Talk:Chair (officer)/Archive 2

Chairman vs. Chair
There has been a long discussion about the proper and most suitable title of this article, particularly about the use of "chair" vs. "chairman." The result of the discussion repeatedly comes out in favor of "chairman." The history of this discussion is in the archived talk page, which probably should be reinstated here. It's not a good thing to archive the discussions, then to change all the "chairman" references to "chair." Lou Sander (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In academia, government and non-profits (but especially in academia), "chair" is used. In business, it is "chairman" even if the person is a woman. Hanxu9 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputed etymology
I restored properly cited material about "chair" and "man." If editors dispute it, the solution is not to remove it, but to cite different material and mention the difference between the two. This was also discussed in the newly-archived material from this page. The bottom line is that if you want to assert that chairman is somehow not gender-neutral, you need to cite some sources for your claim, and juxtapose them with the properly-cited sources that say that it is gender-neutral. Lou Sander (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed this again, because multiple dictionaries give the etymology as exactly what you would expect - i.e. that "man" derives from "man" meaning male person. In the face of these official etymologies I dispute that a book on rules of procedure is a reliable source for etymology. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The material you removed is eminently verifiable. I understand (but disagree with) your strongly-held personal point of view that the cited material is "wrong," and that an authoritative book in the field somehow isn't a reliable source. Unfortunately, strongly-held personal points of view are disallowed from appearing in Wikipedia. If you want to include material on etymology, PLEASE provide some references, and PLEASE do not remove properly-sourced material just because you disagree with it. There is quite a bit of discussion on this in the Archive, right at the end. Lou Sander (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, it is not clear to me that a book on parliamentary procedure is a reliable source for etymology. Can you offer any evidence that it is, such as perhaps the etymology reference cited by the book?
 * Your edit gave the 'manus' etymology as if it were the 'correct' etymology, whereas in fact a large number of dictionaries (which unquestionably ARE reliable as etymology sources) give the etymology of chairman as being the same as the suffix "man". I would be happy with listing the 'manus' etymology as an alternative if it can be shown that it is a view held by etymologists and not merely a parliamentary procedure author. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also looked at the archive, which completely backs up my view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just saying, it may help if you actually cite these large number of dictionaries. Just as a start. -Andrew c [talk] 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Try The American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, the online edition of the current Merriam-Webster dictionary, Word Origins by Anatoly Liberman (page 88), Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (page 235), and wordorigins.org. I've more if you need them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Andrew c might be suggesting that you provide some proper inline references to support your claims. I also think that all of us realize that from your point of view, the Riddick book isn't a reliable source. But it certainly IS a reliable source according to Wikipedia's content guidelines. IMHO it's not a good practice to substitute one's personal feelings for good, hard, references that conform to WP:RS. Lou Sander (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop telling me what my personal feelings are. They irrelevant to the discussion and to you.
 * My "point of view" is also not relevant to the reliability of Riddick. Riddick is outside his area of expertise when talking about etymology, and given the huge number of references that disagree with him from people with etymological expertise his opinion has to be considered a minority one. I have already added inline references. I assume that means you no longer have any objections to the content as it stands? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Riddick and Zimmerman are reliable sources, regardless of DJ's unsubstantiated personal opinions. DJ has removed the clear, informative, plainly stated material from them, and replaced it with a paraphrase that has the flavor of original research. This is not proper editing. He/she has added a Wikilink to the Riddick book. This is good editing and improves the article. The strength of the claim about "etymologists" is weak. The citation is an opinionated blog with a questionable reference to OED, and hardly a reliable source. I intend to restore the Riddick and Zimmerman material, leave the Wikilink to Riddick, and delete the poorly sourced stuff. I'll first leave some time for comment, of course. (I will disregard further opinions that Riddick and Zimmerman are not reliable sources. This stuff is discussed to death in the archive.) Good Cop (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but which of the dictionaries I quoted do you consider to be an "unreliable source"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He might be talking about the wordorigins blog. Also, you very much need to stop removing well-cited material from this article. Also, your pronouncement about "the real etymology" is original research by you. Please stop. Cleome (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the blog, I think it is a WP:RS, due to Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. , as Dave Wilton is author of Oxford University Press publication Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends.-Andrew c [talk] 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed nothing from the article. Riddick's view of the etymology is given at the bottom of the section. The real etymology is cited in the article, and is not original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Good Cop's proposal. Cleome (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well reasoned proposal. Lou Sander (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

" In his 1992 State of the Union address, then-U.S. President George W. Bush used chairman for men and chair for women. " - either the date or the name is incorrect, and the statement isn't cited so difficult to check, also citing either Bush as an authority on language is questionable, this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphilips (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

vice-chair
While I don't doubt the strict correctness of "A vice chairman is sometimes chosen to be subordinate to..." I don't believe it's as clear as it might be. All members of a board are in some sense "subordinate to" the chairman, and the vice-chairman is selected for a specific task. I entered "deputize for" as being more specific. Does the vice-chair have any function other than to execute the functions of a chairman when (s)he is absent? if so then maybe we could be specific about them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please. The reference says what it says. What you believe about it (a.k.a. your point of view about it) is something different. If you'd like, find a reference for it and put it in. Lou Sander (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm asking is "what does it mean?". Did you put this in as a direct quote without working out what it meant? DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * DJClayworth: The meaning is perfectly clear, and a reference has been cited. The vice-chair is subordinate to the chair. This is an important point in parliamentary procedure, as are many other matters of precedence and authority. But you say that you don't get the meaning. Then you make edits that change the meaning. You are politely asked to provide a reference to support your changes, but you fail to provide one. When your unsupported, meaining-changing edits are removed, you re-insert them. They are original research, and when challenged, they cannot be allowed to stand. Persistence in making changes is no substitute for providing citations. Good Cop (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is a vice-chairman subordinate to a chairman. A janitor is also subordinate to a chairman, and so is a secretary, so just saying he/she is 'subordinate' tells us nothing. Now you and I actually know the answer - that the vice-chair assists the chairman and substitutes for him/her when absent. Since we know this to be true, why don't we write it? Or are you more concerned with getting a version that you wrote into the article than explaining what a vice-chairman does?
 * As for 'persistence in making changes' I find that it is often necessary when dealing with people whose approach is to ignore questions and refuse to discuss things. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Major changes to "Corporate governance" section
This section has been problematic for at least three years. In addition to often being poorly constructed, it has contained material only indirectly related to the subject of Chairman. As of yesterday several of the references didn't support the general claims made in the article, but applied only to specific corporations. Also, much of the material in this section has applied to corporate governance in general, and only peripherally to the role of Chairman.

I have been bold and removed all or most of this inappropriate material. The remaining material relates to the two basic types of Chairman in public corporations, and includes citations that directly support the claims made in the article. I've renamed the section "Public corporations" to reflect its current focus.

Most of the stuff that has been removed is valuable in its own right. It just doesn't apply to this article. --Lou Sander (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you deleted this. Being "bold" isn't deleting stuff. That's just lazy, especially if you've been watching it for 3 years. Being bold, I'd suggest, means writing something new.  Wik idea  08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved
The reason I have moved this - and yes I know it won't save the history, but there's always backlogs, and perhaps an admin can help - is that Wikipedia should not reflect social stereotypes in common usage of language (unlike modern law, eg in the UK corporate governance code). I understand there may have been previous discussions and one proposal was "chair". I don't really care. Chairman is wrong. If anyone objects to this, I'm just going to write a chairperson page in its own right (and it'll be much better), and then this page can explain why the concept of a "chairman" is distinct from a "chairperson", and perhaps why our language might still be stuck in the 19th century. And that person can also write a "chairwoman" page, and explain why that's different too. Hopefully nobody's so dumb to object though! Cheers,  Wik idea  07:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Move" reverted, because what you did was not a move, but a copy-and-paste; this is improper because it leaves the article without its history. You say you know this is wrong, but you did it anyway.  If you think a move is needed, use the "move" function, and if you think the move is going to be controversial (as your comment above strongly implies you do), then you should put a requested move template on this talk page and see if there is a consensus in favor of the move.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Groan.  Wik idea  20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Public corporations
I moved this section to the end, since it provides specialized information, rather than the rest of the article's general information about the position and the various aspects of termiology, etymology, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Public corporations: Types of chairman
This section is confusing. Editors have struggled with it for years. Currently the citations are not well-presented at all. I suggest rewriting it along the following lines:

I can do the rewriting, but I'd prefer to do so after getting some consensus that it would make sense. Lou Sander (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Main Point. There are two types of chairman: Executive and Non-executive. The Executive type wields influence in the operation of the company, while the Non-executive avoids that. (This is the most important distinction between the types of Chairman). Americans tend to favor the Executive type, while Canadians and the British tend to favor the Non-executive type.
 * Subordinate Point under Executive Chairman. Often, but not always, the Executive chairman wields his influence over operations by having the additional responsibility as CEO. The two functions are separate and distinct: the CEO runs the operation of the company, while the Chairman runs the Board. It sometimes makes sense for the same person to perform both functions and have both titles. Even if he/she is not the CEO, the Executive chairman still leads the Board and wields influence over company operations, even though he/she is not directly in charge of them.
 * Examples. After those points have been made in the article, examples of all the cases can be presented: 1) the Executive Chairman who is also the CEO, 2) the Executive Chairman who is NOT also the CEO, and 3) the Non-executive Chairman.


 * Would like to note that "Executive chairman" entry contains an in-depth example of HSBC. This may or may not be appropriate in this article, I don't know. What I can say is that it's inconsistent with the others, which have no such detailed examples. Ligart (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't much like that extended example. Lou Sander (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved There is clear consensus in discussion below to keep current title which by all accounts appears consistent with the spirit and intent of applicable guidelines Mike Cline (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Chairman → Chair (position) – ( add: please also see nominator comment below.) This is a simple NPOV request. Within government committees and NGOs the typical designation used is chair. I business the name chairman is often used sometimes even when the person is a woman although "chairwoman" (which currently redirects to chairman) is also used. I appreciate that the words like "position" or "role" are not greatly specific in regard to disambiguation but I think that this is preferabe to what I regard to be this current gender preference within Wikipedia. The present tense of the verb involved relates to the chairing of meetings. GregKaye 09:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment PLEASE consider this as an RM to Chairperson as per Dohn joe and  Eve rgr een Fir  below. GregKaye 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURAL In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi please consider also the proposed designation as suggested/supported below. Thanks.  GregKaye 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose also chairperson, while more common than fisherperson and fireperson still not the common term. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest Chairperson per WP:NATURAL and WP:GNL. Dohn joe (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Chairperson per WP:NATURAL and WP:GNL. Also, be sure to see 's comment about WP:TITLE below. It's dead on and exactly why this should be renamed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * MLA style guide
 * APA style guide
 * ASA style guide (I'll scan the page for you if you want it)
 * American Medical Association style guide
 * Chicago Style Guide
 * Wiley-Blackwell Publishing House - "Use neutral nouns: avoid the use of man if not specifically referring to men; for example, for man use humans; for mankind use the human race; for manpower use workforce; for manmade fibre use synthetic fibre."
 * UNESCO - "Gender-neutral language, gender‐inclusive language, inclusive language, or gender neutrality aims to eliminate (or neutralize) reference to gender in terms that describe people. For example, the words chairman, fireman, and stewardess are gender‐specific; the corresponding gender‐neutral terms are chairperson (or chair), fire‐fighter, and flight attendant."
 * United Nations Development Program (p. 22) - " Whenever possible, replace words ending in “man” with a term that can apply to either sex, e.g. “seafarer,” “police officer” and “fire-fighter” rather than “seaman,” “policeman” and “fireman;”"
 * World Health Organization (p. 61)? - When referring to a position, quality or action that might apply to either sex, use a non-sexist term: foreman becomes supervisor; policeman becomes police officer. A void the unnecessary use of man or composite words that use -man, which imply that the term is exclusively male: the average man, the man in the street becomes the average person, people in general manpower becomes human resources or personnel."
 * European Union (p. 54, section 14.4) - "For certain occupations a substitute for a gender-specific term is now commonly used to refer to persons working in those occupations, e.g. we now write firefighters instead of firemen and police officer instead of policeman or policewoman. Note that the terms tradesperson and craftsperson are commonly used instead of tradesman and craftsman by local government authorities advertising jobs to both men and women. The term fishermen is still in common use, though the compound fisherman/woman and fishermen/women can also be found in UK sources."
 * Government of South Africa (p. 2) - "Avoid using gender-sensitive words. Use chairperson instead of chairman and chairwoman/lady, and spokesperson instead of spokesman; also police officer, fire officer and staff nurse (instead of sister)."


 * Strong oppose – per WP:NATURAL and WP:NATURALNESS, and also because many sources flat-out prohibit the word "chair" or "chairperson" as standing in for "chairman" (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC). "Chairman" is the most natural designation for this position, is used by the vast majority of RS, and "chairperson" is expressly prohibited by many RS. There are no grounds for switching to "chair person", which is non-existent. Please also note that the "man" in "chairman" is gender neutral, and is considered as such by Robert's Rules of Order, thereby satisfying WP:GNL. Please note that many chairmen are women, and that these women are often addressed as "chairman". This is a form of advocacy on the part of the supporters, in that they wish to change English to suit their own political ends. Sadly, we use the English of the people, here. We do not use forms explicitly prohibited by the style guide of the most prestigious American newspaper. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You confuse the editing standards of RS with the RS saying something.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps I could say that you confuse "man" with "male"? We do not use foreign constructions (neologisms) created to express a political point. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a neologism. See this nineteenth-century usage, for example. Dohn joe (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cherrypicking as well. MLA, APA, ASA, AMA, Chicago Style Guide, even Wiley-Blackwell Publishing House. That there is no consensus among publishers and styleguides would suggest we should follow our own guidelines.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a neologism, then as now. Don't try and claim that "chairperson" was commonly-used in the 19th century, as it is easy to prove that false with Google Ngrams. See where the poor little "chairperson" languishes at the bottom of the chart, even into the 21st century? Chairman remains overwhelming dominant, and that's that. Please see WP:UCN. Our own guidelines say to use gender neutral language, and the word "chairman" is gender neutral. "Man" refers to mankind, not male men. I've shown above where women that are chairmen are referred to as a "chairman". This is common. Sadly, common usage dictates that "chairman" remains. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You insist on proscriptive language despite the fact that many authorities disagree with your assertions. Chairperson and chair are as widely used as chairman now. I can show you many places were "chair" or "chairperson" are used when referring to women (e.g., Janet Yellen). Chairman is no longer widely considered neutral.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:UCN is policy. Ngrams doesn't lie. Neither does The New York Times, nor Robert's Rules of Order. "Chairman" remains dominant, and remains gender neutral. It is true that some people use "chairperson", but that is a minority usage in actual practice. As per WP:TITLECHANGES, such a controversial change that would institute a title that is patently forbidden by many style guides and is contrary to common usage is simply not something that can be done. As another example, British companies law mandates the use of chairman (gender neutral). RGloucester  — ☎ 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Still cherry picking.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How is Ngrams "cherry-picking"? There is nothing for me to "cherry-pick" from Ngrams. How is British companies law "cherry-picking"? It is written into the law of one the main English-speaking nations that the word "chairman" is gender neutral. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you're ignoring the other sources, including academic ones, that disagree with you. Repeatedly.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make what a style guide says? Actual practice is what matters, which is why we have WP:UCN. In actual practice, "chairman" is what people use most often, and I've provided evidence of this. "Chairman" is written into British law as gender neutral. As an example, BBC Trust refers to its leadership as "Diane Coyle, Vice-Chairman" and "Rona Fairhead, Chairman". I wonder why it is that one of the most important entities in British media uses a term that a one Fir Tree refers to as "no longer widely considered neutral". Do you know that the BBC has very, very strict anti-discrimination guidelines, perhaps more strict than with any other company? If they thought that "chairman" was in anyway "non-neutral", it would be gone from these ladies' webpages. It isn't. In fact, you're the one ignoring sources that you dislike, and ignoring centuries of traditional practice at the same time. The fact remains that "chairman" is the most common designation, and is gender neutral. The present title remains, and your arguments are bunk. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So gender neutral it was raised as an issue in 1987 to UNESCO, who recommends gender neutral language? And the UK government? And the United Nations Development Program (p. 22)? And the World Health Organization (p. 61)? And the European Union (p. 54, section 14.4)? The government of South Africa (p. 2)? Why, it would seem quite a bit of the English speaking world doesn't use Chairman as a neutral term. How strange. Enough of your "but the BBC!" How many more governments, policy setters, academic organizations, and journalist organizations do I need to trot out for you? Your insistence that "chairman" is gender neutral is an essentially an etymological fallacy. It may have once been, but is not more.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merely because it is not neutral to you does not make it not neutral. Common usage is what we go by, and as demonstrated above, chairman remains the most common. You are trying to make a political point, and failing. Words cannot change in their gender neutrality. They either are or they are not, and chairman is gender neutral. Your "UK government" sources is particularly fun, given that it does not say anything about proscribing "chairman". It simply says " Great source. Really supports your position. Once again, the position of individual government documents is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is common usage. Common usage is in favour of "chairman", as was seen in the Ngrams. Sorry. Get out of your ivory tower. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In your imaginary world it's common usage. I've demonstrated that "chairman" is not considered neutral by global authorities. You've offered BBC.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My imaginary world? Are you kidding me? You are denying that the word "chairman" is common in English usage? Are you mad? All sources point otherwise, including Ngrams. You simply are delusional. That must be why you are misusing sources, and claiming that they support a position that they do not. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support for Chairperson or Chair (person) as per WP:GNL. STSC (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Other similar cases in Wikipedia: Spokesman is Spokesperson, Businessman is Businessperson, and Sportsman is Sportsperson. STSC (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But see Cowboy rather than Cowhand, Sportsmanship rather than Sportspersonship, and Penmanship rather than Penpersonship. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some things have not changed, others are in the midst of changing (e.g., freshmen to first years). But chairperson has been around for a while. Decades. I agree COMMONNAME and NATURALNESS would absolutely apply to the examples you mentioned, but I don't think it's accurate to compare those to this particular case. The flip argument could be made for comparing it to police officer, firefighter, and flight attendant.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Police officer, firefighter and flight attendant are completely different cases, as "policeman" and "fireman" were never used to refer to women and "stewardess" was never used to refer to men. "Chairman", on the other hand, was (and is) used to refer to women as well as men. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Chairmanship, Brinkmanship, Sportsmanship, Penmanship, Salesmanship, Gamesmanship etc. are acceptable because they are not referring to a person. STSC (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose "Chair (position)". "Chairman" is the most common and most natural term, and that is what the article title should be per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALNESS. For the same reasons, I also oppose "Chairperson", though less strongly than I oppose "Chair (position)". Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose positions of "chairs" as in the furniture are also of political importance. Chairperson would be the proper title for this article -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note:This appears to be support for the nominator's (revised) request. --Boson (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support move to "Chairperson" per Article titles. "Chairman" is ambiguous (and/or inexact) because it is unclear whether the article is about male chairpersons or chairpersons of both genders. "Chair" is ambiguous because the primary topic is an article of furniture. "Chairperson" provides natural disambiguation and the correct level of precision.  Parenthetical disambiguation should be used only if natural disambiguation is not possible.--Boson (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to chair (position) or chairperson, but support a move to chairwoman, which was more common than chairperson until 1972. Srnec (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is obviously(?) sarcastic, but I can't tell in which direction. Dohn joe (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Until fairly recently, "chairman" was commonly used for everyone in this position, whether male or female, with "chairwoman" usually restricted to those chairing specifically women's organisations. It's still commonly used by many people and organisations, probably far more than "chair" is and definitely more than the horrible "chairperson". It's also natural disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is not the commonness - I think everyone would agree that "chairman" is more commonly used than "chairperson." The question is whether "chairperson" is a better choice, given WP:GNL. We are expressly given the option at WP:COMMONNAME of using a less common name when the most common "has issues," such as non-neutrality. Dohn joe (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it does have such issues, since it was used for women as well as men (and still often is), unlike policeman, fireman, sportsman, etc, which were specifically used for males in those roles. It was a gender-neutral term until the PC brigade decided it wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "chairman" is already gender-neutral. Rhoark (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a large list of style guides that say it's not if you're interested. They're in the collapsed box above.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support changing to Chairperson. This is already commonly used and is appropriate for a general article about this corporate or organization position. When referring to an individual, Chairman or Chairwoman is preferred. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I dislike all attempts to re-factor this word and make it PC. To me it's PC already and all other forms of it just don't have the right fit in English. I say this as a woman and a feminist. We don't change words like ombudsman and such; I don't know why chairman has gotten such a bad rap since the 1960s. To me this particular word is gender-neutral as is. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support changing to Chairperson. As Liz says, this term has been around for decades and is commonly used as a general descriptor for this position within a group. To refer to someone as a "chairman" is to imply that the person is a man, especially since "chairwoman" and "chairperson" are also commonly used. Therefore, since "chairman" is not gender-neutral (or at least not as gender-neutral as "chairperson"), "chairperson" is preferred over "chairman" per WP:COMMONNAME. Ca2james (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Chairman" is gender-neutral enough. This is PC nonsense. TL565 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:GNL is guideline, not PC nonsense.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it was. The statement was that the claim that "chairman" was gender-specific was nonsense. Which it is. See several comments above. And before you say it, the opinion of a few style guides is irrelevant. It's common usage that's relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that chairman is used in a gender-specific way (e.g. chairmen and chairwomen") and in a gender-inclusive way. --Boson (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I have already said, "chairwoman" was usually only used for female-only associations when the holder couldn't actually be a man. It was not commonly used in other organisations, even when a woman occupied the position. It is therefore an entirely gender-neutral term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's "entirely gender-neutral," then why do we have "chairwoman" at all? Shouldn't all women be "chairmen," regardless of the makeup of their organizations? Dohn joe (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is "actor" not entirely gender-neutral then? In the past it exclusively meant a male, to most people in common usage it still exclusively means a male, but to some it now means a male or female and we use it as a gender-neutral term (as it is mandated by PC). Chairman, on the other hand, has always meant a male or a female, yet some here are arguing it isn't gender-neutral! How ironic is that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither "actor" nor "chairman" is entirely gender-neutral. Both can be used or intended as such, but that doesn't mean there aren't actually gender connotations in their usage. You may not notice or intend them, but they're still there. Again - why have "chairwoman" if "chairman" is truly and entirely gender-neutral? Dohn joe (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Chairman is already gender neutral in common parlance, this seems to be a case of recentism. Don't make problems where there are none already. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish people would actually read the discussion. 1980s is not recentism.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read the discussion, I just came away from it with a different opinion than yourself. I am surprised I have to remind an established editor to at least try and assume good faith, a fundamental element of any productive interaction. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * PC - If anyone has an issue about PC, they should discuss on the Talk page of WP:GNL. Wikipedia has established the GNL policy guideline and we editors just follow that policy guideline.
 * Common name - In WP:TITLE, it states that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources".
 * STSC (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose i can't believe i caught this one. chairman is chairman. i dont know how chairman is ambiguous or inaccurate were all the other chairmen in history inaccurate. that is strange argument, strange. chairman cannot be inaccurate, else would not be used by mao or other chairman. in japanese we call chairmen kaichou. always translated as chairmen never chairperson in sources. just dumb argument. user above says gnl is wikipolicy. guess what, i click link to see what he say for maybe he knows. what do i see? it says at top of WP:GNL 'While this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself'. what garbage this guy writes. weird, right! so i check to see what else it say, it says 'it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Manual of Style's Gender-neutral language subsection'. okay! getting somewhere, maybe there is more! i click link. what say. this is some other guideline called manual. okay, whati s guideline? wikipedia is so labyrithine. i can't even read all this garbage to sort. but anywa,y click link to guideline. guess what! it says guideline ' sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply'. and it say polciy is something else. so confused. but, whatever, in end it seem that this gnl is not policy. the one above editor talked about says 'not policy or guideline'. the other one in manual is just guideline not policy. it has common sense. common sense say use name peopel use. no one use this person. weird stuff. it always chairman in sources, when i learn englishi t was always chairman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togashi Yuuta (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Essays are advices based on Wikipedia policies; I have amended my comment accordingly. STSC (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, "Chairman" is the preferred term for the person in charge of an assembly (assembly = the most general term for the group being referred to). When speaking to the Chairman, the preferred usage is to address "the chair". "Chairperson" is a relatively infrequent, but allowable, term for the person in charge. Various organizations and publications have their own styles for referring to this position, of course. The article should be, and is, "Chairman". It should include encyclopedic mention of the alternative terms, and for the most part it already does. Lou Sander (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Chair (person) - This is another alternative for consideration; many minutes of meetings are using the "Chair" instead of "Chairman" (male or female) and I would support this as well. STSC (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have done some word counts in Robert's Rules of Order, it has used more "chair" than "chairman" to describe the chairperson in charge. In Wikipedia, we follow the GNL guideline and the Naming Conventions policy. STSC (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The name of the office is "Chairman". When addressing that person in a meeting, the proper usage is to address "the Chair". That is probably the reason the number of instances of "chair" in Robert's is so large. Robert's is full of examples showing the proper way to conduct business; many of these involve addressing the chair. Lou Sander (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Further comment. The 'Terminology' section already covers the different terms for the basic, longstanding, and widely understood concept of "Chairman". These include "Chairwoman", "Speaker", "Convenor", etc. Considering the great interest in the variety of terms, it should probably include a paragraph or so about "Chairwoman", and brief discussion of the use of "madam Chairman", "madam President", and the like. It might be good to include a subsection on 'Gender neutrality' in the 'Terminology' section. I am pretty familiar with this subject area and with the various terms, and would be glad to write an expanded and thoroughly referenced Terminology section, once this move request is settled. Lou Sander (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


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

Proposed rewrite
I propose to rewrite the first part of the article, posting drafts where people can see them and comment on them, perhaps here or in a section of my user page. I hope to do it in such a way as to minimize further discussions involving mere terminology. In the past, these discussions have become long and heated, and in the end, IMHO, they have not been very productive.

Some general principles of the rewrite will be: Before embarking on the rewrite, I seek comments on the ideas presented above. Lou Sander (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is "Chairman", which is a widely-accepted term for the person chosen to head a group, regardless of that person's gender, or of the specific term used by any one group.
 * The purpose of the article is to discuss the office. The various terms for it are an important, but subordinate, subject.
 * The other terms for the office include such things as "speaker", "moderator", "convenor", etc. These need to be mentioned, but are generally not very controversial.
 * Some of the alternative terms are designed to enhance "gender neutrality". Typical of these is "chairwoman", which is a term widely used in some contexts but not in others. These terms and their usage deserve specific discussion.

Image
Is there not a more appropriate image for this article, e.g. a meeting being chaired, rather than someone holding a glass of flowers? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can find a better one I think. Current image was added by on July 15.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article isn't called "Meeting". It's about the people who are in that position, not the meetings they hold. That's why at least one image of such a person, in front of her very large organization's banner, is appropriate, as I see it. Belittling the flowers she received on that occasion is not necessary. If you want to add a meeting photo also, or a better image of a chairman, fine by me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The image feels out of place for me too, but I guess there's no harm in having it there., Could the citation be more specific? I didn't see any info on the chairman when I clicked on the website link. Ronruser (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC) '''
 * Thank you! You are right, but that's because they only allow registered members access to info on living persons. They have a public Facebook page. Would it be better to use that? Or both? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel comfortable with something that verifies that this person is the chairman. Maybe some info on the duties of the chairman for this organization could add value as well. Ronruser (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The image looks rather silly to me, with not the slightest disrespect to the lady portrayed. It tells the reader nothing about the subject of the article. I agree with Matty, above, that a good image would show a chairman chairing.  Tim riley  talk    14:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the type of chairman depicted (unless you just want a man in a business suit in charge of a group of poeerful and elegant people) is a very typical and normal kind, close to the lifestyles of our regular readers. Please feel free to add more images! There's plenty of room. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the current image should be removed pending a more appropriate image. STSC (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is "appropriate". I believe it is against WP policy to remove the only image an article has, if it can be considered relevant. The woman is chairman of a very large organization and has been for several years. She doesn't need to be a celebrity or a corporate tycoon. The opinion of some users that an image "looks silly" doesn't seem to be enough to remove it as long as it's relevant & there is no better image. It only looks "silly" to people of certain tastes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The image illustrates a housewife rather that a chairwoman. What's the point in keeping it in the article? STSC (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's unkind. But whatever the sex of a posed shot of a person, s/he wouldn't, if I may clumsily express what I'm trying to say, exemplify "chairmanness". It doesn't help the reader understand what "chairman" means.  Tim riley  talk    15:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: some think Toscanini the greatest conductor there has been, but surely his picture here tells you nothing about "conductor", whereas this one of a much less eminent conductor does. If someone added the Toscanini picture to the Conductor article I should object to it as much as I did to that of Ms Thomsson that was recently here. What we need, if such a thing can be found, is a picture à la Portal of a chairman chairing. Otherwise I think eschewing an image is the most helpful course so far as visitors to this page is concerned.  Tim riley  talk    20:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there may be a COI issue regarding this image added by user SergeWoodzing. STSC (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the image to Commons, if that's what you mean. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the article's only image arbitrarily during the ongoing discussion, using contrived & unsubstantiated accusations. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Found nothing on this at WP:COIN - though definitely declared a COI in edit an summary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC′)
 * It appears that you may have some relationship with the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, the source of the image, or its members. Also, Wikipedia does not just accept any image just because an article has no image. STSC (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your COI accusation can only be considered frivolous and due to your not liking an image of the thousands that that organization has donated to Commons. I upload images I receive from them and check watchlists for them. That's no secret. My relationship with them has been thoroughly investigated through official Arbitration many years ago.
 * In order for there to be a conflict of interest, there has to be an interest. In this case my interest would have to be to promote an unnamed non-profit family society where I am not a member and/or an unnamed woman who chairs it and/or a banner manufacturor and/or a florist and/or ???. That is, as per your provocative post on my talk page, the image would have to be "related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with". Nothing like that is involved in my wanting this article to have a relevant image, where it had none at all.
 * The image being just "any image", besides being is disparaging, is only your personal POV. It's perfectly relevant here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You have a general COI as per WP:COI. You're involved in managing the images from Southerly Clubs and you posted one of these images in this article. Apart from the COI issue, the consensus here is that the image you posted is inappropriate to illustrate the "Chairman" message. STSC (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the image with a more appropriate one: the chairman of a well-known organization, actually holding a gavel. --Boson (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I see no reason, however, to remove the relevant photo of a chairman on a more grass roots level. There's room, and it's especially fitting in the "Usage" section. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just thought of this... why not the Chair of the Fed? Janet Yellen? Not to replace new lead image, but would be better quality than second image.
 * Great idea! There's plenty of room for her too, and still to keep the more grass roots level image. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is not the place to publicize photos of individual chairmen. If there is an image, it needs to convey the concept of "chairman". The image of the Swedish woman is, IMHO, completely inappropriate. The Yellen image is about the same. The Rangel image is a little better because it at least shows somebody with a gavel, a common symbol of chairmanship. IMHO this article needs a single image, showing a chairman doing his or her work. Probably in the chair, with a gavel in hand or at least visible, and showing people from the body of which the person is chairman. I've seen something like this in TV images of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, taken from further back in the chamber, and showing members of Congress, the Speaker's assistants, etc. Best would be something like that, but in an environment where the person in charge is a "Chairman", not a "Speaker." Lou Sander (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With a concept like that, we're going to have to remove an awful lot of images of people used to illustrate an awful lot of occupations. Are you up for it? Also the article is long so "this article needs a single image" is not quite Wikipedia policy. We are here to impart relevant information to our readers, not to keep it from them. Thirdly, the subject is not strictly American but quite an international one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

At Sam Ervin there is a photo of a chairman actually chairing a meeting. (You have to scroll down a little in that section; I couldn't figure out how to link to the photo directly without displaying it here.) I think it illustrates the subject better than a photo of someone who happens to be a chairman, just standing somewhere with no committee members around - even if that chairman is posing with a gavel. Added: And at List of current United States Senate committees there is a photo of the members of a committee sitting around a table, with the chairman (not identified in the caption, but it is then-Sen. Pete Domenici) clearly identifiable by the fact that he is holding a gavel. That one is a little too posed for my taste, but once again it is a photo of a chairman that is somewhat in the context of actually being a chairman. Neutron (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Watergate Committee photo is a good one which actually shows the chairman in action. STSC (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Special image case this article?
I am giving up on my attempt to add an image of a chairman at a grass roots level, the type of chairman known to millions of people around the world who belong to private associations and other everyday organizations.

Some of the discussion of the photo I tried to submit, for that purpose, was demeaning to the chairwoman in it. Apparently no woman at all is welcome in an image for this article.

My remaining question, after no less than three images were removed since I last looked, is


 * Does a special rule apply to this particular article that we are to have only one image in it?

I would appreciate if neutral editors would reply. Perhaps an RfC would be a good idea. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging of related categories (presidents of organizations -> charimen)
Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_9. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Chairman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/principal/lord_speaker.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416101510/http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2008/ca2008018_642807.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2008/ca2008018_642807.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131522471500/http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html to http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131522471500/http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html to http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Change title of article
Can we change the title of this article to "Chair (officer)"? It would be more gender-neutral, and would align with the future evolution of the English language towards gender neutrality. I should have proposed this earlier when I changed a Wikilink on the ICANN page. William M. Bugbee (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)