oppose I see no need for this to be a policy. Better if this would be an essay. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
48. Oppose unless language is added to impose a 1RR policy on this or, better, language making it clear that this is a goal not a policy, rule, guideline, or information page. Policy formation and modification is tough enough without giving people something else to pick proposals apart upon. Yes, WP should definitely work towards gender-neutral language, but imposing it from on high isn't the way to do it. Much of Wikipedia is built around common practices, e.g. article naming, and while a goal encouraging this would be entirely appropriate, setting it up as something for people to fight over and make behavior reports over is just adding unnecessary drama. — TransporterMan (TALK) 23:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
49. Strong Oppose I am a person, not an object. I was born a man, I will die a man, and I demand to be referred to in a gender supportive language. Don't force you preference for gender neutrality on the rest of us through policy initiatives, otherwise it ceases to be neutrality and becomes fascist in nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    Please read the proposal. Nothing in this proposal stops you being referred to as he or him or whatever else you want. --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    You were actually "born a man"? That just may be a first in human history, although there are imperfect parallels in mythology. (Athena was born a woman, fully-formed and in armor, but I don't think goddesses count.) Seriously, nothing in this proposal will discourage, let alone prevent, anyone from referring to you in "gender supportive language" or, indeed, in any language you prefer. (Ancient Greek, maybe?) It's strictly about project space, and it's about striving use language that is as inclusive as possible of everyone—you, me, the hundreds of thousands of users who edit en.wp regularly, and the millions more who will take our place in the years to come. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    You speak of a perfect world, a world in which all is as it should be: equal, just, and fair. And you actions are intended to guide us in that direction. What you have not fully stopped to appreciate is that we judge what perfection we are fortuitous enough to find in our lives by the many shades of imperfection that surround us. Adopting gender neutral language moves us towards a world of equality, but without the joy of knowing pronouns all you will have succeeded in doing is trading one problem for another. It is choice that is only true freedom we will every have, so reword this to leave the option of having one or the other so that both sides find some small measure of perfection, and by extension, some small measure of peace. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    Could you please vote for or against the actual proposal, rather than for reasons that have nothing to do with this RfC? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    I was under the impression I already had, but if it makes you feel better, I'll cite WP:CREEP, WP:GREATWRONGS. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

50. Oppose per above, this would establish a contentious norm by default, while in fact it should apply only in limited cases, such as when user explicitly indicated the preference of "they" instead of "he/she" or when his/her gender is unknown. The proposed wording "unnecessary emphasis on gender" is also potentially non-neutral, as not everyone regards it as "unnecessary". In some cases, emphasis on gender is even desirable, such as when we want to reduce gender gap on Wikipedia. Brandmeister^talk 13:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    Please read the proposal, the example you give is irrelevant to writing policies or help pages, and even then nothing stops someone discussing a specific gender in a policy page if it is relevant to do so. There is zero evidence that emphasis on gender is "desirable" or of any benefit to anyone when writing Wikipedia policies unless the policy is about a specific gender (there is none currently), however if you have reliable sources that state that, then I'd would love to see them. The proposal is to reduce contention and make the project more welcoming, the reliable sources provided to date support that as a fact. --Fæ (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)@Brandmeister: This proposal would only alter the wording of Wikipedia: namespace pages, and bears no relevance on users' individual pronoun preference. Additionally, it states that they should be "inclusive and gender-neutral whenever reasonable". If we're explicitly talking about a particular gender like for the gender gap, then of course we would have to use some gendered language. Sam Walton (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    The policies, guidelines or help pages almost never use gender-specific language, from my experience. Either there's no pronoun, with an imperative mood (e.g. "do not remove sourced content") or some collective pronoun or noun is used (such as "you", "Wikipedia" or "editors"). So this also looks redundant. Brandmeister^talk 14:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Brandmeister: You evidently haven't read the proposal because there's an example of where this is the case (WP:Banning Policy), in which there are two examples of this alone. Sam Walton (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    Just like in policies or guidelines, that could be resolved by substituting "he or she" with the "user" or "editor", so that in that case it would read "...any other usernames the user has used". Besides, every userpage begins with gender-neutral "user" prefix. Brandmeister^talk 14:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Brandmeister: Great idea! Funny you should make that suggestion, because that's exactly what the essay section you're voting on advises. Sam Walton (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    While not objecting using "editor" or "user" per se, I don't think it should be part of the procedural policy, because, as already noted, it will entrench the aforementioned issues (including singular "they", which the proposal doesn't specifically exempt). Brandmeister^talk 15:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

51. Oppose - PC guideline creep. Carrite (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
52. Oppose - WP:CREEP, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:WORLDVIEW Llwyld (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
53. Oppose Sorry to copy but WP:CREEP, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:WORLDVIEW. A large contortion over a rare and minor issue. Minor because we all have to deal with much worse words than pronoun issues. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
54. Oppose per JamesBWatson - we should not be dictating to editors what type of English they use. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
55. Weak oppose. I support the use of gender-neutral language, but MOS:GNL already covers this for all pages, articles as well as policies: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Per WP:CREEP, I don't see the need to specify this somewhat more elaborately for policy pages alone.  Sandstein  13:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    Could you provide a link to a policy or consensus that states this please? The first line of MOS states "[MOS] is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles", there is no mention of its scope including any other namespaces, and this proposal specifically excludes article namespace. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    Indeed, I can't find a provision that explicitly makes the MOS applicable to policies and guidelines. But I'd expect our house style to apply to all Wikipedia pages intended to be read by a general audience as a matter of common sense. We wouldn't (and in fact don't) use different capitalization styles in policies and articles, for example. If something needs to be clarified, I'd rather add something to the effect of "Apply the WP:MOS to policies and guidelines where sensible" instead of attempting to write a separate MOS for policies and guidelines (as this proposal would begin to do).  Sandstein  13:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    Sure, so given that MOS:GNL does not apply to policies, we could reframe this proposal to amend MOS, frankly I would not care and might support that proposal if this fails and you made one. If you look at the discussion area this current proposal was amended to accommodate similar "CREEP" concerns. As a result it is an extremely minimal, one bullet point change to an existing list, in an existing policy, that does unambiguously already apply to policies. This solution seems more elegant than adding it to MOS (which is already huge) and having to establish a consensus to officially extend the scope of MOS, which has never applied to policies before even if parts of it have been used as an informal rule of thumb by some policy writers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    I think you raise an excellent point, and I encourage you to pursue this. Changing the MoS to cover policies, guidelines, and official process pages would be simple, and, I suspect, less controversial than this proposal. Rebbing 14:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    That's a confusing point. It's hard for me to imagine how changing the scope and intention of MOS, and getting a consensus, so that it was clear which parts of it officially applied to which namespaces is easier than a one line change to a policy that already applies correctly. --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    I think it would be better (and probably easier) to clarify in WP:PG itself that WP:MOS applies to policies where sensible, rather than amending WP:MOS to that effect. The MOS is written mainly with articles in mind, so adding stuff about policies to it would be somewhat out of place.  Sandstein  09:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) - Addendum: Funnily enough, even the MOS itself can still be improved in this regard.  Sandstein  09:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

56. Oppose WP:CREEP Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
57. Oppose. A bridge too far, heavyhanded and unnecessary. Sure I'd be on board with suggesting that generic "he" be replaced with singular "they" or "he or she" or whatever. But, no, even "he or she" is considered hostile. Sorry, I consider this an egregious case of special pleading and first-world-problemism. How about instead lets worry about how we are unwelcoming to women. That's a lot bigger problem. Herostratus (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

    Non-binary people exist outside the First World. And shouldn't we try to be welcoming to everyone? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    In a perfect world yes, everybody would be holding hands and singing in harmony. This world doesn't exist though, and we must face the reality that you just cant make every person out there feel welcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    I'm sure you're right. Nevertheless, it costs nothing to try. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    This seems very clear thanks, though I cannot in good conscience accept "special pleading and first-world-problemism" as anything other than deliberately offensive and derogatory towards an LGBT+ minority group. To summarize, you feel women should feel welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but it's not possible to adapt our policies in even a trivial way to welcome nonbinary editors, is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fæ (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    What seems "very clear" here? I bet there are some nonbinary editors out there that don't even have this at the top of their problems in life. Should we amend our policy wording to include references to god to welcome in more religious people? I have said it before, and I repeat sadly we just can not please everyone here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    Herostratus' statement. Your views have been made clear and seem pinned on any effort to be more welcoming to people who find avoidable binary language oppressive, is not worth it. Again if you have any reliable sources, please share them. As far as I can tell, no sources support your opinion. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    this whole debate shows that the proposal is NOT welcoming to lots of established editors, who feel harassed by language police. These are the real, identifiable actual folks who every day work to build Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    Wikipedia policies can improve in minor ways, like this one line policy change, without waiting until all current editors have left or died. This proposal would not affect everyday editors, not one iota. As for PC language police, it's a neat soundbite but has nothing to do with the proposal. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    So you can you provide the source where it says that Wikipedia editors are suffering daily under how our policies are written now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    The statements in the support votes from those who feel unwelcome is perfectly good evidence, please take time to understand them. The proposal is simple and minimal, with no expected behavior change, or any effort, for article editors. --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    You just heard from an editor who said that not all editors here feel welcomed by this, I can understand the supporters but then there are two sides here to take in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    Knowledgekid87 Do you mean that people who prefer the generic he to the singular they when referring to a person of unknown gender feel excluded by the use of inclusive language? If so, you seem to have a point that you can't please everyone, but it is contradictory to ask not be discriminated against for insisting on your right to discriminate. You cannot credibly claim that it's OK to discriminate against one group but not another. Mduvekot (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    Im saying that in the end this is a no win solution, there are always going to be people who don't feel welcome on WIkipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

    There appears to be a misunderstanding about a personal "right to discriminate" on this WMF project. If anyone would like to debate whether contributors to this project should have a free speech right to publish their personal discriminatory opinions about LGBT+ minorities or other groups, or to dismiss the mission to be welcoming for recognized minority groups as "special pleading" or similar, it may be helpful to create a discussion section below to compare those potential opinions which appear to fundamentally underpin some votes in this RfC, to the requirements of the Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

58. Oppose, policy creep and an invitation for the microaggression police. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

    "microaggression police" is not part of this proposal. Please vote for or against the proposal, rather than using this RfC as a soapbox for political views, or to be offensive to minority groups. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

59. Oppose, per JBW, et al. The day I am required to use the repulsive singular they will be the day I exit stage left from this project. (That in itself should be enough to line up a score or two of "supports".) Joefromrandb (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
60. Oppose. I respect the reasons for this proposal, but I like to switch between the generic he and generic she. The latter is common in academia; someone called it the "linguistic equivalent of affirmative action". I think it's important to do this, so I'd prefer not to be forced to use they, though I'm happy to switch to it sometimes. Also, as a general policy, I don't like to see style issues imposed as rules that must always be followed. This one has the potential to lead to some awkward writing. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
61. oppose removes the ability to actively include women which given the demographics of this project tends to passively exclude them.©Geni (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
62. Oppose - We already focus too much energy into political correctness and Newspeak. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not promote some New World Order version of language. Simple English should suffice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
63. Oppose these pages should be written to be clear and informative, on some pages Alice and Bob examples may be the way to be clear - along with their associated pronouns. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

    There is nothing in this proposal that stops relevant gendered case studies and examples being used to illustrate a policy or help page, if these are thought to be the clearest way of doing so. In practice, this style for policy pages is hardly ever used, in fact I think it's zero as I have not seen any. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

64. Oppose per Dennis, JBW, BMK, and others. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

• I propose this RFC be closed and redone. The question is not a neutral question and is a leading one. The RFC should be "Should Wikipedia adapt gender neutral terms?" The way it's written now, already assumes people want to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  The other issue is whether or not this is a proposal for a policy or to adjust something in the MOS. Its not clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  MOS is irrelevant as this does not apply to articles. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  So this is a policy proposal? TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Refer to the opening line "This proposal is to adopt a policy". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, I just wanted to be clear because to me this seems to not fit well with the type of policies that we consider to be policy rather than a guideline. I don't mean to try to downplay how important this is for many people, but it seems to be that this isn't of the level that we normally consider for policy proposals. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I think that is basically the same thing as is being put now. The current RfC asks "to adopt?" and gives a suggested policy which is only intended for policy and help documents, not Wikipedia in general. I cannot think of an alternative meaningful gender neutral policy, for policy documents, that would be different in any significant way from the current one proposed. I'd be happy to see alternatives put forward, but the one that evolved here from many viewpoints, is entirely based on strong external standards on the English language, such as the Associated Press guidelines for journalists. So no, I see no benefit in closing this RfC, apart from disrupting it because it is "nonsense", rather than letting it run its course. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think that there should be some rule allowing RfCs on policy, guidelines, etc. changing non-gender neutral language to neutral language should be allowed to close after, say, 4 days when the consensus is in support, and 7 days when consensus seems to be wavering or is oppose. This would allow for pages to quickly change non-neutral language without causing the edit warring that this proposal could cause. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  The intention of this RfC is for there to be one big RfC, and we then avoid separate consensus discussions for making these rather small changes to a few pronouns that exist here or there in policy or help documents. We are following normal RfC rules, rather than expecting special rules because of the subject matter, which itself would be controversial. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Train2104: Could you give an example where changing to gender neutral pronouns in an existing policy or help document might open a can of worms? As any change would only be on a reasonable basis, rewriting if needed, so that precisely same meaning of policy is preserved, I'm having difficulty imagining this hypothetical problem ever becoming a real one. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I was referring to the opposite case. Say a document was not updated to follow this proposal, whether by accident or on purpose. Then, someone accused of not complying with said document could easily use the argument "you have an explicit policy saying such documents should be written with gender neutral pronouns, this one is not, I don't identify with either gender, therefore this document doesn't apply to me". Yes, I am aware that second part of that hypothetical argument can be made today, but it's far easier to shoot it down in the absence of policy. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not only has that never happened, yet based on your own argument it is the status quo, it never will happen just because this policy might get agreed. The nonbinary people that have contacted me about this policy are not interested in being confrontational about it, and even if they were, this hypothetical argument is too daft odd to hold any water. Thanks for the clarification, I understand your opposition built on this type of reasoning but it seems entirely a fiction to my eyes and a poor reason to avoid making Wikipedia feel welcoming for all contributors. --Fæ (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I think that that argument is invalid because of WP:IAR. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally can't stand "he or she" just because it's plain bad writing, and prefer the "singular they" immensely. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me why the concerns raised in this RFC cannot be dealt with by the normal BRD cycle of most policy pages? Be bold and fix the offensive language. If you are reverted, discuss. --Izno (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The real experiences of our editors having comments like some of the opposes in this RfC. The attitudes of genderism may not be a majority any more, but such people still think it's okay to publicly deny the existence or importance of nonbinary people, and believe they are doing a good thing by fighting off "nonsense" (oppose vote #2) or doublethinking non-conformists (oppose vote #1). Having a policy gives all editors a reason to go ahead and make our policies more welcoming for everyone, including women, trans and genderqueer people who feel an avoidable emphasis on gender is oppressive. Without this policy, every change is a risk of having to argue the same case, principles and be required to educate anyone that turns up who may have regressive views. Let's avoid having all that off putting drama that would guarantee that these changes will not happen until all the dinosaurs (including me) have left the project or died (oppose vote #3), which maybe could happen in 25 years or so. --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely a fair characterization of my oppose. What I jokingly call the biological solution works both ways: more young people come on and the language of the project adapts accordingly naturally. Language is fluid and not prescriptive, and any proposal like this is bound to fail in actual implementation. Regulating hate speech is one thing, but something as basic to any language as pronouns is next to impossible to actually do. It creates the resentment that you seem to be seeing in opposes #1 and #2. Its hard enough to enforce a pronoun policy when documents are being drafted by one person, much less an encyclopedia that is by its very nature collaborative. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Implementation seems easy from where I'm sitting, there's actually hardly any editing needed to roll out changes to a couple of pronouns and do a bit of recasting of sentences on some policy pages. However this same way of thinking, which aligns with oppose #7, confuses taking the editorial step of reducing unnecessary gendered text, with somehow rejecting the majority male or female genders. It's more inclusive not less. By the way, making this proposal and having this discussion did not "create the resentment" of some opposes, those folks already had those views about gender before I typed anything on a page, so I think it is fair to say that people are responsible for their own opinions, and indeed they are responsible if they choose to publish views which may cause hurtful offence or disparage others. Not me, I did not even know these editors existed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"more young people come on and the language of the project adapts accordingly naturally" Isn't that what's happening here? Times are changing and a proposal has been put forth to change language. Opposing something changing because "it will change one day anyway" seems odd to me. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I would never really call a prescriptive rule a natural evolution of language! Like I'm commenting below, I'd be fine with adding something like this to the existing policy policy, and then let individual editors make the changes as needed when they see something come up. That's much more organic and would be easier to maintain. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's actually pretty hard to separate the "natural" from the "organic" when considering the evolution of language. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:JamesBWatson... Am I missing something, or do we not already attempt to dictate to editors what kind of English they use in basically every respect but this? I could link to the alphabet soup, but I don't know that that's really necessary for someone whose been here almost seven years. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I really cannot imagine what you mean by that. Really. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Taken from WP:MOS: "The Manual of Style (...) is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I know this sounds weird coming from someone who !voted oppose, but I would like to remind everyone to assume good faith when reading through this RfC, including when reading this reminder about AGF. Remember to assume the best intentions from your fellow editors. An RfC like this one will likely cause a lot of division if we don't remember to AGF. — Gestrid (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fæ: «Could you give an example where changing to gender neutral pronouns in an existing policy or help document might open a can of worms? As any change would only be on a reasonable basis, rewriting if needed, so that precisely same meaning of policy is preserved, I'm having difficulty imagining this hypothetical problem ever becoming a real one.» End quote. Yes, I am copying verbatim a question by you, not to be confrontational, but precisely because that is my question. If you consider that changing a few pronouns is an hypothetical problem that will never turn into opening a can of worms... why do we need this policy/guideline? I can not see anyone arguing that the first sentence in you essay proposal is better than any of the ones suggested as "better". I can not see that anyone will insist that sentences must include "he or she" or "he" or "she", arguing that we must have sentences referencing gender...? So, if changing a few pronouns is not a problem, what problem is this trying to solve? (And as a Portuguese speaker this looks even more weird, because English is already a language that lends itself to gender neutrality much more than than Portuguese - none of your suggestions would be easy to translate in a neutral way to Portuguese) - Nabla (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not having this small policy amendment makes such changes a can of worms, we can agree on that, as you have only to look at the some of angrily worded opposes, or derogatory comments about nonbinary people like "saying that we should not offend people who are "not binary" is a tad beyond reasonable", which nobody here would dare say in an attempt to trivialize or make a joke from being offensive to a racial minority, to realize that trying to either mass or serially change several policies to a gender-neutral style would be likely to see persistent aggressive resistance. With the policy in place, there can be little scope for worms of any background to cause disruption.

I appreciate the point about other languages, this was more relevant to the Commons discussion and has also been discussed at some length on Wikimedia-l, however it is not part of this RfC. --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not parsing something in your language correctly, but did you seriously just call editors who oppose changes in wording disruptive worms? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nabla's can is not full of editors. If you mean to be outraged, there are outrageous remarks relating to non binary people worth examining. --Fæ (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Again I seem to not be understanding something. Did you, or did you not call editors who would oppose your changes disruptive worms? And secondly, is there anyone who is actually offended at internal documents saying "he or she"? Can we actually point to someone who is offended for a legitimate reason, or is this just a solution in search of a problem? Please help me understand. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

1. No.

2. I suggest you read through the explanations in the support votes. This proposal is about taking a small step with trivial inconvenience to ensure "Wikipedia is a welcoming environment for all genders", it's not about pointing out people who are offended by the current default acceptance of genderist language, nor about outing our contributors as nonbinary or transitioning.

To help foster good faith, and answer your request "please help me understand", I think it's worth spending a moment sharing a bit of personal perspective, to imagine walking in another's shoes for whom all this discussion about gender is sharply relevant. Just a few days ago, a long term Wikimedia volunteer who I have had many deep discussions with about our open knowledge movement, and who is not going to vote here, made a point of telling me as one of the LGBT+ Wikimedians they know, that since we last met their "new" son had come out to them as trans. Their son is a young teenager who last year had come out as a lesbian. Coming out as a lesbian at a young age and asking for support is a big thing for anyone, so if you have not experienced it for yourself, it's hard to imagine the emotional pressure for someone already dealing with puberty, coming to grips with talking about their sexuality that their parents were not expecting, and then the challenge of even understanding the words to explain your gender identity as well as recognizing this within yourself.

Now put on the shoes of the young transitioning person looking for information on what being trans means and the parent wanting to protect their child from being hurt, both having a new view on the society they took for granted. Everywhere, at every level, the presumption of "he or she" is constantly made. At every event, public space, organization, you are under pressure to identify yourself as male or female, even by using a toilet, and may be forced to explain that you or your child is transitioning. Your personal life constantly becoming a matter for public attention and potential ridicule. Fortunately they live in a country where schools are a welcoming space for trans and nonbinary young people, and have sensible policies to ensure teachers and fellow students understand what it is, and how the gender of the person has nothing to do with what they mean to you.

I started this discussion about policies on the English Wikipedia with the modest proposal that we can become a welcoming mature environment, where at least in our policies and guidelines for running our project, our volunteers do not have to follow documents reinforcing gender binary language. The change itself is not difficult, but having to face these explanations and debates is, along with the risk of trying to have civil discussion with odd people who blithely tell you you don't exist.

Making this small policy change will be a demonstration to all our volunteers that our community means it, when we say we are a project where everyone can edit, and as we always intended, that includes both us nonbinary and binary folks feeling we are welcome to edit. --Fæ (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

People that disagree with you are worms... right. Case closed as to "respect differences". Nabla (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? This was pretty clearly a play on the idiom can of worms. AGF much? TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I already said no twice. I think there's a good deal of hypersensitive over-inflation and trying very hard to be offended at something trivial, rather than discussing the point of this proposal. It seems obvious to my rereading that the worms are precisely your words about a can of worms, and I agreed that the changes may be worms from that can if the policy is not agreed. So the changes are worms and there's no mention of people disagreeing with me. Maybe it's worth going to the first post in this section about assume good faith and seeing if that's possible to try for size. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If "he or she" marginalizes anyone (which I still find unlikely), the singular they marginalizes those with Multiple Personality Disorder. I suspect that group is larger than those who do not identify with a binary gender (at a specific time; a person can identify as male at one time and female at another time, and "he or she" is inclusive of such a person.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming this is intended as a joke? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely. But, if we're going to be "inclusive" (without a credible definition of "inclusive"), we need to be open to the possibility of excluding others, including those excluded by "they". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Any suggestions on who they might be? (and any suggestions on how I could have written this so as not to exclude them?) 'Those who are not "they"' sounds like a Monty Python script. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

With the Internet of things, and the tendency to anthropormorphize inanimate objects, perhaps "it" would include more editors than the "singular they". Re-editing my "!vote" above, I could agree that gender-inclusive language is a good idea, except it should be secondary to disambiguity, readability, and acceptable grammar. (We disagree as to whether the "singular they" is acceptable grammar or is inclusive of those with DID, and whether the use of "it" is more inclusive of those with Asperger's syndrome than it would be exclusive of "normal" editors.) I'm beginning to think that only a disclaimed pronoun or a formal variable would be acceptable to all, at the expense of readability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposal precisely states "gender-neutral whenever reasonable" and encourages choice of "concise language". Reliable English standards and guidelines apply to language on Wikipedia pages, this includes policy and help pages where readable modern English has always been safely applied. Despite some vigorous argument to the contrary in some votes above, these are based on feelings not verifiable facts. Not a single modern text book or dictionary to English has been produced as objective evidence to oppose this proposal, while the support votes have the benefit of a selection of excellent external standards, such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Associated Press standards. --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Another problem with the essay (and therefore the proposal) is that it blatantly ignores another valid workaround: using the plural they. So the example used would become: "E-mail appeals must specify the banned editors' Wikipedia usernames and any other usernames they have used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years." I'm not saying that is the best way of wording it, but it demonstrates the problem with the prescriptivism that is advocated here. (Interestingly, a prescriptivism that is in reaction against the prescriptivism that forbids the singular they.) StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Guideline, policy or addition?

Though I called this a policy, it is very short and could be added as a subsection to an existing policy or guideline, if we decide which one. Does anyone have some ideas on if this would be a good fit as part of an existing policy or guideline? I did surf around thinking about this when drafting, but nothing popped up as suitable, the closest being the MOS, but that is for articles not policy writing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support some sort addition to an existing policy that would explain why people make the changes and give it grounding in policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• I think that it would be best to either do what Tony suggested above, or just create a new MOS section titled "In other namespaces". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• NB: my suggested location would be in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content. Keep it short and sweet. I think you'd also get more buy in that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  That's a good fit, thanks. I'm not committed to this being stand alone, so unless anyone objects, I'm happy to consider the #Content section to be a suitable place to host this additional bit of policy, with a suitable shortcut. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Why not say "Use gender-neutral wording. Although it is preferred to use the pronoun "they" over "he or she", avoiding the use of unnecessary pronouns altogether is preferable." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  That could work. Also something like Use inclusive language: the English Wikipedia has users from a variety of different groups, and the language of policies should strive to be inclusive and gender-neutral as much as is possible. Use of concise language that avoids gender is best. For more see WP:ESSAYONPRONOUNS. I'm a fan of leaving the language broad so it can be used in principle for other issues in the future. Having an essay explaining the better/best examples above would be a good idea as well, though I wouldn't want it on the actual policy page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Do you want to create an alternate proposal proposing the agreed wording, Fæ? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} |_Edits 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll set it up in a sandbox tomorrow. It's an implementation choice, but not a content change, so the RfC itself is not materially affected. --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have split the minimum policy component from the rest of the details, so that the example, practicalities and detailed explanation is in an essay rather than expanding policy. I think this works, comments welcome. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note that WP:GUIDELINE is a policy, not a guideline. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  Technically a procedural policy, so slightly different, I think, from a normal policy. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Uneeded - Our current policies work well, as such, the old axiom applies - if it isn't broken, don't fix it.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  13:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  Please take a time-out to understand what wikt:genderism means and that it is emphasised and exacerbated by our choice of arbitrary outdated language. This is a small and relatively convenient change that will make no practical difference to the vast, vast, majority of editors, like yourself, as it will not change anything you will actually do as a contributor, unless you spend a lot of time drafting out policy documents and project help pages behind the scenes. At the same time it makes a huge difference to how our project feels for those who are alienated every day by being faced with unnecessary binary language. If our project is not welcoming to all, then yes it needs to be fixed, as it's not fit for purpose.

P.S. I've been sent this video explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXhSJK9a6U. It's an enjoyable to watch explanation of exactly the language issues in this RfC. If you don't want to plough through the sources shown in the above essay, take a minute to watch the short video. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fæ That's the thing, Wikipedia actually already is welcoming to all! We don't need to make a change to the policies to facilitate that. We literally allow people to identify with a gender, or not if that's what they choose. We have blocked people for referring to others with the wrong pronoun as well, so we're already there. Again, if it works. you don't have to change it, and our current policies definitely work!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This minor addition is to create a welcoming environment for those reading our policies, guidelines and help pages. "He or she" phrases are not welcoming to everyone. As for how editors want to be referred to, this proposal specifically excludes discussion areas or user pages, so it's a tangential matter as there is no attempt in this RfC to guide what people write in discussions. Could you link to the block you refer to, I'm not aware of the case? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Kosh, we already have a welcoming environment as it is. Please keep in mind WP:WORLDVIEW, should we amend our things to be more welcoming to Christians but exclude Muslims? It is a slippery slope here, you just cant make everyone happy without upsetting another group. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Who, exactly, is being excluded here? Moving to gender neutral terminology only includes more people. Sam Walton (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The English version of Wikipedia represents the English speaking world correct? As much as I want to support gender neutral wording we must also be neutral when it comes to a worldwide view. So yes while it might welcome in members from the LGBTQ community, it will push out editors that don't share this view worldwide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that we pander to bigotry? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, To you it is considered bigotry though. I don't see any sources that claim that gender neutral names are of worldwide acceptance, this isn't "Wikipedia United States". I am just asking for us to remain neutral here without having emotions get in the way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I agree that it is not US Wikipedia, particularly since I am not from the US, but that is beside the point. It is English language Wikipedia, and there are a wide range of variations on the English language. I am fairly familiar with several of them, but not aware of any in which gender neutral language is considered offensive. Could you give some indication of which worldwide native users of the English language you think would be "pushed out" by the use of gender neutral language, and why this would be the case? Why would it be necessary to have sources claiming that gender-neutral language is accepted worldwide? I am trying to follow your reasoning here.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fæ, Wikipedia is welcoming to everyone and anyone. We don't need to change the language of our policies to do that. For example note this edit AND edit summary which is unambiguously hostile towards transgender, also note that this user was blocked for this, also note the number of people who recieved topic bans due to misconduct on a transgender issue page as well. I say again, this time, with diffs, that Wikipedia is welcoming to all, we need no re-writes of our policies. It's already working fine, no need to fix what isn't broken.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  15:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, which is not quite "We have blocked people for referring to others with the wrong pronoun", however to draw a parallel, a case of a vandal being blocked for writing something misogynistic, would not be "proof" that Wikipedia has no need to be more welcoming for women editors. The argument "it ain't broken don't fix it" should not be used as a mantra to avoid taking any possible action to improve the project. --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: There is no evidence, and it seems faintly ridiculous to assert, that Wikipedia will lose editors or become less welcoming, because we remove a handful of unnecessary phrases that emphasise gender in a few of Wikipedia's policy and help pages. If you have evidence of that happening elsewhere, as plenty of organizations and communities have already done precisely this change, or reliable sources making this claim, it would be interesting to compare them to the sources we have provided so far. This is not original research, and we are not running a campaign for homosexual equality from scratch, so there is no need to lobby for years before getting on with obvious improvements. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

.....AND there is no evidence that Wikipedia would loose editors if it didn't change the language to be more gender neutral on policies. We already have transgender / genderfluid individuals on the Wikipedia. This change simply isn't needed.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You are adopting the same logical fallacy as before. We have women editors, that's super, but this does not mean we have no problems attracting and retaining women editors. The case has been put extremely clearly, and it is supported by plenty of external sources, articles, standards and advice for writers. It would be jolly nice if others writing in this RfC took ten minutes to read up on the issues and the sources provided before supporting or repeating assertions that this simple change is going to break Wikipedia, drive editors away, be discriminatory against somebody else, make policies unreadable or is nonsense; none of these claims has a scintilla of verifiable evidence. --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

[ec] A change can be desirable without having to be necessary. I do not consider that the proposed change is necessary, but I do consider it an improvement, therefore desirable. We are not constrained to only making changes when they are necessary. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Acually, all I really need to read is the top sentance in this proposal:

This proposal is to add to policy so that gender neutral language becomes a default for Wikipedia policies, help and guidelines. It will make Wikipedia a more welcoming environment for all genders, including non-binary readers and contributors who may feel excluded by avoidable emphasis on gendered words and phrases, such as "he or sh

Wikipedia is already a welcoming environment for all genders, including non-binary or gender fluids. There is no doubt in my mind that any hate speech to any one, irregardless of their gender identify, sexual orientation, religious background , ethnicity, whatever would not be tolerated and the editor engaging in hate speech would be blocked in a heartbeat.
Far be it for me to say this, but I'm kinda thinking this a case of righting great wrongs, that , in this case, don't need to be righted.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  15:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's could be considered a complete non sequitur or a false dichotomy, "if Wikipedia policy already prohibits hate speech, than we have done all we need to be inclusive on non-binary persons". Something can be completely devoid of hate or malice while also being wholly lacking in inclusiveness. ValarianB (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

....and that's a straight up Strawman Wikipedia prohibits harassment of anyone, more than that Our value statement , among many other things says, right at the top
We welcome and cherish our differences.

It also says It’s about creating an inclusive culture. in that same area, note the inclusive , it doesn't say inclusive except....". All are included in Wikipedia already. Here it says , in our guiding principles that we're to serve every human being, remove any obstacle for them to be here, irregardless. Inclusivity is already apart of Wikipedia , we don't need to re-word the policies to make that happen, it happens down here at the "people" level of this encyclopedia. This Rfc is un-needed.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're ignoring the way that language itself fails to be inclusive and can be alienating. Think about why the current language is “he or she” and not just “he” as it used to be long ago: “he” is obviously exclusionary, failing to account for roughly half the human population. Just as the use of “he” to refer to all people might alienate women, language like “he or she” can easily alienate people of other genders. Just because we don't tolerate open misogyny doesn't mean it's okay for policies to use the generic "he". In the same way, just because we are inclusive as you see it, doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to avoid gendered constructions when possible. -- Irn (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's use your example. The word "He" and "man" appears throughout the Bible, some times it's a masculine noun (Hebrew had masculine nouns which always had the same meaning, and feminine nouns that could change their meaning depending on the context of the rest of the sentance) did it always mean "man" ? No, not at all. Very rarely did it absolutely mean "Man", typically it meant "all" in a generic sense. How about the Declaration of Independance, just because it says "All men are created equal" does that mean that in the U.S we believe it leterally means just that, all men are created equal, but not women, of course not! We believe all people are created equal. Same thing with Wikipedia. All people are equal here and all people are welcomed here. We don't need to change the language for that to be true. It already is and it hasn't happened yet. Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This RFC is a classic example of that. The bottom line here is, "he" is exclusionary to you because you make it to be so, not because it is. No Wikipedian is his or her right mind would argue that "he " or "she" is any way eclusionary, in fact quite the opposite!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In your very response, you used the phrase “his or her” to refer to any Wikipedian. You didn't use the generic “his”. This is an implicit recognition that “his or her” is better at encompassing the whole Wikipedia community than merely “his”. 50 years ago, people were making the same arguments you're making about adding the “or her”. -- Irn (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And those examples aren't particularly helpful to your argument. Both before and after the time the Declaration of Independence was written in the U.S., women were denied property rights, lacked the ability to vote and could not make or enter into a legal contract..."men" was neither an accidental nor euphemistic choice of words in that document, and it took a very long time afterwards for women to gain equal rights and protections. Now we as Wikipedians (many of us in our right minds, even if we're not male or gender-binary) have an opportunity to update our language in keeping with the times in which we're living, times where still not everyone is or feels fully included, and where even small language adjustments can still help. Siko (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Commenting briefly because as an agender editor who is openly trans and suffers from gender dysphoria, this discussion has been emotionally difficult for me to look at, so I can't commit to engaging further in any dialogue here. I contest the argument that Wikipedia is already sufficiently welcoming to transgender and non-binary people. Being welcoming isn't just about warning and banning people who make obviously trans-antagonistic comments. True inclusivity requires much more than that. For some details of my experience please see my 2016 WikiConference North America presentation, The Transgender Gap. Funcrunch (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch's comment highlights exactly the issue - saying we're welcoming is all very well but we need to take concrete steps to make sure we are in fact welcoming. In my view, this is a good reason to support this proposal. The Land (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Preparing to close

In the light of the reducing number of votes, we probably have a stable and apparent consensus. Would anyone like to consider closing soon, or suggest who might be a good closer? The conventional minimum of 7 days has now passed, or would anyone like to put forward a reasonable rationale as to why the RfC has to stay open for more views and votes a bit longer? --Fæ (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not about counting votes, it is about weighing the arguments presented in the discussion. The proposal has clearly not garnered enough support to change policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

Although I voted, I think that there is good enough consensus to do two things: have this be a guideline or something, but not a policy, and to prefer the elimination of pronouns, and to prefer he/she to they. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, there is a clear majority view that this is a positive change, and plenty of support for a minor amendment to policy as proposed. --Fæ (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a moderate numerical majority, but more than that is needed to make a policy change. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

Link please. --Fæ (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Not a vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

That's an essay, with no established consensus. If followed to the letter, nobody would bother with RfCs, we would just have a rambling debate and expect someone to close it. The votes in this RfC should not be ignored, neither should the opinions. In assessing the opinions expressed, significant weight should be given to opinions backed by reliable sources, rather than those with no support in any reliable sources. Despite repeated requests to those with opposing views, not a single reliable source has been produced to back up the numerous haphazard negative claims. There have been several dubious and sometimes highly offensive claims about minority groups, in addition to unprovable assertions; these should be dismissed by the closer as irrelevant. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Not a vote is followed on a regular basis. We aren't going to have a "support" vote with no argument outweigh a well explained oppose argument or vise-versa. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

From WP:Consensus. Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. A 51% vote does not constitute a consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

Also, from WP:PROPOSAL, "A proposal's status is not determined by counting votes. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, nor is a poll's numerical outcome tantamount to consensus." — Gestrid (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Fae has misinterpreted what arguments are appropriate. As this is a proposed policy change, arguments that the change might lead to confusion or other exclusion,you especially since no study has been made to determine if "singular they" might be considered non-inclusive. (I disagree with the claim that "singular they" is accepted; our article, does not, in fact, make that claim. It states it is accepted by some style guides, and rejected by others.) I consider "singular they" offensive, and whether others would consider it offensive or non-inclusive is subject to debate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There is much confusion. I came across this link[3], which appeared to be an attempt to harass a participant in this debate. Once again, the use of language was at issue. I can see where this proposal is headed. It will end up in sanctions against editors who do not use the language approved. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC). There is already an administrator who is eager to block transgressors.Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Why do you find it offensive? Not all offense is equal, and I would find it hard to believe that the offense you take at the use of the singular they can qualitatively compare with the offense of having one's existence linguistically erased. -- Irn (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: The assertion is bizarre that I was somehow harassing a participant when asking for advice on ANI about their deeply offensive and disparaging remarks published here. I fully agreed with the sentiment raised by the oversighter and checkuser Drmies with "I see nothing civil about that comment, and the only thing that keeps me from blocking is that there is no explicit addressee for the comment, which simply disparages a whole group of editors in what can only be described as pretty revolting and demeaning language." If you think I'm harassing someone in those particular circumstances, maybe you should take a bit of time to understand the current definitions of harassment on Wikipedia, and perhaps get Drmies to withdraw their own comments if you think they are unwarranted? --Fæ (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A variety of views was expressed, one of which you cherry picked. ANI took no action. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

It is also true that the word "harass" was not used by anyone, apart from yourself now, though the word "civil" was mentioned six times. Your assertion that going to ANI to ask a question "appeared to be an attempt to harass a participant in this debate" is uncalled for, to my eyes appearing to use a trigger word to disparage the character of the person who had enough courage to start this RfC. Don't do that, there's too much politics of the person around these days, so let's stick to facts supported by reliable sources, and the subject of this RfC. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If you had postponed your complaint to ANI until after the RfC had closed there could not have been a perception of a chilling effect upon opponents of your proposal. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

Hardly anyone noticed the request for advice on ANI and nobody mentioned it in this RfC until you did, so no, there is no chilling effect here. You seem to be shopping around for some reason to find fault, but it's really not sticking. Please move on and address the proposal rather than finding new ways of poking me as the proposer. --Fæ (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It is, of course, virtually impossible to determine whether there was a chilling effect. But the ANI trip was rather ironic in light of the fact that the main argument in favour of the proposal is "inclusivity". StAnselm (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposal is aimed at making Wikipedia more welcoming for all contributors. Writing disrespectful attacks against minority groups, under the guise of a vote, is something that no Wikimedian should be celebrating as being evidence of Wikipedia's "inclusivity". Refer to WP:5P4. --Fæ (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Fæ, just one thing--that I'm an oversighter etc. really has no bearing on the matter. BTW I have not looked at this thread in the discussion and so have no opinion on what y'all are talking about, but, for the record, I stand by my comment. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• "The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early." (from WP:AN/RFC) I don't think this a case of clear consensus, so I think this should be allowed to run the full default length. Furthermore, no individual(s) should be solicited to close this, any request of that sort should be made at WP:AN/RFC.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• This would be a policy change, so I think the full 30 days is needed. There isn't a clear enough consensus at this point to change a policy document early. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• No rush. If there are a few days with no further !votes it will probably be worth asking on AN/RFC for a volunteer (or possibly two) to close. The Land (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• This should definitely run the full 30 days because it's a policy change, not some change on an article that we can't agree on. Also, I would prefer that an admin closes this one. — Gestrid (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• If this were to be closed now, it would have to be closed as "no consensus" (or, at best, consensus for the addition, but not as to what it means.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• I feel that this RfC should run the full 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Funcrunch (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC should, in fact, be speedily closed as not being neutrally worded per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with speedy close - the whole WP:ANI background thing is bothersome and I do not see a clear consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Also agree with speedy close as well per StAnselm and Knowledgekid87  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• No People either feel the project's language should be more inclusive, or they do not think it is a big deal. Everyone's been voting and talking just fine thus far, calling to abort after 119 votes and 2 weeks doesn't strike me as very fair or honest. I would also say that the consensus is quite clearly in the yea camp. ValarianB (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that Sir Joseph proposed the speedy close two weeks ago. See the top of the Discuss section. — Gestrid (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct, an early close was not appropriate then either, as the proposal was not thought "nonsense" by the majority of those voting and expressing views on it, as was being alleged at that time by Sir Joseph. --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I also oppose a procedural close. True, contrary to the RFC instructions, the proposal is not neutral—and its leading nature is something the closing administrator might take into consideration when evaluating consensus—but neither the instructions nor our practice suggests that an otherwise-valid RFC should be aborted over this. The instructions actually provide that "if you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may . . . simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it"—which strongly implies that a lack of neutrality should not be considered fatal to a proposal's validity. Rebbing 20:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Surely you're not arguing that the proposer was unable to describe the issue neutrally? StAnselm (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not; I'm making a comparison. Rebbing 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and edited it to remove the bias, as suggested. StAnselm (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ:, there have been multiple editors comment on the lack of neutrality, and yet you have made no attempt to neutralise this RfC. Now you have reverted my attempt to do so? Why is that? Don't you agree that WP:RFC says that they should be neutrally worded? StAnselm (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a little big off-topic - I just realized there are two RFC's going on that closely relate. This one, which was started first (4/7/2017) and this one which started later (4/14/2017). Since both are , in essence looking for the same thing, should they both be allowed to continue to run ? Both are literally after the same goal and seek , not exactly the same goal, but pretty close goals.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

These are entirely different proposals and do not have the same goals. Please read the GENDERID proposal more carefully, it's about article namespace (which this proposal excludes) where BLP provisions already ensure a respectful approach for nonbinary subjects of a biography, and presents a writing style choice for these articles, which are already gender neutral by existing policy. --Fæ (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

At this writing the "vote" is 77-58, which is 57%. That is not a supermajority for something as big as this, although it's close. My experience is that the minimum that is ever considered here for supermajority is 60%, but higher if it's a major change. For instance, a significant change to a core policy would have to meet a higher standard than 60%. I consider 60% OK for local questions or relatively minor details. Something like "shall we require all BC/AD dates to use BCE/CE instead" for instance I would want to see more than 60% before considering something that big to be accepted. Whether this proposal is a big deal to that level or not I can't say. Possibly.

Of course its not a vote, exactly, but counting hands is important. Strength of argument also plays a role. Strength of argument is most often brought in regard to policy: "The Pros have correctly pointed out that various policies support their position, and the Cons haven't". I don't think policy can be referred to in that manner, in this case. The next level is "The Pros [or Cons] have proven their case to the point that any reasonable, disinterested, and informed person would be compelled to avow that their case is stronger", which is a high bar but comes into play sometimes. If it doesn't come into play here, there strength-of-argument is difficult to adjudicate, and while it certainly plays a part and may be addressed, the show-of-hands component becomes more important. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Planned close for Sunday 7 May 2017

In the light of Gamebuster19901's close yesterday and reopening today of the RfC to ensure a full 30 days of discussion, I propose that the RfC is considered 'officially' closed this coming Sunday at midnight UTC. This gives a few more days for those that were thinking of expressing a view to actually do it, and for everyone else to be comfortable that we have a planned and agreed closure. After that date and time, any further votes may be discounted by the closer if they feel it appropriate to do so.

I have sent out an email reminder to Wikimedia-l, see email archive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal rewrite 21 April 2017

In this change, User:StAnselm has changed the proposal and later reverted my attempt at restoring the proposal. This invalidates the 120 votes made to date. I do not give permission for my signed text to be changed and I do not support the reworded text. I would like the proposal restored, including the links to Wikimedia LGBT+ which those personally affected may find helpful, no reason was given for their removal from this page.

Refer to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others' comments. --Fæ (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Fæ, you have not yet responded to the issue of neutrality. Why did you not word the RfC neutrally, per WP:RFC? StAnselm (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(In any case, the whole point here is that the stuff at the top of an RfC is not a user comment.) StAnselm (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Restore the proposal. You do not have permission to tamper with my signed statements on any page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And you still haven't responded! StAnselm (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Restore the proposal. I see no point in discussing changes which were made in breach of standard guidelines and so have no respect for the original author. --Fæ (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the original wording. Go ahead and respond. StAnselm (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the original wording as inappropriate. The explanations are useful if possibly not essential. The arbitrary revision of another editors signed statements is uncivil and against procedural guidelines. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and cannot fathom a good-faith reason to alter a proposal so late into the discussion. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Also agree. The apparently non-neutral text explains why such a proposal might be desirable, which is absolutely valuable context for making a decision. 'Neutral' doesn't mean "Don't explain why you're proposing a change". Imagine if every RfC simply stated "Should we change X to Y" with zero context or rationale. Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The wording simply explains the potential value of the proposed change. Those who disagree are free to !vote against and comment below, not to change the proposal itself. Doing the latter would invalidate any !votes made after the wording was changed and invite chaos into the discussion. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sam, are you at all familiar with RfCs? That's exactly what they're supposed to be like. The example given at WP:RFC is "Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship?" StAnselm (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewording the proposal this late in the game is not appropriate. (If anything, it could deceive the closer into assuming the proposal had been written neutrally.) Moreover, altering another editor's signed comment to change (or diminish) its meaning is a breach of the talk page guidelines and widely-accepted convention; Fæ had no obligation to respond to anyone before reverting. Rebbing 13:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should be closed already per WP:TNT. The more this drags on, the more things like these pop up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This TNT essay, as I read it, applies to articles, not project discussions. Further, this suggestion to just close it before more problems "pop up" seems like it would be rewarding problematic behavior .... meaning, attempts to rewrite the proposal midstream, close it early and so on. If there are concerns about these things that "pop up", maybe some people should stop .... popping them up? ValarianB (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the proposal is not appropriate. It should be debated in its original form. If anybody wishes to make a different proposal, then let them. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

You gave your permission for your signed text to be changed when you saved it under a CC-BY-SA licence, just FYI. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is about acceptable behavior, not copyright law. Rebbing 11:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Go too far down that road, and we'll have vandals claiming CC-BY-SA gives them permission. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Canvasing by the proposer

• Note the selective choice of quotes©Geni (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Add that to the long list of problems with this entire RFC. Should have been put out of its misery long ago. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Christ Fæ. I'm in full agreement that some shitty things have been said here, and share your frustration at them (see my numerous replies in the oppose section), but to pick the 3 nicest supports and the 3 least agreeable opposes to paint the opposers as entirely unreasonable really isn't helping anyone. Sam Walton (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong there. An introduction that is neutral and not favoring one outcome over another, followed by 3 votes from either side. ValarianB (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone complaining here may be surprised to find out they can post emails on Wikimedia-l. If you think my email reminder was biased canvassing, then get your thumbs out and post your own selection of examples to the list. As ValarianB points out, the text of the reminder was scrupulously neutral, the examples merely a 'taster'. --Fæ (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The text of your email may have feigned neutrality, but your choice of sample votes was clearly designed to portray this RFC as a common-sense proposal in danger of failing because of knee-jerk hysteria. Sending another message to the mailing list would be an ineffective remedy as you have already poisoned the well. Rebbing 17:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Can this just be closed as "no consensus"? I fully respect the people supporting this but the proposal should be redone/reworded by someone without bias. Even if the proposal is accepted, at this point it will be painted in a bad light due to canvassing, and the ANI incident. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The overt hostility shown to proposer and proposal alike is baffling. As far as the accusations of cherry-picking examples go, well, honestly most of them are pretty bad, couched in alt-right buzzwords ("microagression", "doublethink", "language police", "safe spaces", and so on. It would be cherrypicking to single out the scant non-hostile opposes to use as examples. ValarianB (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with the best, and the worst of comments here. Examples shouldn't have been used at all, a bad/good comment is all in the eye of the beholder anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I rather suspect you would be unable to post a reminder that was more neutral, so why try? Again if you feel the reminder was biased, post your own. The sample taster was representative of short statements avoiding reliance on WP shortcuts. Notices are not canvassing and the knee-jerk OMG close this RfC comments are ridiculously bad faith, having nothing to do with the facts. --Fæ (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually I could have posted a non bias reminder by not adding any comments as examples, its too late now though. Like I said pass or fail this discussion has been tainted, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a review by a party of editors post-close. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is my reminder (short and to the point):

Reminder! If you want to express your opinion in the English Wikipedia

Request for Comment on whether to adopt gender neutral language in

Wikipedia policies (but not articles or discussion pages), this is due

to be *closed this weekend* having reached 30 days for votes and

discussion.

Shortcut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/RFC_GNL

Full link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RfC_to_adopt_a_default_gender_neutral_style_for_policy,_guidelines_and_help_pages

Thank you!

This is all that had to be said, this way the editor could have clicked on the link, read the proposal for themselves, then voted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You would have to give me an attribution, seeing as you are duplicating the exact words from my email. Frankly, meh, the only issue is my arbitrary taster of comments, which I preseded very clearly with "As a taster, here are 3 sample views expressed for support and oppose, it's worth browsing through the RfC discussion section to get a feel for the arguments raised and balance of evidence", so you know, at the end of the day readers should read this RfC, or at least the proposal, not some thumbnail brief email from the proposer before they think about voting here. If you want to post notices to attract more voters here before this RfC gets closed, go ahead and do a better job than me rather than griefing me about it ad nauseum. The fact that you are not willing to even try to help out that way, if you truly think the email was a serious issue that actually risks corrupting this RfC, speaks for itself. "Poisoning the well" is not a reason to not even express your view that the email was biased on the same thread at Wikimedia-l.

I have never claimed to be anything other than a Wikimedian who happens to have a passionate interest in LGBT+ issues, I'm not going to play the smug politician and say anything I don't believe in, nor soft soap the reality of the acid unpleasantness of some oppose vote opinions published above on this page, simply to attract voters to my proposal. If anything, the alt-right style comments highlighted by others here, have neatly illustrated that our Wikipedia community continues to have a serious issue with even trying to be a welcoming and non-hostile volunteer environment for many minority groups... especially trans and nonbinary people, several of whom have emailed me off-wiki with their stories of how bad our environment here is, they are certainly not comfortable writing about it openly. If you don't want to help fix this, fine, but please think twice before knocking down the good faith attempts of others who spend at least part of their volunteer time trying. --Fæ (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be painting those opposed to this though as the "bad guys". Im sorry for some of the oppose comments here that make others feel unwelcome but you cant lump all of them together in the same boat. I noticed that even one of your more active commenting supporters thought that your email was crossing the line. Do you really think that others don't read reminder messages fully? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that you did canvass. More specifically, you were campaigning (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning). You didn't even mention any of the opposes that were based on policy in your email, which are generally considered to be stronger opposes by RfC standards than simply the WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes you included in your email. If you mention some strong support !votes, you have to mention some oppose !votes that are as strong as the supports or, if you feel you cannot be unbiased in the matter, don't mention any !votes at all. Simply say, "Hey, there's this RfC going on that's going to end tomorrow" or something like that. — Gestrid (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What's really funny, is that if you run your same criteria against the sample of 3 'support' votes in my email, they are exactly the same. The 3 supports were not based on any particular policy and were all ILIKEIT supports. By this test the sample of 3 supports and 3 opposes were nicely balanced, with neither support nor oppose getting the unfair advantage of being carefully selected to be the 'strongest' cases. --Fæ (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Neither the opening statement of this request for comment or that post to Wikimedia-l are neutral. A simple neutral opening would have been "Should Wikipedia adopt a gender neutral style for policy, guidelines, and help pages, avoiding the use of pronouns altogether when possible and otherwise using singular they?" The selection of examples was not neutral; the proposer had a problem with the first of their "taster" examples, so much so that they brought it to an/i, yet they chose to use it as a representative example. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  I used the first case as it was supported by Wikipedia admins as a valid view based on the AN/I discussion. There are many others that have expressed opinions that echo exactly the same ideas that seem to have no foundation in fact, have no support from any reliable sources, but repeat dismissive claims about "Newspeak", "political correctness", "language police" and even "fascist in nature". For this reason it seems a perfectly good sample if one is picking out 3 short supports and 3 short opposes which avoid being overly reliant on Wikipedia shortcut lingo. Yes, I confess, I'm guilty of having terrible ghastly personal judgement when it comes to playing politics. I should have avoided putting in the examples, but it seemed useful to prompt and interest email readers to take the time to visit this RfC and read more. I find the reaction here excessive and overly dramatic, in the light that not one single complainant has made the effort to write any response on Wikimedia-l, which is the most obvious thing to do if you believe the reminder email might be so biased it will drive hoards of advocates with pro-LGBT+ agendas to overwhelm this RfC in a way that it may unfairly misrepresent the majority of middle-aged men who make up the most active editors of Wikipedia (at least that's what I think every scientific WMF survey and analysis to date has told us who the majority is). Strangely enough, it's been two days since my email, and the hard statistical evidence from the handful of votes that have actually been made since then have been on both sides, and made little difference to the results. --Fæ (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.