Merge to Tone or First person pronouns?
[edit]
Not always a good thing...
[edit]So, I do have a bit of a problem with this guideline. In swedish, using a second person pronoun in a travel guide sounds ridiculous, too personal and (in a travel guide sense) unprofessional. Therefor, I would like to add a text about the disadvantage of using a second person pronoun in some languages. (WT-en) Riggwelter 15:47, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
- This is English-language Wikivoyage. Your point is relevant for Swedish-language Wikivoyage, not for this site. Perhaps you could mention your point in the Swedish phrasebook. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 15:56, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
- All language versions need to have at least somewhat corresponding guidelines if we want Wikivoyage to be consistent, regardless of language. All language versions translate the guidelines from english to form such consistency since english is the first and biggest language version. In swedish, using second person pronoun is perfectly acceptable when you talk to or adress people, but not in (for example) a travel guide. None of the major guidebooks (in swedish) use "you" and I sincerely doubt Wikivoyage (or written guidebooks) in french or german does it. So, it has nothing to do with phrasebook issues. (WT-en) Riggwelter 16:12, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
- I think Ikan's point is that any policy that deals with language specifics, such as this one or Project:Tone, are likely to require language or culture-specific clarifications. Would it be sufficient to add a note to this guideline that states it is specific to English Wikivoyage, and that other language versions may have their own specific rules? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:18, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
- That was exactly what I was intending to do, Ryan - simply adding a text regarding the possibilites that using second person pronouns in some languages might be less of a good idea. (WT-en) Riggwelter 16:19, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
- We are all in agreement then. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:22, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
- Excellent. I have added a text - feel free to modify it. (WT-en) Riggwelter 16:31, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
"I recommend"
[edit]- Swept in from the pub
I've done a lot of work on eliminating "and much more" from Wikivoyage articles. There are 25 search results for "I recommend". Of course that's a phrase that should never be used in articlespace per Wikivoyage:Pronouns. Your mission, if you choose to take it on, is to delete these phrases and any associated 1st-person language you see when you open the articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Mission accomplished, captain. I hereby pass on the baton to another Wikivoyager to eliminate the 20 "we recommend"s still clinging on for survival in the darkest recesses of the wiki. Forth now, and fear no darkness! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agent DethDestroyerOfWords reporting mission success! All "we recommend"s have been removed. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yay! Thanks, guys! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the conditional "(I / we) would recommend". 25 results for that too. Anymore variations we can think of? Do not / would not recommend? :S --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I went through a search of "would recommend" and removed the I's and we's. I left some they's and he's. If I have time, I'll go through the "I/We suggest", etc. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the conditional "(I / we) would recommend". 25 results for that too. Anymore variations we can think of? Do not / would not recommend? :S --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yay! Thanks, guys! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agent DethDestroyerOfWords reporting mission success! All "we recommend"s have been removed. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Other phrases I can think of - "I suggest", "We suggest", "We would suggest" and "We believe". Most sentences containing "I" or "We". Gizza (roam) 21:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. Some of these ones I've been removing are ancient though, been around since the early days of Wikitravel. So it does seem to be a winnable battle, because we can get rid of the wordings and they're not being reproduced elsewhere. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- A few months ago, I went on a personal campaign to remove as many misspellings and grammatical errors on Wikivoyage as possible, using Wikivoyage:List of common misspellings and the Wikipedia version which is longer and more sophisticated. Many (as a rough guess I'd say around 50%) of the errors were from the pre-fork days. Gizza (roam) 01:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- On a related point, I'd love to see User:Giraffedata look over the "comprised of" grammar problem here. It looks like we've got a couple hundred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Comprised of" is perfectly OK. Please don't mess with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to address the "comprised of" grammar problem, the problem being that many people who will read Wikivoyage consider it poor usage. The fact that it doesn't bother other people, or even that it's perfectly OK, shouldn't be an issue, since there are perfectly OK alternatives that satisfy more readers and I'm willing to do the work. But if the edits would cause some kind of offense, and especially if someone would just end up undoing them, I don't want to get involved. I know when this is discussed on Wikipedia, the consensus is always that there's no reason to keep the phrase, but I don't know anything about Wikivoyage. Giraffedata (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Count me as firmly in the anti-anti-"comprised of" crowd, but I'd be remiss if I didn't say I have a ton of respect for Giraffedata's above-demonstrated regard for cross-wiki cultural differences. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Andre in all respects. There are so many actual problems on Wikivoyage; no reason to spend time changing something that's OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed there are several types of grammatical errors present in our articles that are not controversial at all. As a matter of priority, we should focus on fixing them rather than phrases which at least some people consider to be correct usage. Gizza (roam) 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- This comedy sketch show clip just reminded me (oops, I mean it reminded this wikivoyager. Or rather, he means it reminded this wikivoyager...) of our recent endeavour to eliminate the first person from as many articles as possible. Had me in stitches. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Funny stuff! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't be forcing use of "you" pronouns just for the sake of doing so
[edit]The example given is:
- Bad: "When travelling to Thailand, one should pack clothes and a flashlight."
- Better: "Travellers to Thailand should pack clothes and a flashlight."
- Best: "If you're travelling to Thailand, you should pack clothes and a flashlight."
I disagree. "Travellers to Thailand should pack clothes and a flashlight" is short, sweet and to the point. While the use of second-person "you" is legitimate and valid in Wikivoyage articles, there's no reason to add it just for the sake of doing so – especially when the result is only wordier and less succinct, with no added benefit to the voyager. K7L (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Brevity is the soul of wit, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Of course I agree that brevity is the soul of wit. But nowhere do we force writers to use "you". Nowhere. Ground Zero (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think all three sentences are okay and I don't think we should call any of them "bad". --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- In this particular example, the second is the clearest and best option though I agree with SelfieCity and believe that none of the sentences are incorrect. If somebody spoke English as a second language and you were testing what they said, if they said any of those three sentences you would not say "That's wrong. The correct way of saying what you want to say is this...". But if one of those sentences was in an actual article, I would question why we need to suggest the reader to pack clothes since that's obvious :P. Gizza (roam) 08:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is not about grammar it something being wrong, it's about what style Wikivoyage wants to encourage. Wikivoyage is meant to be informal, so the formal-but-grammatical-correct "one" is discouraged, while the informal-and-friendly "you" is encouraged. But no-one will be horse-whipped in a public square, or even blocked from editing, if they use any of these constructions. But this helps resolve disputes between editors who want to use "one", those who want to use "you" and those who want the middle option. We can point to this page, and resolve the dispute easily. Ground Zero (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:City guide status says that, in a star article, "prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable." In this example, adding the extra words just for the sake of adding them doesn't meet that objective, the same way "is located in" vs. "is in" adds nothing of use. K7L (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:Tone says "Be conversational and informal when writing articles." That's what helps make an article enjoyable. Ground Zero (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:City guide status says that, in a star article, "prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable." In this example, adding the extra words just for the sake of adding them doesn't meet that objective, the same way "is located in" vs. "is in" adds nothing of use. K7L (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is not about grammar it something being wrong, it's about what style Wikivoyage wants to encourage. Wikivoyage is meant to be informal, so the formal-but-grammatical-correct "one" is discouraged, while the informal-and-friendly "you" is encouraged. But no-one will be horse-whipped in a public square, or even blocked from editing, if they use any of these constructions. But this helps resolve disputes between editors who want to use "one", those who want to use "you" and those who want the middle option. We can point to this page, and resolve the dispute easily. Ground Zero (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- In this particular example, the second is the clearest and best option though I agree with SelfieCity and believe that none of the sentences are incorrect. If somebody spoke English as a second language and you were testing what they said, if they said any of those three sentences you would not say "That's wrong. The correct way of saying what you want to say is this...". But if one of those sentences was in an actual article, I would question why we need to suggest the reader to pack clothes since that's obvious :P. Gizza (roam) 08:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think all three sentences are okay and I don't think we should call any of them "bad". --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Of course I agree that brevity is the soul of wit. But nowhere do we force writers to use "you". Nowhere. Ground Zero (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Gender-neutral language
[edit]- Swept in from the pub
@SHB2000 recently changed some text in Go, replacing "he or she" (which I'd written) with "they". This is fine, though I do not think necessary; certainly either is better than just using "he". In general, we should avoid making any assumption about anyone's gender (traveller, editor, or in this case go player). Should we make such changes elsewhere? Is there other usage we should correct?
The notion that "singular they" is somehow ungrammatical is utterly bogus; using it with an indefinite antecedent ("Has everyone got their passport?") is entirely normal English that has been in the language longer than singular you. One reference. It can also be used in cases where the gender is unknown (most people you interact with on the net), or undefined (some angels & demons, perhaps God?). Recent attempts to extend the usage are more debatable. In general I'd say anyone who announces "My pronouns are ..." should be laughed at, not humoured, but on the net it may be a legitimate way to avoid being labelled.
There are other cases of arguably sexist language. e.g. Great Rift Valley has "Mankind seems to have evolved largely in this valley" and search shows that "mankind" is used in many other places. These could all be replaced with "humanity", but in my opinion that would be silly. Probably there are other phrases that might be changed, but that I have not noticed.
Do we need a policy on this, or some advice in a style guide? Pashley (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think "mankind" has evolved to be gender-neutral. I disagree with "In general I'd say anyone who announces "My pronouns are ..." should be laughed at, not humoured, but on the net it may be a legitimate way to avoid being labelled.", but won't delve into it to avoid a rather off-topic discussion on this page. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- MANkind, huMANity, perSON... I'd say if someone wants to search for sexist verbs in a language, they will find it. I'm for equality as the next person, but constantly pushing annoys even the biggest supporters, IMO. Definitely don't make it a policy. If someone wants to spend time thinking about it and fixing it, let them - but don't bother people that don't care. TBH, I wonder more why we have an article, with half of it describing the rules of Go :-))) -- andree 09:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also disagree creating a policy on gender neutrality. You can simply recommend the users to use gender-neutral language in WV:MOS. You can also link to the relevant WP policy if necessary. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also don't think we need a policy on this. Mankind is not sexist, just like saying "Hey, guys" isn't sexist. People who make those types of arguments are the types with solutions in search of problems. Most of the time we refer to the type of person ("travelers", "backpackers", "hikers", "divers", etc.), so I don't think we generally need to get involved with playing pronoun games. I don't think "his or her" is a problem, because it does cover all humans, despite what the narcissistic fake LGBT "personal pronoun"-types claim (I resent what the "self-identity" movement is doing to real LGBT people, but that's beyond scope), but "their" is also not a problem. In short, I don't think this is an issue. It's fine as it is but was also fine as it was. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- "because it does cover all humans" – no it doesn't. Neopronouns are used because it reflects the gender identity of non-binary individuals better than conventional pronouns. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Non-binary is as legitimate as saying you're a turtle or a douvet cover. It makes a mockery out of real LGBT people and their issues. The non-binary mantra of "I say therefore I am" is a false claim, but this discussion is beyond scope and a consensus has been reached, so we can just leave this where it is. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- "because it does cover all humans" – no it doesn't. Neopronouns are used because it reflects the gender identity of non-binary individuals better than conventional pronouns. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also don't think we need a policy on this. Mankind is not sexist, just like saying "Hey, guys" isn't sexist. People who make those types of arguments are the types with solutions in search of problems. Most of the time we refer to the type of person ("travelers", "backpackers", "hikers", "divers", etc.), so I don't think we generally need to get involved with playing pronoun games. I don't think "his or her" is a problem, because it does cover all humans, despite what the narcissistic fake LGBT "personal pronoun"-types claim (I resent what the "self-identity" movement is doing to real LGBT people, but that's beyond scope), but "their" is also not a problem. In short, I don't think this is an issue. It's fine as it is but was also fine as it was. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also disagree creating a policy on gender neutrality. You can simply recommend the users to use gender-neutral language in WV:MOS. You can also link to the relevant WP policy if necessary. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Let's stick with the question of whether we should have a policy, and avoiding bringing a culture war to the Travellers' Pub. Wikivoyage is written by a collection of people. The language Wikivoyage uses will evolve as the language of its writers evolves. I don't think we need a policy. Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ablist language has no place in Wikivoyage. Inclusive language is always preferable in an project aiming to appeal to a broad audience. If someone wants to replace non-inclusive language with inclusive language, they should go ahead and do it. Writing a policy, however, is going to lead to a whole bunch of dyspeptic rants and unproductive debates. Let's not spend our energy on that. Ground Zero (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. My main issue was with ChubbyWimbus' denialism of non-binary people which has no place on Wikimedia. I don't like closing discussions but can we just close this? I don't think we're going anywhere by continuing it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, everyone agrees, so unless someone opposes, consensus has been reached. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that ChubbyWimbus' denialism of non-binary people has no place on Wikimedia. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- He said he despises that stuff (not that he denies existence of such people), and even gave a valid reason, IMO. The non-binary people can call themselves whatever they please. They can't force anyone to like it, though. -- andree 11:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are misreading CW's comment. See the one at 11:27, 12 April 2024. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, he is right. I didn't say that nobody identifies as non-binary. I said I don't agree with the logic or lack thereof surrounding "non-binary" and that I think it does harm to LGBT people. The referenced policy is specifically about dealing with others users and states that we should identify users how they wish to be identified. Nowhere did I identify anyone in a way that they asked not to be identified nor did I state anywhere that I would refuse to do so. It does not state that users must all have the same religious or ideological beliefs or that they all must state that they believe in all religious or ideological beliefs. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is never constructive to bring a w:Straw man argument into a discussion. No-one argued that users must all have the same religious or ideological beliefs or that they all must state that they believe in all religious or ideological beliefs. No-one claimed that you kick puppies or beat your spouse, either.
- It is clear that you are looking to have a fight about this. There are other of places you can fight about this on the internet; you don't have to do it in the Travellers' Pub. This is a forum about building a travel guide.
- The comments that "despite what the narcissistic fake LGBT "personal pronoun"-types claim" and "Non-binary is as legitimate as saying you're a turtle or a douvet cover. It makes a mockery out of real LGBT people and their issues. The non-binary mantra of "I say therefore I am" is a false claim" were completely unnecessary, gratuitous, and not germane to the discussion. It makes it clear that you want to have an argument. This is not the place for that.
- These comments are insulting and do not meet the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct (2.1) "We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others." They do meet the definition Unacceptable Behaviour (3.1) "Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like... sexual orientation, gender, sex, ... or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not."
- One of the reasons that this behaviour is unacceptable is that it can drive contributors away. The condescending and sarcastic tone taken by CW (and others) in this discussion caused me to take several days off to consider whether I want to spend my time online in a hostile environment. Let's not let this sort of behaviour be tolerated. Ground Zero (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not only that, but Chubby's comments are insanely disrespectful, inconsiderate and insensitive to those experiencing gender dysphoria. The WMF knew what they were doing when they created the Universal Code of Conduct, and part of that is to avoid comments like CW's to ensure that communities, including the English Wikivoyage, are "positive, safe and healthy environments". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are misreading CW's comment. See the one at 11:27, 12 April 2024. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- He said he despises that stuff (not that he denies existence of such people), and even gave a valid reason, IMO. The non-binary people can call themselves whatever they please. They can't force anyone to like it, though. -- andree 11:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that ChubbyWimbus' denialism of non-binary people has no place on Wikimedia. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, everyone agrees, so unless someone opposes, consensus has been reached. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This discussion has gone way off the rails. Just stop. Already. Please. Nurg (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- +1. Brycehughes (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Pashley (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is sad that the Wikivoyage community has no interest in following Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct. It was adopted hy Wikimedia for just this sort of situation. Ground Zero (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pashley your framing of a legitimate question was unnecessarily combative, sparked this, to wash your hands now is a bit rich. Whatever. Everyone take a step back. This is a travel guide. Ground Zero you of all people know that this is not Wikipedia and we tend to have a a more cowboy/cowgirl/cowwho approach here. Users want to know where to eat, how to get from A to B. Arguments like these are peripheral to our mission. Brycehughes (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage is part of Wikimedia. Pashley was out of line; ChubbyWimbus was insulting and looking for a fight. Calling out this toxic behaviour is how we stop Wikivoyage becoming like so many other parts of the Internet. And it is Wikimedia policy. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- They're opinions that you'd find in any pub around the world including this one. This is a travel website. Brycehughes (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikimedia has a Code of Conduct that requires treating other contributors with respect, and to create a positive, safe environment. ChubbyWimbus is violating that Code of Conduct.
- I've created 162 travel articles on the website, so I know it's a travel website. And I think you know you're being condescending in telling me that repeatedly. Being a travel website does not give anyone licence to be insulting, or to use it as a soapbox for their views as Pashley and ChubbyWimbus have done. Ground Zero (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok but I also refuse to believe that you travel around the world asking others abide by the wm code of conduct. So how do you get by? Brycehughes (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, you're being deliberately insulting and belittling, which is an obvious violation of any code of conduct on a site not known as, like, 4-Chan or Reddit. Second, this is Wikimedia, so you need to either respect the rules, be silent about them, or try to fight them at a much higher level than the Wikivoyage Travellers' pub. What you are doing constitutes harassment, and the high quality of your edits does not give you license to continue such behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm being insulting and belittling... what? Brycehughes (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you didn't mean to be insulting or belittling by asking "How do you get by," I don't know what you meant by it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking about the techniques one uses in real life for coping with these types of situations. Apologies if it came across as insulting or belittling. Brycehughes (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you didn't mean to be insulting or belittling by asking "How do you get by," I don't know what you meant by it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm being insulting and belittling... what? Brycehughes (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, you're being deliberately insulting and belittling, which is an obvious violation of any code of conduct on a site not known as, like, 4-Chan or Reddit. Second, this is Wikimedia, so you need to either respect the rules, be silent about them, or try to fight them at a much higher level than the Wikivoyage Travellers' pub. What you are doing constitutes harassment, and the high quality of your edits does not give you license to continue such behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok but I also refuse to believe that you travel around the world asking others abide by the wm code of conduct. So how do you get by? Brycehughes (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Brycehughes: At the bottom of every page you should see the text "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy." That's because Wikivoyage is governed by the WMF, and these are policies that we can never change through our own means. foundation:ToU#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, which states that "We ask that all users review and follow the Universal Code of Conduct ("UCoC"), which lays out requirements for collegial, civil collaboration across all Projects that we host." If two users violate that code of conduct (thus the terms of service), it isn't an issue we can drop nor let go of. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I sort of disagree but I'm also kicking myself for getting involved here and so I'm just going to pay my tab and exit the pub. Brycehughes (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- They're opinions that you'd find in any pub around the world including this one. This is a travel website. Brycehughes (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage is part of Wikimedia. Pashley was out of line; ChubbyWimbus was insulting and looking for a fight. Calling out this toxic behaviour is how we stop Wikivoyage becoming like so many other parts of the Internet. And it is Wikimedia policy. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pashley your framing of a legitimate question was unnecessarily combative, sparked this, to wash your hands now is a bit rich. Whatever. Everyone take a step back. This is a travel guide. Ground Zero you of all people know that this is not Wikipedia and we tend to have a a more cowboy/cowgirl/cowwho approach here. Users want to know where to eat, how to get from A to B. Arguments like these are peripheral to our mission. Brycehughes (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is sad that the Wikivoyage community has no interest in following Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct. It was adopted hy Wikimedia for just this sort of situation. Ground Zero (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Nurg: No – I would have agreed with you yesterday, but I am not letting ChubbyWimbus' derogatory comments against non-binary people go under the radar and am willing to fight tooth and nail until they retract their comments. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do not believe I was at all "out of line", but nor do I think this should be argued here. If you think my rebuttal would be important (I don't), then take the discussion elsewhere — my talk page, a separate thread on this page, a policy talk page, or wherever you like — & I'll give you both barrels. But for heaven's sake either keep this thread for the original question or kill it off since the question is resolved. Pashley (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was this comment that was out of line: "I'd say anyone who announces "My pronouns are ..." should be laughed at, not humoured, but on the net it may be a legitimate way to avoid being labelled." Why did you go there? Why introduce this hostility? People who use pronouns that are not the obvious one do this commonly, and some people do this to be allies of non-bibary and trans people. Laughing at people who experience gender dysphoria or who are being supportive of other people is not respectful, and us insulting.
- Picking a fight in the Pub and then telling those who call you out for it "this isn't the place; take it elsewhere" is hypocritical. Ground Zero (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since it was conjectured that I "wanted to fight", I had originally thought it best to not respond to show that I am not interested in "fighting". Doing so however, could be misconstrued in other ways, so I have decided to respond not to "fight", but in hopes of concluding this discussion to reasonable satisfaction so that we can all get back to travel content.
- I take responsibility for and appologize for the flippant language used. The topic hit a nerve as I am firmly against going back to the days of "being gay is a choice" and have seen this attitude resurge in my personal life due to the choice-based/self-identifying ideology (this includes "being trans is a choice", which to me denies gender dysphoria and the real struggles people have with gender dysphoria to clarify the misunderstanding that I was saying anything against sufferers) and I find it troubling, but I admit that the better option would have been to refrain, so I appologize for the unnecessarily charged language that I used. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I saw this before making a further reply. It's good of you to apologize, and your explanation is also a good thought that shows your good faith. But for others, I want to state clearly that we have editors on this site who publicly identify as trans on this site, doubtless other trans editors and/or readers who don't state their gender identity publicly, and we cannot make this site hostile to them but should keep it welcoming to everyone who wants to use it constructively. That's what the Wikimedia rules are for, and while everyone has the right to privately respect or disrespect such rules, Wikivoyage is a place to observe and not debate them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with Ikan and thank ChubbyWimbus for making the first step which is to apologise. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- ChubbyWimbus: thank you for this reply. I disagree with you, but accept that understand the impact on others of the words you used. Ground Zero (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I saw this before making a further reply. It's good of you to apologize, and your explanation is also a good thought that shows your good faith. But for others, I want to state clearly that we have editors on this site who publicly identify as trans on this site, doubtless other trans editors and/or readers who don't state their gender identity publicly, and we cannot make this site hostile to them but should keep it welcoming to everyone who wants to use it constructively. That's what the Wikimedia rules are for, and while everyone has the right to privately respect or disrespect such rules, Wikivoyage is a place to observe and not debate them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to the original post, I believe that we do have an article titled Use of pronouns that addresses this. In many cases we can avoid he/she/they altogether and write directly to the traveler. The exact reason Go is a problem is because much of the article's content is encyclopedic and therefore can't be addressed directly to the reader.
- I disagree with the level of concern attached to the specific pronoun used in the article. Spanish, for example, uses the male-gendered pronoun to refer to groups of people ("ellos" for mixed or male groups, or "ellas" when all female) with the understanding that the masculine pronoun can be all-inclusive. If we are going to change a pronoun to "they," I suggest we make the entire sentence plural; for example we could change the sentence in that article to "Players may pass their turn if..." --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's fine for you to do that, but you should accept that singular "they" goes back further than Shakespeare (see w:Singular they: "This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they"), and that English is not a gendered language the way Romance languages are. In Spanish, "they" is gendered, as you state; in English, it is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at WV:Use of pronouns, I see that it has sections for 1st & 2nd person pronouns, but not 3rd. Should that be added? Pashley (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Third person pronouns
[edit]The article currently has sections for 1st & 2nd person but not 3rd. I think a section should be added, but it would need careful handling; see #Gender-neutral language above. Pashley (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say it should suggest using they/their/them in almost all cases, including singular. Pashley (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, except when he or she is specifically needed, such as in describing single-sex days at baths and such. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Or for something like a memorial for George Washington, Florence Nightingale or whoever. Pashley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with Ikan. This should be fairly uncontroversial, to be fair. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Or for something like a memorial for George Washington, Florence Nightingale or whoever. Pashley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, except when he or she is specifically needed, such as in describing single-sex days at baths and such. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)