Talk:Chair (officer)/Archive 3

Title
I was surprised today to find this article at Chairman. Is there an interest in holding another RM, and if so, what's the best suggestion? The most obvious alternatives would be Chair (officer), Chair (position), and Chairperson.

It seems the article was moved from Chairman to Chairperson in 2006, then moved back to Chairman in 2008 after an RM. See Talk:Chairman/Archive 1. There was another RM in 2015 to move it away from Chairman, which failed to gain consensus. See Talk:Chairman/Archive 2. SarahSV (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support this, but I've honestly given up on this...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should give it another try, because it just seems odd to use this title in 2019. MOS:GNL recommends: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Chair (position) could be confused with a professorial chair, so probably Chair (officer) or Chairperson should be the options to suggest. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's old, but FWIW... User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to any title. While this is not a vote, it's worth mentioning that the discussion had about equal numbers for the proposed title, the current title, and any other title (combined). No consensus has emerged after nearly a month. Red  Slash  15:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Chairman → Chair (officer) – Lots of readers will feel excluded by the current title. Common alternatives are Chair (officer) and Chairperson. Please state your preference when commenting. A few sources:
 * 1) Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, 2017, 5.250, p. 318: "chair; chairman; chairwoman; chairperson. Chair is widely regarded as the best gender-neutral choice. Since the mid-seventeenth century, chair has referred to an office of authority."
 * 2) European Union. The EU's Interinstitutional style guide and English Style Guide (26 February 2019, 15.1) both say: "gender-neutral language is nowadays preferred wherever possible. In practice, gender-neutral drafting means two things [including] avoiding nouns that appear to assume that a man rather than a woman will perform a particular role: ‘chairman’ is the most obvious example."
 * 3) WP:MOS: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." SarahSV (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  SITH   (talk)   15:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   14:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support as above. Prefer Chair (officer). Second choice: Chairperson. SarahSV (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnatural, support Chairperson per WP:NATURAL In ictu oculi (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It doesn't matter whether readers "will feel excluded"; the term tends to not apply to them. What does matter is the usage of the gender-neutral terms, which have increasingly been adopted, whether to avoid "chairwoman" or otherwise. I feel "chair" with some disambiguative term to be the best option here, as "chairperson" isn't as common.  ONR  (talk)  02:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all per the Terminology section of the article itself which provides ample evidence that "chair" and "chairperson" are both rare forms, and often discouraged as poor English. This is a case where the suggested move fails WP:MOS more than the current title does because chair/chairperson fails both "clarity and precision". The lead should reflect that "chairman" is the most common usage for both men and women, and that occasionally "chairwoman" is used for women in the position, and chair/chairperson are exceedingly rare. -- Netoholic @  04:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all as per . "-man" in this context is common gender as it has been for the last thousand years or so.  BTW, at the moment quoting an EU guide to how English should be used is rather like waving a red rag in front of a charging bull!  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all as per 2 previous editors. We are supposed to inform about well-known, much-used words and facts, not propagate change. "All men are created equal" includes women, girls and boys. Everyone knows that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support those who claim the usage is "rare" should try googling the exact phrase "chair of the committee". It is, as just one example, standard usage for the committees of the UK parliament (e.g. ). In my experience, "chairman" is now the rare usage. The argument that "-man" is common gender simply does not reflect modern English – language changes. (The same argument used to be used about "brothers" or "brethren" including women in religious language, but modern translations, services and hymns have abandoned this practice.) As for "all men are created equal", when first used, it certainly did not mean that either women or African slaves were equal, so it's a clear example of why "man" is now inappropriate, not an argument as to why we should still use it in this sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not believe our personal opinions about past or present meanings are what we are supposed to go by. Article titles at Wikipedia adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others above. Assuming that "chairman" is still the dominant designation of people exercising this role (and I strongly suspect that it is), I think it deserves its own article. Likewise, the "chair" article reflects the piece of furniture and offers a dab page for other uses. The close variant "chairwoman" currently redirects to "chairman". The article title need not imply that it is the preferred term, just that it is the most common. The "chairman" article can (and does) discuss alternative terms, and this is the best place to do it. Jmar67 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not clear how true that assumption is. It's difficult to use searches because of the need for context. Here's one Google ngram. ("Chair" is even more common if you switch to American English.) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to be really careful with things like this, you can try a number of phrases and pick the one that seems to present your point - here's one based using a slightly different phrase which points the other way. Even using your ngram, the results change in favor of "chairman" if you just turn on "case-insensitive". Not saying a fairly worded Ngram can't be found, just that I don't think its that easy. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment For those not aware of it, this issue was previously addressed in 3 separate RM initiatives for this article. See the "Title" discussion, which triggered this one. Jmar67 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Chair (officer) on the basis of the sources provided and my own sense as a native English speaker that "chair" is the most common word for this concept. To those who oppose, could you provide any sources indicating that "chairman" is more common or recommended by style guides nowadays? Otherwise your arguments seem weak compared to SV's argument, which is based on reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLES doesn't say anything about giving preferential consideration to any style guides over any other reliable sources. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Chair appears to me to have become the neutral/neuter form of the term. While NGrams are helpful, they only go up to 2008, so it's 10 years out of date. Further, the trajectory of "chairman" is steeply negative (another ngram above: chair of).
 * Moreover, multiple manuals of style note that Chair is acceptable or preferred:
 * Chicago Style, also used by the American Library Association
 * The Copyeditor's Handbook
 * American Philosophical Association
 * American Medical Association
 * American Psychological Association  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Variations section in the article is both very selective (e.g. only one of the most reactionary UK newsapapers) and out-of-date. These manuals should be included in the discussion at that point in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "chair of" part of your Ngram seems to be picking up a lot of false positives referring to furniture. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to Chairperson. Chair (officer) is unnatural and we strongly prefer WP:NATURAL disambiguation as long as the term is commonly used (not necessarily the most used). Between "chairman" and "chairperson," the former is probably more popular, but there are other reasons to prefer the second. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move to either chair (officer) or chairperson per MOS:GNL.
 * The Cambridge Dictionary says Although chairman can refer to a person of either sex, chairperson or chair is often preferred to avoid giving the idea the person is necessarily male.
 * I went through a list of Fortune 500 female CEOS and looked at how their Wiki articles referred to them. Although many do use the word chairman, many others do not or else use a mix of terms, suggesting that while the word can be used to refer to a woman, it's weighted male and not really "gender neutral":
 * Chairman: Marillyn Hewson, Lynn Good, Kathryn V. Marinello, and Mary Laschinger.
 * Mix of chairman and other: Mary Barra: Chairwoman in prose; Chairman in the infobox. Ginni Rometty: chair and chairperson in prose; chairman in the infobox. Kathleen Mazzarella: Chairman and Chair.
 * Other: Indra Nooyi: chairwoman. Phebe Novakovic: chairwoman. Geisha Williams: board chair. Vicki Hollub: U.S. chair. Michele Buck: Co-Chair. Beth E. Mooney chairwoman.
 * An aside: Something tells me that this change would've happened a long time ago if it weren't for Wikipedia's giant gender gap...
 * Another aside: Chair seems to be more common than chairperson, and it's older and, well, it just sounds better. But I admit chairperson conforms better to WP:NATURAL. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated vote: I Support a move to a gender neutral alternative. Ranked preference: 1. Splitting the article into "Board chair" and "Committee chair". 2. "Chair (role)" 3. "Chairperson" 4. "Chairman and chairwoman". 5. "Chair (officer)" Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See my final vote in the ranked choice section below. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Slightly OT) Just out of interest, why do people prefer the French derived masculine "-person" to the Anglo-Saxon common gender "-man"? You really ought to discuss charperson/chairpersonne as a problem. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * because we aren't writing in either French or Anglo-Saxon, so how the words were originally used in these languages are of no relevance to how they are used in modern English, in which "-person" is now regarded by speakers as gender neutral, whereas "-man" is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're exhibiting a gender bias by selecting only articles about women to draw your conclusion. This topic is not gender-restricted, and so your comparisons should not be either. It seems more like you're voting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not follow our titling guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was investigating the claim that chairman is gender neutral. Getting an idea of how accepted and common it is to use the term to refer to women is, I think, a reasonable way to do that. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal While there may be eventual consensus to move, it is certainly conceivable that there will be no consensus on the target. One compromise solution might be to move to "Chair (role)" and restructure the article to focus on the function itself rather than the person. The article can then describe, in a neutral manner, the various terms designating the person. Jmar67 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another alternative proposal: "Chairman and chairwoman" (WP:AND: Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example, Endianness covers the concepts "big-endian" and "little-endian". Where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and", as in Promotion and relegation, Balkline and straight rail, Hellmann's and Best Foods) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also thought in that direction. What would you think of "Chairman (and equivalent terms)"? Jmar67 (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I would not call that title gender neutral, so it adds bloat without much benefit. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One more alternate proposal: splitting the article in two, one for corporate chairs and one for government chairs. Possible titles for the former: "Board chair", "Chair of the board", "Chair (business)". And for the latter: "Committee chair", "Chair of the committee", "Chair (government)". Wandering Wanda  (they/them) (t/c) 17:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * President does that, but I don't see a reason to do it here. Jmar67 (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my reasoning: 1. a chair of a government committee strikes me as a very different thing from a chair of a corporate board, so it feels a little dubious to bundle them together into one article. 2. My understanding is that corporate chairs usually preside over a "board" and government chairs a "committee", which means we could go with, say, "Board chair" and "Committee chair" for the titles. Those two titles are a. gender neutral and b. don't need any parenthetical statements, and so they conform better both WP:NATURAL and MOS:GNL. Also, I don't think either title could be confused with the academic title which was discussed below. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "Chairperson" to "Chairman or chairwoman" if for no other reason than that it's shorter. Also, I'm not sure about separating "Board Chair" and "Committee Chair" as those roles are quite similar: on both Boards and Committees, the primary function of a Chair is to preside over a meeting of a deliberative body that decides things by meeting and voting (whether that body is a government committee, a corporate board of directors, a school committee, or whatever). Having a "Chair", and common aspects of a Chair (that the chair has the power to call meetings to order and adjourn them; that the chair sets the agenda; that the chair generally doesn't vote except to break a tie) all stem (I believe) from the popularity of Robert's Rules of Order for parliamentary procedure. So in my view, this use of Chair (board/committee) is one thing, whereas the academic professorship position (or "department chair") is actually a separate type of chair, and then the furniture is something else altogether :-). Note I've updated my !vote per the discussion here. It seems like "Chair (role)" and "Chairperson" may be the "finalists" here? Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support:
 * "Chair (position)" (not a good choice per discussion below due to confusion with academic chair)
 * "Chair (role)" ("Chairperson" is better for reasons stated in WP:NATURAL)
 * "Chair of the Board" ("Board Chair" suggestion above is shorter and better) or
 * "Chairperson" <-- Final answer
 * ...in that order. The -man suffix is deprecated in the English language–don't need Google Ngrams to know that, just need to have been alive in the 21 century. "Chair (officer)" isn't the best DAB because, at least in the United States, the Chair of the Board of Directors of a company or organization is not an Officer of the organization (that includes other positions like President, Treasurer, etc., but not Chair or Vice Chair, or Board Member, who are distinct from Officers). So, that might be confusing, and I would suggest a different DAB like "position" or "role". "Chair of the Board" identifies the position/role fairly well. "Chairperson" is better than the current "chairman", but I think is not as common as the simple "chair", as in "Board Chair" or "Chair of the Board of Directors". Leviv&thinsp;ich 01:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Chair (position)" seems to include the meaning of a "professorship", which is different from the "chairman" role as a presiding official. A professor is simply occupying a "chair" with a particular designation, implying that he/she is being paid from an endowment. Jmar67 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. (position) may not be the best choice then. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the continuing discussion here, I've come around to Chairperson being the best choice. "Chairperson" is better than "Chairman" for MOS:GNL reasons, and because the -man suffix is rapidly declining in usage in favor of gender neutral language (police officer, firefighter, etc.). "Chairperson" is better than "Chair (whatever)" for the reasons given in WP:NATURAL. Going with the common gender-neutral name "Chair" breeds confusion with all the other things with the same name, and any disambiguator we choose–"Chair (officer)", "Chair (position)", "Chair (role)"–will have some problems. We can avoid having to decide "what the second word should be" by going with "Chairperson". Our reader will know what we mean when we say "Chairperson", and when they type in "chair" it'll pop up as one of the suggestions. It's the best choice not because it's the most common form of the term, but because all the other options are worse for one reason or another. Leviv&thinsp;ich 05:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about corporate law, but here's a source that seems to confirm that technically corporate chairs are not always considered "officers". Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Political correctness gone wild here. I still see and hear chairman more than anything else, even when referring to women. If it ever were to move it would more along the lines of "chairperson," but even that is a bit strange. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Primary argument against appears to be "I don't like it. Even arguments about gender neutral versions are along these lines.  A google search of "Chairperson" results in 40,800,000 results for me.  That hardly appears archaic. A search of google with chair role description brings up many references to chairperson or chair generically.  Even the Wikimedia Foundation uses the phrase "Chair".  "Chair (role)" or "Chairperson" appear to be good compromises.  A compromise for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT people concerned gender erasure could be including a discussion about the use of chairperson vs. chairman, for which there are ample sources that meet WP's standards credibility standards. --LauraHale (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:IDONTLIKEIT cuts both ways. What to one person seems like an innocent change in the language is to another forced politics and linguistic corruption.  Conversely to one the natural form of English they have been speaking for 60 years is seen by others as an oppressive attempt to demean all womankind. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Completely unnecessary. Still the common name in ordinary speech. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Or just your opinion? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Chairman is probably more commonly used than any of the proposed alternatives. The Oxford English dictionary says that while the gender-neutral terms chair and chairperson are accepted in standard English, they're still less common than chairman.
 * ...Hold on, Wanda, whose side are you on? Well, here's the thing: the vast majority of committee and board chairs are men. So the fact that chairman is the more popular term does not mean that it is the most appropriate term for an article that is supposed to encompass both men and women. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and that means we should be gender-neutral. Sometimes the most appropriate, inclusive, gender-neutral title for an article is going to be a term that's somewhat less popular than another more biased and gendered term. According to Google ngrams, is more common than firefighter, and yet the Wiki article is titled firefighter. is more common than police officer but we go with police officer. It's true that we shouldn't just make up a term, or use a very rare neologism, in the name of neutrality. But in this case the proposed alternatives are perfectly standard and accepted English words. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is true to a point. Most companies will use the term chairman for both sexes, but it is certainly within the realm of reason that chairperson is used and becoming more common. However this rfc was to change chairman to "Chair (officer)" and that is not common at all and not likely to be. Hence a big oppose from me above. We also do whatever we can not to disambiguate with parentheses if possible. There is no reason to do that in this case. Also I'm not sure about wikipedia being so neutral... it's always back to consensus. If enough editors say the sun is blue then that's what the article will tell us. If you want neutral then maybe don't start reading President Trump's article, as it's far from even-handed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's even-handed but it's certainly small-handed. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it isn't necessarily about moving it to Chair (officer). The RM says "Common alternatives are Chair (officer) and Chairperson. Please state your preference when commenting." If you prefer something else, by all means say so. An oppose means a support for Chairman. SarahSV (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which I had already done above. Chairman preferred, chairperson a distant second. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If enough editors say the sun is blue then that's what the article will tell us, no absolutely not, since all factual claims need to be sourced if challenged. Article titles aren't subject to sourcing in the same way, which is why we are discussing this, whereas we could not discuss whether to say that the sun is blue, since there are no reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! I presume a naivety of youth. If enough editors don't like your sources they will be dismissed as "unreliable" or "primary" in favour of sources which support the cabal's opinion.  If any source that denies the sun is blue is discounted, all sources will be supporting it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the way things tend to work here. A title spelling could have 100 sources spelling it one way and zero to two sources spelling it another way. But if enough editors would rather have it at the un-sourced or low-sourced spelling, that's where it will be. It's just something you learn after more than a decade of editing here. You !vote, you shrug your shoulders, you move on. It's not a big deal, it's just the way things are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the case that companies still overwhelmingly use chairman, whereas other organisations variously use chairman, chairperson or chair. The fact is, of course, that chairman has always been used for both men and women (although chairwoman has been seen in the past, mostly in all-female organisations such as the Women's Institute), whereas other terms like policeman and fireman have generally only been used for men, with policewoman and firewoman being used in the past for women, and police officer and firefighter being overwhelmingly used generically today, although men (but not generally women) in those roles are still often referred to as policemen and firemen. It's just one of the many peculiarities of common English language usage that a woman can be a chairman but not a policeman! One size does not fit all in our language. That's just a fact of life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can concede that it is more common and accepted to refer to a woman as a chairman than a woman as a policeman. (On Google Ngrams, I tried comparing "she became a policeman" to "she became a police officer" but it couldn't even find any instances of the former.)
 * This is an interesting case. Is chairman the most commonly used word for this concept? Yes. Can you find big corporations or newspapers who use the word chairman to refer to both men and women? Yes. But... is chairman the most common or accepted term for a female chair? I would argue no. According to Google Ngrams, the phrase "she became chair" is more common than "she became chairman". Is the term exclusively male? No. But is it weighted male? Yes. This isn't a completely black or white case, but I'm going to err on the side of inclusivity and gender neutrality and will stick by my vote. Wandering Wanda  (they/them) (t/c) 16:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chair (officer) as failing WP:NATURAL, and no support from sources. support Chairperson as sourced, well used, and completely satisfying the problem.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see Chair failing NATURAL. See Chair of the Board. --В²C ☎ 04:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Born2cycle what? You don't see the parentheses ("(" & ")")?  "Chair" may be natural, but "chair" is not on the table.  Follow WP:NATURAL and find the terms "Natural disambiguation", "Comma-separated disambiguation" and "Parenthetical disambiguation" clearly distinguished.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Chairperson per SmokeyJoe. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisting note: a couple of things need to be noted in this relist:


 * 1) For the sanity of whoever closes the debate, up to this point five support Chair (officer), four five (edit conflict) support Chairperson and five support Chairman.
 * 2) I have removed User:Fyunck(click)'s modification of User:SlimVirgin's original nomination statement because it screwed up the bot. The nominator's statement can't be a block of text with two signatures in except for relist notes and technical request permalinks.  Feel free to add it in a comment.


 * Many thanks,  SITH   (talk)   15:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Very strange since I've seen that done a thousand times in the past when pertinent info has been missing from the initial listing. Especially when it starts off with choices "A", "B" and "C" and then an additional choice "D" gets added. Has the bot changed this year? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know better. :-) I think if you leave an entire blank line after the original nom's sig and any relist sigs, then it will work properly. However, it had the effect of a major injection of non-neutral advocacy (whether intended as such or not) to do what you did in this case, as addressed in the Discussion section below. The place for presenting evidence you think is strong and pertinent is in your !vote if it's short, or in an extended discussion section if it's not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Next time I'll use a space, I didn't know about that. It was placed to make the rfc neutral as opposed to non-neutral. When listing style guides, Chicago and AP are always at the top of the list. I was shocked to see it missing, so I added it. But now I know to leave a space, thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's an RM, not an RfC. It doesn't have to be neutral. SarahSV (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That rfc was a typo, but I'm not sure I ever said it "had to be neutral." When I saw a listing of MoS's I noticed one of the two biggest missing. I simply thought it would help in the discussion if everyone saw the other big MoS, and being buried in a comment amongst many comments I thought would be worse for helping people decide. That was my purpose in placing it where I did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: I know there's an element of PC-gone-mad to this, but my experience tells me that a chair presides over a meeting.  But, aside from anything else, who's saying that the 'wo' hasn't just been omitted from the middle?  – Sb  2001  00:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Chairperson per MOS:GNL and WP:GNL (which could also support "Chair (office)"), but more importantly for WP:COMMONNAME (in a gender-neutral context), and for WP:CONSISTENCY with Sportsperson, Spokesperson, etc. "Chair" is business jargon, a shorthand verging on a form of occupational slang. Technically, it's "nouning" of a verb, to chair, which itself is a back-formation from chairman. I think the verb form dates to around the 1980s in semi-common usage, though I can find examples of it back to the 1960s, and I am old enough I remember businesswomen objecting to both it and the noun form contemplated here as too ham-handed an attempt at gender neutrality, well into the 1990s (e.g. Esther Dyson in her tenure as the head of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's board refused to be called chair on her business cards ("I'm not a piece of furniture" was the reason she gave).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * the OED gives the earliest example of the verb chair in the sense of directing a meeting as 1921. Interestingly, chairman as a verb is apparently earlier, dated to 1888, although it doesn't seem to be used this way now. Of course what people objected to in the 1990s isn't necessarily what they object to now. I can think of a number of well established contemporary usages that were opposed at first (some by me too); holding back the tide of language change is rarely successful. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured the verb usage went back a ways, at least spottily. I agree with you on the linguistic change point, of course, but I don't think this is one; use of "chair" in the "chair (office[r])" sense was already well established by the 1990s, but was then as now a form of business jargon.  This hasn't actually changed since at least the 1980s (even if concern about GNL has gone up).  It's a register of usage matter, really.  "Chair" as noun referring to a person or their role isn't understood by everyone, being a bit buzzwordy, while "chairperson" is understood by all competent English speakers. PS: While Chicago apparently found (but didn't cite) usage of "chair" in this particular noun sense to the 17th c., it was certainly not common until at least the 1960s. I would also bet money that they're conflating academic usage (which is quite old) with corporate usage, which would be an error. The academic sense has a different origin, and some academic bodies, in that sense of "chair", can have more than one, endowed by particular patrons. They're "chairs at the table", as it were. A lot of institutions do use chair[foo] as a hierarchical departmental title, though, mirroring commercial use.  I wouldn't be surprised if some institutions use both senses, like a "Chair[foo] of the Anthropology Department", plus also something like a "Jane X. Doe Distinguished Chair of Ethnology" endowment. I'm not sure institutions have a lot of control over how endowments are named ("beggars can't be choosers").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:GNL. Chairperson first, Chair (office(r)) second. More inclusive, attested as fine English in sources and style guides, better usage overall for WP's purposes. Dohn joe (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNL is an essay. This vote does not state a rationale compatible with Article titles policy. -- Netoholic @ 03:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. WP:GNL means nothing... an essay can be a view of one person. Even wikipedia guidelines get tossed by consensus in areas where they are too narrow or too general to cope with a situation. Essays mean very little. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A rationale that relies on a policy (and not a guideline or essay) is that gender-non-neutral language is, well, non-neutral, in violation of WP:NPOV. It says specifically for titles that neutral terms are generally preferable. It adds this must be balanced against clarity but it's hard to see a clarity issue with a widely accepted and understood term like chairperson. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also an essay: Arguments to avoid on discussion pages. Leviv&thinsp;ich 05:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is true that saying it's an essay is much easier than writing it out over and over. But many see these WP:GNL links and think it means something special, so pointing that out for clarity is important. The vote by essay rational is fine to use, but it's no better than when someone posts, "Support because blah blah blah" and the next editor writes "Support as per above." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Reiterating my point above, I strongly oppose any form of parenthetical disambiguation, which is completely unnecessary when many good terms exist. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename to Chairperson per Levivich and SMcCandlish above and per Spokesperson, which has much the same issues. This will avoid all the problems of disambiguation tags. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A quarter of the page deals with the gender specific problems of the term so any political correctness needs can be largely dealt with in this section. The term is for a title that has historical and topical significance. If we changed the title of the article then the section on terminology would be very difficult to rewrite. We couldn't say chariman is outdated and has been largely replaced by chairperson or chair because this is not supported by any sources. If this PC road is to be taken then what do we do about Alderman or Tallyman or Ombudsman or Foreman and all the other titles such as Caveman Coachman Showman Crewman Chessman. I undersatnd the need to close the gap but this is political correctness gone too far. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for any gender-neutral name, with preference for Chairperson, then Chair (role), then Chair (office). I think MOS:GNL outweighs WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Recognizability is one of the five pillars, two others are precision and clarity. MOS:GNL gives specific examples of what shouldn't it shouldn't apply to: titles of works, or things that are in fact single-gendered. It noticeably doesn't say "Applies unless the gendered version is more common". WP:GNL I think also supports this interpretation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safrolic (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Forcing changes on the language for political reasons decreases recognizability, precision and clarity. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At the time of relisting, seven are in favour of the original proposal, with arguments mostly being based on guideline Manual of Style and essay Gender-neutral language, nine are in favour of Chairperson due to the same reasons as the original proposal but favour the alternative per policy Article titles, eight are in favour of Chairman, with arguments mostly being based on policy Article titles. A further two users have expressed support for a gender-neutral option but not expressed which they prefer. Many thanks.
 * Support a move to a more gender-neutral alternative. Chairperson would be naturally disambiguated (and hardly surprising to any viewer), but is also probably the rarest form. I do dispute the claim that "chair" or "chairperson" is some sort of an anomaly. Given that this topic includes all sorts of very different offices (is the chair of a board of directors really that similar to the chair of a search committee?) I'd note that there are a wide variety of terms used, with different de facto standards in different places/circumstances. For example, at least in American academia, which fetishizes committees for everything, the head of the committee is pretty much always just the "chair," regardless of gender. Note that this is a very different meaning from academic chairs, which are a different subject for a different article.Just a Rube (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Chairman" is clearly the common name. Manual of Style is not an article-naming policy, it is just a guideline for article text, so it cannot override our official article-naming policies at WP:COMMONNAME, and Gender-neutral language is just an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or even a guideline, so it also cannot override our article-naming policies. The article naming policy is very clear here. It's also bad article naming convention to be introducing a parenthetical disambiguation into an article's title where one is not needed.Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SITH   (talk)   13:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because chairman is not gender-neutral. I was about to agree with Chairperson, but Just a Rube brings up a good point that I recognize chair being used more in certain capacities. It doesn't matter to me which is used... redirects exist. Rhinopias (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per User:Netoholic and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. —  AjaxSmack  04:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move to Chair (officer). It's 2019. Chair is the WP:COMMONNAME, but it needs disambiguation. The proposed title does that. --В²C ☎ 04:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ranked choice survey
This discussion has now been relisted twice, and it looks like there is an 18-8 19–8 majority in favor of moving (list), it's just a matter of choosing the target. How about a quick ranked-choice survey to figure this out? Editors can list their choices in order of preference, and a closer can "knock out" the least-popular choices until there's a winner. If editors think this is a bad idea, please feel free to delete/revert this edit. If editors think this is a good idea, maybe we should ping all discussion participants here? To make it easy on the closer, I suggest we just indicate numbers here, and keep discussion/arguments in the discussion section below. Thanks, Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pings: SarahSV, In ictu oculi, ONR, Netoholic, Martin of Sheffield, SergeWoodzing, Peter coxhead, Jmar67, Granger, EvergreenFir, King of Hearts, WanderingWanda, Levivich, Fyunck(click), LauraHale, Necrothesp, SmokeyJoe, Ealdgyth, Sb2001, SMcCandlish, Dohn joe, Timrollpickering, Dom from Paris, Safrolic, Just a Rube, Rreagan007, Rhinopias Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Options

 * 1) Chairman
 * 2) Chair (officer)
 * 3) Chair (role)
 * 4) Chairperson

Votes

 * 4, 3, 2, 1. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 4, 3, 2. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4, 3, 2, 1. I've flip-flopped on which gender-neutral term I prefer but I think I will land on chairperson as my final answer, after weighing all the relevant guidelines, even though chair is the more common term. (And even though I'd never personally use the word chairperson. Chair is more elegant! Not that personal preference is very relevant.) Chair (officer) isn't ideal because we've determined that board chairs are sometimes not technically considered officers. Chairman is not gender neutral. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 3, 2, 4 - Anything after #1 doesn't matter all that much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 4 1 3 2, seeing as we are voting! —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A better voting method is to score each option:
 * Chairperson: 8/10. Used. Used in quality sources.  NATURAL.
 * Chairman: 7/10. Used in quality sources, is the original term, linguistic construction issues don’t hold up.
 * Chair (role): 5/10. Ok, works, fails NATURAL.
 * Chair (officer): 2/10. Like role, but adds an authoritarian value judgement, and in many cases is in conflict with the meaning of an “officer”.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note - not that it's a horrible idea, but I take issue with someone saying to the closer..."18-8 majority in favor of moving, it's just a matter of choosing the target." That is bias right off the bat. You could just have easily said that "Keeping at Chairman leads in the voting" even though this is not a vote. That whole first sentence should be removed as unnecessary. Plus no closer is supposed to use ranking behind their reasoning... they are supposed to use strength of argument even if it's 3 against 10. A ping should probably also be given to all those who participated in the last rm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Chairperson leads the voting with nine; Chairman has eight. Ranked choice can help the closer figure out consensus; it's up to the closer how to weigh the various comments and arguments. I have no objection if you want to ping anyone; I didn't want to do it so as not to be seen as canvassing, since I wasn't even sure if people thought this exercise was helpful. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 1, 3, 4, 2 1, 2, 3, 4. Changing ranking vote. While I still prefer "Chairman", I would settle for "Chair (officer)" if the article title is to remain the title of the position, which the discussion seems to support. I continue, however, to favor recasting the article (with the title "chair (role)" or some refinement of it) to focus on the function or role involved rather than the title of the individual in the role. This avoids the gender discussion and the controversy of what title is more common. Jmar67 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2, 4, 3, 1. To help move us toward consensus, I'm also happy with 4, 2, 3 1 . SarahSV (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC); edited 18:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC) and 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTVOTE. This poll is an end-run around RM and WP:Consensus process. Closer should close as "no consensus" per WP:RMCI because there clearly is none.  We don't just keep litigating. Levivich's claim of an 18-8 in favor of moving creates an unresolvable bias in this out-of-policy "ranked voting" process. -- Netoholic @  08:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a consensus for a gender neutral title and so a closing admin should be moving the article - it's clear supporters of one prefer another to the current form. Sticking to the current title would be the worst of outcomes. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I look at it this way: after a two-week discussion among 27 editors, my colleagues agree, by more than a two-to-one margin (19-8), that the current name is not the best name, and it should be something else, but there was no broad agreement on what the new name should be. I could take the position that unless my colleagues all agree on a new name, the rules require that the article not be moved, an outcome that two out of three editors disagree with. Or, I could help my colleagues settle on a new name, for example by asking everyone to post their second choice. Leviv&thinsp;ich 03:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4, 3, 2, 1. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 4, 3, 2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4, 1, 3, 2. In response to Netoholic's point, I think this is a valid way to resolve things, when there is a clear majority against the status quo. Note that the status quo is still one of the options, so an alternative will not be chosen unless it is preferred over the status quo. It's a bit like having a People's Vote on Brexit with Remain and several Leave options. And the more participants there are, the more valid the raw vote becomes; when there are few some !votes may be significantly stronger than others and should be weighted accordingly, but when all that has to be said has been said, people will have to agree to disagree, and a result must be chosen based on overall level of support. There is precedent, e.g. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is the spoiler effect of having these multiple options. Someone who supports -absolutely- "no move", in the way this is constructed, has only 1 selection in this list and yet must still select from 3 other "move" options in ranking... and in doing so must dilute the intent of their preference. Constructing such a vote this way is begging the question and surreptitiously denies the preferences of voters while outwardly appearing to lavish them in options. Voting systems have in-built problems, which is why WP:NOTVOTE exists to explain the WP:Consensus policy. The Ireland poll presented several options which are based much more on personal preference. THIS discussion is about the limited and recent MOS:GNL guideline that does not apply to titles against the WP:TITLES policy based on WP:COMMONNAME - the weight of policy-based rationales cannot be captured in a simple numeric vote. -- Netoholic @  01:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting this poll is an end-all, be-all, but it will be helpful to any eventual closer, when reading the above discussion, to have a clear summary of where everyone stands. The more discussion that happens, the less incumbency bias there should be (which only exists out of caution, due to the fear we'll get it wrong due to undersampling); in a discussion as well-attended as this one, I think it's entirely reasonable to say "here are the four options, pick one." -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Netoholic. Ranked voting is subject to many problems, spoiler effect is just one problem, there are many.  I think the best for Wikipedia discussions is Score voting.  I like 0-10 out of 10.  5 is a pass, 10 is perfect.  It is not susceptible to irrelevant alternatives, but much more importantly, it lends itself to encouraging !voters to explain their !votes in absolute terms for each option.  If you give 8/10, it is easy to be challenged on "why 8/10" in terms of what is good and bad about that option.  It is also good for implicit expressions of "strength" which go to the strength of reason, not strength of personal opinion.  I think ranked voting should be banned in favor of score voting, with the usual understanding that the weight afford your !vote is determined by how good your argument is.  Score !votes should NOT be added or averaged or processed mathematically in anyway.  I would support graphing, if someone cared to.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3, 2, 4, 1 —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, 3, 4  ONR  (talk)  01:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 5, 4, 2, but note that I wasn't counted in the vote tally above. —  AjaxSmack 04:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5? Is that for Chairhumanoid? ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , does your !vote mean that approve all listed options, or is #5 indicating a point of acceptability? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2, 3, 4, 1. --В²C ☎ 04:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Born2cycle, if in the evaluation 2 & 3 are discarded, does this mean you support a move from 1 to 4? Note again who unintuitive or ambiguous rank voting for multiple options can be.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why 2 & 3 (the Chair variants) would be discarded, but if they were, then yes, of course, this means I prefer 4 to 1, so would support a move from 1 (the sexist Chairman) to 4 (Chairperson), which I've noticed is being used less and less in favor of just Chair. Here, by the way, is example usage from 2004, ...says Joseph Fengler, the group’s chair. . --В²C ☎ 18:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 4, 3, 2, 1, with any of the first three being acceptableJust a Rube (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose relisting. Only choice: 1. Everything else: premature attempt to influence language. Please stop this now! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4,2,3. But 2 and 3 are poor second choices. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4,2,3,1 if scope limited to corporate officers; 4,3,2,1 if scope to include academic chairs and other usages with a broader meaning than that in business administration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3, 4, 2, 1  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note - at this point, the only two getting any kind of traction as a first choice is Chairperson and Chairman. Perhaps those two only should be put up for a RM survey and see where that gets us. With two choices either there'll be a clear argument for moving or there won't be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 12 out of 18 prefer 4 over 1. I think it’s clear already. I see no reason to redo it with just the two choices. ——В²C ☎ 06:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You see it differently, and your numbers don't match. There are 20 in the vote section and 8 prefer chairman. That's no basis to move even on a straight up vote, which this is not! 11 out of 20 want something other than "chairperson." And that doesn't include the main survey and its participants. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose move per COMMONNAME. Even if people feel that Chairperson is more neutral, Chairman is still clearly the more common name and per the WP:POVNAME subsection of the COMMONNAME policy we should use the term that is more likely to be the one for which people will search.  Springee (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4,2,3,1 Dohn joe (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * A lot of suggested Google Ngrams above, but I think this one using the short phrase "elected chair---" is reliable as it eliminates references to furniture and anything else that might be outside the scope of this topic. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ngrams' most recent material is a decade old. We need to use it with caution.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Usage in the last 10 years, even if radically different, does not outweigh usage of over a hundred years. Wikipedia is not about WP:NEOLOGISMS. Ngrams is one of the most valuable tools (if used correctly) for demonstrating common usage. It is broad evidence, where otherwise we are left, as the supporters of this have done, to cherry-pick style guides and such. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Widespread language changes, even rather new ones, should be reflected in wikipedia. If something sticks around and is not just some meme (e.g., yeet), then we should reflect that. We use gender inclusive terms for many other occupations and positions as language around them has changed. That's not to say all which occupations have changed, as you noted below, but when they do we should update a well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if we didn't rely on modern usage, we'd still be using lots of racist language. You can see the discomfort with the title in the regular attempts on talk to question it. SarahSV (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Chairman" is neither gender-inclusive nor -exclusive. Its just a word as it exists in the language, and the most common word used to describe this topic. I think many of you are just guessing (hoping?) that the usage has changed significantly in the past 10 years, but you're not doing anything to provide evidence that it has beyond cherry-picking a couple articles and a few style guides which disagree a lot amongst themselves and are not sources for how widespread usage is, just how its used in specific circumstances. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the reason it doesn't feel gender-exclusive to you is that you don't belong to an excluded gender. Gender is invisible to the gender that sees itself and its language as the default. But the word excludes me. I felt a sense of shock, an actual jolt, when I found this page.Imagine if the standard term had started out as "Chair (whites only)". Over time other people came to be accepted as chairs too, but some diehards refused to drop "whites only" from the title, so when a black person becomes chair, they have to be called "Chair (whites only, but this one's black)". That's how absurd "Madam Chairman" sounds to me. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm curious what gender you guess I am... and why you are dismissing my participation here based on that ramifications of that guess. Beyond that, I should point out that your emotional state is not part of the Wikipedia titling guidelines. Neither is strawmanning some equivalence to racism, nor the "absurdity" that you think is involved. -- Netoholic @  20:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You said that chairman is "neither gender-inclusive nor -exclusive". However, it is taken that way today, regardless of the etymological basis of the word. The MoS's I linked above generally point to this fact for their support of the gender-inclusive "chair" title.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - "taken that way today" has no basis in any impartial measure of usage - its just your opinion or limited perspective. Just repeating that claim over and over again will not make it true. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not just my opinion..., , , , ...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia uses firefighter not fireman, police officer not policeman, mail carrier not mailman, and human not man. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but note that those are NOT "fireperson", "policeperson", or "mailperson". You're cherry-picking to try and make your point - why have you not listed other occupation articles like journeyman, master craftsman, doorman, showman, marksman, milkman, helmsman, and more.  These are not named that way because they are restricted to males, but because this is simply how English works. -- Netoholic @  18:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The American Heritage Dictionary's usage note on chairman is a worthwhile read. It says that Words that end with the element -man ...sometimes generate controversy because they are considered sexist by some people...This ongoing controversy is evident from our usage surveys. It says that its usage panel (which it describes as a a group of nearly 200 prominent scholars, creative writers, journalists, diplomats, etc.) was asked to look at a sentence that referred to a woman as a chairman. 57 percent accepted the sentence, which is a majority, but which means a large portion of the panel did not accept it. It goes on to say: For writers interested in avoiding -man compounds that have synonyms, alternatives include compounds employing -woman and -person, as in chairwoman and spokesperson, and more inclusive terms that avoid the gender-marked element entirely, such as chair for chairman, letter carrier for mailman, and first-year student for freshman.


 * To me, the word Chairman is obviously similar to the generic he, which the MOS asks us to avoid. Both are in wide use but both are clearly controversial and considered by many people to be exclusionary. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not at all similar to he and stating "To me" points to your lack of understanding that your personal opinion doesn't matter. He is specifically a male-referencing pronoun. "Chairman" is gender-neutral. If your claim is that just because a compound word uses "-man" makes it exclusive to males, then I wonder what you think of the word woman. Though, I should thank you for adding another data point (American Heritage Dictionary) to the stack of evidence that points to "chairman" being the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @  01:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I should thank you for reminding me that it's often better not to hedge. I've stricken "to me" from the post. :) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The American Heritage Dictionary survey is from 15 years ago. We need to know what style books recommend now, which is why I referred to the Chicago Manual of Style, 2017, 5.250, p. 318: "chair; chairman; chairwoman; chairperson. Chair is widely regarded as the best gender-neutral choice. Since the mid-seventeenth century, chair has referred to an office of authority." That is the latest edition of an authoritative style guide.


 * The American Heritage Dictionary also refers to chair as in officer: "A person who holds an office or a position of authority, such as one who presides over a meeting or administers a department of instruction at a college; a chairperson." SarahSV (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a very important takeaway you both seem to be missing: In the 2004 survey ... 57 percent accepted Emily Owen, chairman of the mayor's task force, issued a statement assuring residents that their views would be solicited, a percentage that was actually higher than the 48 percent in the 1988 survey. This means that according to AHD, the trend is actually going the opposite of the direction that you think it should. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, in either case a large portion of the expert panel wouldn't accept a woman being described as chairman as correct. (43% wouldn't accept it in 2004 and 52% wouldn't in 1988.) (For comparison, in 2004 95% of the panel accepted a sentence where a woman was described with the -man word unsportsmanlike.) This undercuts the claim that chairman is a gender neutral word. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 14:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * NOTE on deleted AP Style Guide - This was removed from the top of the RM. AP Manual of Style - AP Style holds that you should not use coined words such as “chairperson” or “spokesperson” in regular text. Instead, use “chairman” or “spokesman” if referring to a man or the office in general. Use “chairwoman” if referring to a woman. Or, if applicable, use a neutral word such as “leader” or “representative.” Use “chairperson” or similar coinage only in direct quotations or when it is the formal description for an office. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion. WP is not written in news style as a matter of clear policy.  Virtually nothing in our own Manual of Style is derived from AP Stylebook, which isn't even consistent with other news style guides, and is for a style of writing with almost nothing in common with an encyclopedia (except, perhaps, when compared to a comic book).  While its advice on this isn't entirely terrible, it's intended for lowest-common-denominator reading in rapidly-scanned and rather imprecise material (aimed at getting a story's gist across in a few seconds, not at providing reliable reference material).  Many would object to  to "chairman".  AP 's apparent feeling that -person constructions are a bit formalistic isn't any kind of problem in an encyclopedia.  I'll also bet real money that this advice in AP Stylebook will not last more than another couple of years, because they've otherwise shifted strongly toward gender neutrality.  (Indeed, pretty much the  thing MoS got from AP was the general gist of how to do – or, often, avoid – pronouns for the transgendered.  More academic style guides like Chicago and New Hart's have much slower publication cycles and were not yet offering a solution to this at the time when MoS needed one, so we cribbed (in spirt, not wording) from AP, and Chicago and NH eventually included the same approach.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * To me the real issue is applying MOS:GNL as expanded at Gender-neutral language. Those who oppose the move never seem to directly address this issue. What has been shown is that:
 * "Chair" is widely used, even if less so than "chairman", so is a potential title.
 * "Chairman" is not gender-neutral according to a significant number of style guides, although still recommended by many others.
 * "Chairman" is not gender-neutral when searches combine the word with an explicit indicator of gender, such as "she".
 * Opponents of a move need to show that using "chairman" is consistent with MOS:GNL or that a title like "Chair (office[r])" would not be. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or chairperson. The entire -person style is now common (sportsperson, spokesperson, businessperson, etc) for specific constructions, though of course alternatives are common (firefighter, news anchor) for -man replacements where a -person version has no currency (*fireperson, news *anchorperson).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Does anyone feel that WP:NPOVNAME might apply here, if "chairman" can be demonstrated to be the prevalent form? Jmar67 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is a matter of neutrality in the sense of there being opposed views of what is involved in chairing meetings or boards, so that there are possible titles that support or oppose there being such an office. It's a matter of whether "chairman" meets the test of MOS:GNL. I notice that few "MOS regulars" seem to be contributing here. I think it would be useful if they did. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Chairman" is demonstrably, and resoundingly, the most prevalent form. "Chair" is 2nd and "Chairperson" is minuscule 3rd, both on the decline as of the most recent real data we have. "Chairman" is the widely-accepted gender-neutral word to describe this position. -- Netoholic @ 23:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one has disputed that "chairman" is the most commonly used (if only because the majority of chairs of major corporations are men); this is not the issue. The issue is whether it is sufficiently gender-neutral to satisfy MOS:GNL, and I do not believe that this has been shown, and it certainly cannot be shown by counts of usage. It should be based on reference to recent manuals of style; "recent" because usage is still changing with respect to gender neutrality. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this was covered above already. Because most chair[person]s are male, "chairman" is always going to lead by a wide margin.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For heaven's sake no more relists please I support chairperson but if it doesn't happen, don't keep relisting. 22:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted in an earlier post, I think a compromise that emphasizes the role and not the person might be in order at this point. An article title such as "Chair (role)" or "Chair (office of authority)" seems like the best solution as opposed to attempting to find a single synonym for "chairman" that everyone can agree on. Jmar67 (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a considerable literature on how to chair meetings, for example, including issues such as the chair's casting vote, which would be better accomodated at an article on the role than on the person, whatever they are called. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. King (role)? President (office of authority)?! The exact position that this article is about is still called Chairman, overwhelmingly. We should leave it at that, with appropriate variations givenin the text. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But unlike these offices, there's a specific set of activities covered by "chairing", and these are currently very poorly covered in the article. We have lots of articles at the activity rather than the actor, like Cooking or Skiing, so why not an article at "Chairing"? It avoids any suggestion of gender bias. I suppose there could be a different article, but this seems overkill to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A chairperson often has additional roles in an organisation than just chairing the meetings, though there is clearly a problem when such a big chunk of the article is taken up with justifying the current title. (There's also a bit too much of taking one manual, and one which appears to be mainly a US thing at that, as authoritative on all matters, but it's always a struggle to counter that when here practice is all over the place and there doesn't seem to be any general studies of the mess, let alone a widely respected manual.) Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that anyone has actually sided with my proposal to split the article into "board chair" and "committee chair", but I did realize there's at least one exception to my idea that corporate chairs usually preside over a "board" and government chairs a "committee": the Chair of the Federal Reserve presides over a "board of governors". That makes my proposal to split the article less attractive. (Incidentally, I'll note that the article on Janet Yellen, the first woman to be federal reserve chair, refers to her as a chair and not a chairman. :)  Wandering Wanda  (they/them) (t/c) 18:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxford A–Z or English Usage (2nd ed, Jeremy Butterfield, 2013, Oxford U. Pr.): "It is also interesting that the most widely used [-person] forms, according to the [Oxford English Corpus], namely spokesperson and chairperson, come from the area of public life and are often used in official and news documents. Even so, spokesperson in the Corpus is about a quarter as frequent as spokesman, and slightly less frequent thatn spokeswoman, but this could be because these terms are commonly used of a specific person, where there is felt to be less need to be gender-neutral." It lists spokesperson as the most common -person form, and -chairperson second.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed, Jeremy Butterfield and H. W. Fowler, 2015, Oxford U. Pr.): "The prevailing orthodoxy suggests, at least in written language, that ... a gender-neutral form should be used, unless the sex of the person concerned is relevant .... The whole area is a potential minefield, but there are a number of unsexed designations which are now established if one wishes to use them and so avoid being labelled an unreconstructed sexist or quaintly last-century." Third in the list (after "bartender" and "businessperson" is "chairperson", though "chair" is also listed (along, later, with salesperson, spokesperson, sportsperson, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I have all the prior two discussion participants informed of the new RM (those that haven't already seen this new rm), along with the two missing wikiprojects that missed the invite list. Not sure their dispostion towards the rm, but it can't hurt to have more eyes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Figures
There is currently clear support for a move. The next step is to agree on a term.
 * Support move (19): SarahSV, Old Naval Rooftops, Peter coxhead, Mx. Granger, EvergreenFir, King of Hearts, WanderingWanda, Levivich, LauraHale, SmokeyJoe, Ealdgyth, Sb2001, SMcCandlish, Dohn joe, Timrollpickering, Safrolic, Just a Rube, Rreagan007, Rhinopias.
 * Oppose (8): In ictu oculi, Netoholic, Martin of Sheffield, SergeWoodzing, Jmar67, Fyunck(click), Necrothesp, Domdeparis.

SarahSV (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This a gross simplification, against WP:NOTVOTE. Some people expressed an interest in a specific alternative - but you have no idea if they would prefer not moving if their specific alternative is not used. It also fails to take the weight of evidence and policy-vs-guideline arguments into consideration. MOS:GNL is a guideline which does not at all mention titles, and evidence demonstrates "chairman" is clearly WP:COMMONNAME which is policy per WP:TITLES. There is overall no consensus, and none is forthcoming. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Netoholic, the people listed above supported a move. I'm offering raw figures here, not trying to close it. But I'm concerned that because those supporting a move are split between the options, no move will take place, which is what nearly happened (see below). There's clearly a consensus to move it away from chairman. SarahSV (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And likewise if this article is moved to 'chair (disambig)', then we'll have about the same number that support a move away from that (to either chairman or chairperson). If we move it to 'chairperson', we'll have about the same number that support a move away from that (to either chairman or chair (disambig)). -- Netoholic @  00:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Despite only relisting it yesterday, it was a second relist and closing instructions allow closures to take place as soon as consensus, or a lack thereof, becomes apparent. There is a numerical majority of users who have expressed support of a change towards a more gender-neutral term. However, it is numerically even-stevens for which alternative to use with regards to Chairperson v.s. Chair with some form of a disambiguator. While I appreciate 's attempt at gaining further consensus after the second relist, it's clear both from the results of the poll, the prior discussions, and from Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, that there is no clear consensus on what to move it to. Furthermore, clarification is probably required with regards to the strength of the argumentation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language is a guideline whereas Article titles is a policy. Both sides made arguments on the latter grounds, however, the only way I can see consensus being gained is for an RfC on the interaction between the Manual of Style's section on gender-neutral language and what happens if it clashes article titling policy. Article titles is of little help either, because the current system is not consistent. For example, we have firefighter and police officer but we also have doorman and helmsman.
 * Comment: for transparancy’s sake I’m copying the text of my closure which I overturned per the request on my talk page.
 * I will abstain from making the final closure on this move. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   21:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

However, one should give TITLECHANGES extra weight due to this move being a straight reversal of 2008 Talk:Chairman/Archive 1. Probably, one should ping all participants of that discussion, and try to speak to what has changed since then. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am involved, having !voted a preference for "chairperson". Noting that, I think there is consensus to move away from the current title, just enough to overcome WP:TITLECHANGES.  Of the options discussed, I think "chairperson" is clearly the leader of the pack by a small to moderate margin.
 * Per WP:TITLECHANGES: do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. "Chairperson" is an extremely uncommon name by any measure. -- Netoholic @  02:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, but I sense, in real life, that there has been a change to "chairperson" over the last decade, and google books returns data only to 2008. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Also, a weakness of google books is that it gives zero indication of introductory usage over repeat usage.  Titles should be considered introductory.  "Chairperson" is slightly awkward, and tends to be used introductory, and for statements making specific comments on the topic, with "chair" being used for mere mentions, especially repeated mere mentions.  In this respect, ghits is actually better, as ghits upweights top level pages over appendices that ngrams weights equally.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ngrams is at least evidence, as opposed to guessing what you think is popular now. Even for women, "chairman" is more popular term than "chairperson" -  "chairperson" is the least desirable option in all cases. Feel free to check ghits if you like. Same results. -- Netoholic @  03:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That chart shows that "chair" has overtaken "chairman" for women. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But note that chair is not on the table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course not, chairs go beside tables not on them! Ahem. Anyway it's a good point, but still, for women, it is more common to use a gender neutral term like chair or chairperson than the term chairman. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, "for women" the order at last report of Ngrams (ignoring historical weight) was chair>chairman>chairwoman>chairperson... but as we're being gender-neutral here, we can't name this article "for women" alone. Add men and the most common term is "chairman" across all people. Chairman is COMMONNAME, which is the main thrust of WP:TITLES policy. "Chairman" also happens to be broadly gender neutral, as it is the top use for men and 2nd use for women. Picking something which is a distant 3rd or 4th place for both sexes makes no sense and violates WP:TITLECHANGES as its trying to use an uncommon name to settle a dispute. -- Netoholic @ 05:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Most legislative bodies and corporations I read about or deal with use the term Mr. or Madam Chairman (or the person's first name). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Netoholic wrote to me: "Feel free to check ghits if you like. Same results". Thanks.
 * I prefer to look without "she". Your ngram -"she".  Quite  a ratio in favour of chairman.
 * Ghits. I reckon they are more likely to reflect 2018-2019 than ngram.  Some results:
 * About 229,000 results "a chairman is"
 * About 120,000 results "a chairperson is"


 * About 3,300,000 results "the chairman is"
 * About 349,000 results " the chairperson is"
 * I'm thinking the case is not made to move from chairman. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (EC) So is Association football. I bet most people in England have heard of Soccer than that name. But we use it anyways as it has substantial authoritative support and sometimes you just have to pick the best out of several unappealing options. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Implementation
Perhaps this is a bit premature, but if the article is moved to "chairperson", would there be an objection to using "chair", instead, in the body of the article? "Chair" seems like the most common gender neutral term, and if "chairperson" wins out it would only be to avoid a parenthetical. Mockup:

Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the best way to handle it if the article is moved to "chairperson". However, I still think chair is more widely used now to sufficient degree that chair disambiguated with parens is preferable to the "natural" chairman or chairperson. I think people are recognizing that chairperson is typically only used when the chair is female and that those who use it still use chairman to refer to a male chair.  So more and more are just reverting to the use of chair and rejecting chairman/chairperson usage.  I think this article should reflect this by using Chair (disambiguated) as the title. --В²C ☎ 19:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that a US or global thing? I've been the chairperson of an organisation - and that was the formal title regardless of the holder's gender. A quick glance at Google News brings up the following examples of men referred to as "chairperson" in various countries including Zimbabwe, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Pakistan, Australia, India, Kenya, Rwanda, plus the transnational African Union (see also the name plate here), and, in English language media from countries without English as an official language, Finland. However the only US hit was for a student newspaper. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you manage to get consensus on "Chairperson", the supporters will expect that to be the primary term in the article. And what is the objection to a dab form of "Chair"? Jmar67 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The objection to Chair (role) that has been given is that it's better to use a title without a parenthetical disambiguation if possible. However, there's another reason I'm currently leaning towards Chairperson that I haven't mentioned: I think it's a little easier to parse. Role is not a common disambiguation word on Wikipedia, and personally when I see the word role my first thought is to acting. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 20:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it an "objection" because I'm fine with Chair as an alternative to Chairperson, but the reasons I prefer Chairperson over Chair (dab) are: 1) the reasons stated in WP:NATURAL, 2) "Chairperson" will pop up as a suggested result when people type in "Chair" and they'll know what kind of chair this article is about (people not furniture), and 3) any (dab) has problems. Chair (officer) is an inaccurate choice because board chairs are not officers, at least of US corporations. Chair (position) and chair (role) each fail to capture the other–"chair" (or "chairman" or "chairperson", if you prefer) can be a role, a position, or both. "Board Chair" is a position in a company, but also a role when they're chairing the Annual Meeting. But if the Board Chair is not available for the Annual Meeting, someone else, who is not the Board Chair, will be chairing the meeting, and will thus be a Chair (role) but not the Chair (position). Conversely, the Chair of the University's English Department is a Chair (position), but probably little of their job involves being a Chair (role). A subcommittee chair might be a Chair (role) (for an ad-hoc committee) or a Chair (position) (for a permanent committee). For these reasons, I feel that Chairperson accomplishes the goal (titling the article in a disambiguous way) without introducing the role/position/officer complications. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with ruling out "chair" simply because a dab is needed. If "chair" gets consensus as the best term, some dab is required. There are other potential alternatives to "role", such as "office", "office of authority", "officeholder". I originally suggested "role" in the interest of recasting the article to describe the function rather than the position title, and "role" seemed to be a reasonable choice. Jmar67 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even non-supporters would expect the term to be used throughout. That's what we do at Wikipedia. If the preferred consensus is "chairperson" then that's what the article should use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Except when the title is a NATURAL disambiguation compromise because the COMMONNAME is unavailable without disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 20:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then there would be no reason for a move and you could do the same with chairman. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Chairman is also NATURAL disambiguation of the COMMONNAME for this article, which is Chair, and is inferior to Chairperson. --В²C ☎ 21:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is simply a matter of opinion. Chairman is what I hear and use most often in the business world regardless of sex. Chairperson is barely a blip in my travels. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For my part I think Wanda's suggestion would be fine. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This section is off topic, premature, and irrelevant to the article naming discussion. -- Netoholic @ 00:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * True, right now it looks like no move is the likely outcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.

Requested move 17 April 2019
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved and speedy closed. The last move request was closed yesterday, and is currently at move review. It is too early for this to be opened. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Chairman → Chairperson – Per the previous closed discussion, most voices wanted either Chairman or Chairperson as their first choice. In review there are multiple style guides that prefer Chairman and tell us the term is gender-neutral, some sources even using Mr. or Madam Chairman in formal settings. There are also multiple style guides that tell us to use Chairperson or other terms, and that Chairman is not gender neutral. Both these versions Chairman/Chairperson can be supported ad-infinitum in searches. Both these versions can find support in Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and essays. It just depends on who is reading the text as to how it's interpreted. An RM had no consensus (twice) when given multiple choices rather than two choices. The bottom line for this RM is simple: what do we want here for the title in our encyclopedia, and likely for main use in prose throughout the article? Chairman or Chairperson? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Requested move 17 April 2019)

 * Oppose - as nominator. In real world use I find Chairman to be the most natural, the most used, and gender neutral term. Though I would usually use the chairman's first name at board meetings, formally Mr or Madam Chairman is preferred (unless another moniker is specifically asked for). I'm aware that some terms such as policeman have tended to be replaced by police officer, but others have not such as layman, master craftsman, marksman, etc. I find Chairman fits more into the latter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close as this option was amply-considered above and I think we need to take a break from this. --Netoholic @ 23:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. This "request" was immediately opposed by the nominator, which is enough reason to throw it out, as the nominator themself does not want the move to take place.  ONR  (talk)  23:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you never seen an RM opposed by the nominator? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When there are already reasons to oppose that are unrelated to the nominator, it being opposed by the nominator is relevant.  ONR  (talk)  03:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy close (disruption). This was just closed above, and is currently at MRV.  This new move request, immediately following, and in parallel with the review, is disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy close (disruption). This was just closed above, and is currently at MRV.  This new move request, immediately following, and in parallel with the review, is disruptive.  I already closed this discussion accordingly, but the nom, who opposes their own proposal, reopened it. ——В²C ☎ 05:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I mentioned in the discussion section, if an administrator feels this should be speedily closed I have no issues with that at all. I did have an issue with someone deeply involved in the topic speedily closing this, and I mentioned this in our discussion on my talk page. It was not meant as any kind of disruption, it was to bring some closure to the RM by narrowing the choice to two. We've had two closures, one reverted, and now a move review... all under four or more choices. By having two choices only, I thought we could better scope the situation. I am against the move but that isn't going to stop me from bringing a choice to our fellow editors to come to a better conclusion. It may not go my way, but I don't care about that. I can live with the article being at chairperson even if I think it's a poor choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning your initial intent. It was just too soon. But if by now you don’t see how and why this is inappropriate and disruptive, I can’t help you. I think the fact that you would have no issues with an admin closure now speaks volumes too. Listen to that inner voice; don’t ignore it. Close this now. —В²C ☎ 06:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)close this now
 * If an administrator feels it is worthy of a speedy close, I have no problem with their decision. I have always maintained that. I don't think it should be as I feel it helps after what some have construed to be a controversial closure. My inner voice is just fine with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Far too soon after the last request.  Calidum   17:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest administrative action against the intentionally disruptive work here of this nominating editor. What a disgusting waste of our time & attention! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. Having this open while the move review from the previous move discussion is ongoing is disruptive and distracting. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

- Note - seeing everyone has opposed the RM in one way or the other, I asked for a speedy close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Requested move 17 April 2019)
This has been discussed ad nauseum above and the discussion finally closed. Reopening it here is simply an attempt to wear down opposition until people die of mental exhaustion. Close the requested move for at least six months. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The closer has refused to self-revert despite reasonable concerns from several editors on their talk page, and said "Feel free to re-request the move, perhaps with a more specific proposed title, at the timeframe of your choosing." While I think it may be premature to restart this before the inevitable move review concludes, the discussion was clearly active and ongoing, and IMO approaching a consensus for chairperson, when it was closed. It is equally premature to say that no consensus would be the enduring result and that we should table it for six months. Safrolic (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will leave it up yo administration on whether this is premature. It seemed obvious to me that Chairman and Chairperson were the dominant choices in the multi-choice fiasco above. My god we even had a ranking choice as if we were voting rather than giving the strongest argument for a closer to deal with. With the above debate being closed twice as no consensus among four or more choices, and a potential messy move review at hand, I thought one final "two choice only" debate was the best we could do. While, as the nominator, I prefer we stick with Chairman (as it's what's required of me in the outside world), if it moves to Chairperson here at wikipedia I don't really care. I do care that it goes through a proper process and that we finish this thing once and for all (or at least for a couple years at least). Move reviews are always messy with feelings hurt on both sides. This seemed like an easy fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.

No consensus? Close questioned.
I have questioned the above "no consensus" close at the closer's talk page: User_talk:Red_Slash.

--В²C ☎ 17:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty soon is gonna quit          Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  00:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of "Neutrality" template
A Neutrality (meaning NPOV) template was added to the article by this edit. My impression is that the current discussion on using the word "chair" in the article concerns gender neutrality. Is the template appropriate? Is there a similar template for gender neutrality issues? Jmar67 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than the question of Chairman vs Chairperson etc I don't see what is claimed to be in dispute. Tag removed.  The editor who feels the tag is needed should make their case here first.  Springee (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the tag. The article is not neutral. It pushes the "chairman" issue hard, and the sources are out of date, e.g "A 1994 Canadian study found ..." Who cares what a 1994 study found? SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely neutrality issues that need to be resolved. The text "Companies with both an executive chairman and a CEO include Ford,[44] HSBC,[45] Alphabet Inc.,[46] HP,[47] and Apple.[48]" is sourced entirely to primary sources, which is WP:OR that appears to push a POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an issue of sourcing, not NPOV. If changing between two synonyms addressed the issue then this was never a NPOV question. Springee (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need some sort of concrete example of this non-neutral material. If changing from "chairman" to "chairperson" fixes the NPOV issue then we don't have a NPOV issue. We would have a NPOV issue if the article put effort into arguing that people who push for Chairperson vs Chairman or the reverse are wrong. I think the editor who placed the NPOV tag should have posted a talk section explaining its inclusion. If an editor places that type of tag and can't support it, it should be removed. Springee (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the editors who placed or restored the tag, but the NPOV problems I see in the article currently are that the Terminology section covers the chairman/chair/chairperson issue in an undue way, the Roles and responsibilities section has a low-quality photograph that I think was added primarily because it's an example of a woman using the title "chairman", the Public corporations and Vice chairman sections lists only examples of men in the position, and almost the entire article uses "chairman" even when the sources use some other term. In all, the whole article reads to me like it was written to defend the article title being "chairman". In addition, it may be US-centric, there are non-NPOV problems like unsourced sections, and it could use reorganization and expansion. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The picture problem can be rectified and doesn't need a full article tag. The second issue, using a specific synonym isn't a NPOV issue even if the source doesn't use the exact term.  Are you going to argue that if the title changes it will be a NPOV issue if we change the various examples of "Chairman" to "Chairperson"?  The specific question of changing examples of chairman to something else was addressed above and consensus was clearly to use the title word throughout the article.  Sorry, the justification for the tag seems to be based in nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs any part of WP:NPOV.  Springee (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More than one of us has pointed out POV issues. How about solving them  removing the tag? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They aren't POV issues. Chairman is a neutral word.  Changing it to Chairperson doesn't change the meaning of the sentence so it doesn't change the neutrality of the article.  This is basically an abuse of the NPOV tag.  Which of these NPOV issues are we dealing with? Neutral_point_of_view  I don't see the article stating opinion as fact.  I don't see the article stating contested assertions as fact.  I don't see the article stating facts as opinions.  I don't see the article using judgmental language.  I don't see the article creating a false balance between opposing points of view.  So where is the NPOV issue?  We had a discussion above regarding changing Chairman to other terms in the body of the article and consensus clearly was against that change assuming the current article title.  The editor who placed the tag has yet to weigh in.  This is really poor form to keep the tag in place if changing a synonym is all that is needed to fix the issue.  Imagine if a person placed a NPOV tag on an article about a particular type of automobile because they felt "car" was the better word.  That is what we are seeing here. Springee (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Springee: "They aren't POV issues. Chairman is a neutral word."—the concern I raised was not "chairman is a non-neutral word", so why is this your response to me? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!
 * The wording of the template is vague in that it does not refer specifically to NPOV. The template could be replaced with a hatnote referring to gender neutrality. Jmar67 (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this tag may be more appropriate.


 * The issue I see is cherry-picking of sources, examples, and too much focus on #Public corporations. While there is almost no mention of how governmental bodies and non-profit organizations define the role. Almost every person linked is a white male. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanding the examples in the non-corporate world is fine. I don't think the article needs a tag for that, just be bold and fix things.  I'm not at all sure you are making a good argument since the subject of the article is not inherently race or gender based hence I don't see why the mention of "white males" is relevant.  Does the role of say the chairman of a company or university department chair change if the person in that position changes from/to a white male to/from a non-white (and/or) female?  Anyway, rather than adding the questionable tag, add more examples and examples outside of the corporate world.  It might be of interest to add some history of the term and it's use.  Springee (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When almost every example we give for a chairperson is a white male, the reader gets the false impression that all chairpersons are white and male. This is an accusation I levy against the article and is separate from the discussion about the title of the article. As for editing the article and being bold, trust me I will. I am going to wait till this all dies down. In the mean time, the tag is there to alert the reader that this article does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to address the claim that 'Chairman is a neutral word'. In nearly every usage search that I've done, Chairman appears as an example of problematic language.  For instance, in Chicago Manual of Style.  The usage pattern of chairman in google books shows that its usage has dropped by nearly 2/3s since 1970, coinciding with the advent of usage guidelines recommending more neutral terminology.  The waters are a bit muddy because the context is important. Style guidelines for generic titles are distinct from the style recommendations for titles for individuals. Chairman of the Board is a common generic position title, and Chairman is the proper title in parliamentary usage, while the style guidelines recommend respecting the individual's preference when using the title for a specific person.  A look at the US House of Representatives and Senate website shows that the usage of chairman as a title for individuals is inconsistent and probably based on their individual preference. A news search on Janet Yellen showed references overwhelmingly used the term chair.  Again, most likely a reflection of her preference. —IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The AP style guide apparently used to prohibit "chairwoman" all together, but now it actually endorses chairwoman even if woman's actual preference is chairman. The fact that we have a widely accepted gender neutral term and a widely accepted term for women and men makes it really implausible to say that this is a genderless term. Nblund talk 15:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Chairperson is not "widely" accepted is an alternative to the neutral use of chairman. Real-world business and political usage is actually very minimal no matter what some style guides tell us. Chairman is what I almost always hear. I have heard chairwoman and chair used. I honestly can't recall anyone ever using chairperson. Of course all terms usually take a back seat to the chairman's first name. So one can say that in written text, it is minimally common to see "chairperson", "chairman" is far more common. Using the term "widely" seems an exaggeration. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're conflating acceptance with use. I can see a case for saying that "chairman" is more widely used, but "chair", "chairwoman" and "chairperson" are all recognized and accepted as grammatical, making "chairman" sound even more gendered and imprecise for this article. The AP style guide, which tends to be relatively slow on these things, now accepts chairperson and obligates "chairwoman" for female chairs. Naturally, "chairman" is common, in part, because there are a lot of men who are chairs of things so that's not especially informative here. At best it's sort of like saying "man" is more common than "woman" or "human".  Nblund talk 03:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * AP still says to use Chairman, and says to use Chairwoman if it's a woman. It says you can use chairperson and chair if the organization demands it. That's far from widely accepted. They still say to use chairmanship, not chairpersonship. Now, there are plenty of titles here at wikipedia that don't use the common spelling or even close to it. That may happen here also, and so be it if it does. I have no issue with a fair consensus being different than my own usage. But chairperson is a minor term not much used in the real world, and I'll bet it stays that way for quite awhile (if not forever). To say it's a "widely accepted term for women and men" (especially men!) is really stretching the truth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think "accepted" means. My grocery accepts personal checks, it doesn't mean that they prefer or demand them. To be clear: I was saying that "chairperson" is a widely accepted gender neutral term, and that "chairwoman" and "chairman" are accepted for women and men, respectively. The AP says that chairman should be used for men. It does not say that women should be called "chairman". So there's a male version and a female version. There is also an un-gendered version that has been "accepted as standard English" according to reliable sources like the OED. Nblund talk 04:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually both chairperson and chairman have been accepted as neutral. But there is a difference of acceptance by the grammar police as opposed to being accepted by those living in the English speaking world. I will use the term "stocky" even though "pyknic" is "accepted as standard English." Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that's stretching the truth. I don't want to just copy-paste the discussion above, but most of the style guides specifically recommend against applying "chairman" for women (AP) or outright recommend against using it as gender neutral (Chicago) altogether. I actually haven't come across any contemporary language manual that recommends chairman as gender neutral. At best, chairman has a gendered and a non-gendered implication. So why would we use an imprecise and potentially misleading term when we have a perfectly acceptable alternative that avoids ambiguity? Nblund talk 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see that is stretching anything.  He's clearly making a distinction between the grammar police with their style guides and ordinary people who just live their lives thinking, speaking and reading English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misreading, but I understood the sentence beginning with "Actually" to imply that they were directly disagreeing with my contention that the grammar police view chairman as gendered. If the argument is simply "grammar police say it's gendered, but ordinary people don't", I'm not sure that's true either: "chairman" may be common in cases where the a chair is a man, but I'm not sure it's a common address for female chairs. I usually hear "chair" or "chairwoman" in those cases, and C-Span transcripts suggest that "Madam chair" is far more common than "Madam chairman", particularly in the last decade. In any case: Wikipedia is written in "plain English", but not vernacular English, and I haven't seen anyone offer a reason to eschew "chair" or "chairperson" when a gender is truly unknown. Why would we use a term that is potentially gendered when we have another term that avoids that problem? Nblund talk 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say that whilst I think this is a misuse there are users who are saying this article is pushing a POV in violation of policy, and we must respect that. But at the same time I do not think they have made a good case here. So I think taking this to DR might be the best option.Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Could someone who supports the Too few opinions tag succinctly explain the reason for it's use here? I originally, and perhaps mistakenly, assumed the issue was the use of "Chairman" vs other terms in the article and thus my assumption was the editors would have agreed to remove the tag if, for example, we replaced "chairman" with "chairperson". However, I was told that wasn't correct. So what is correct and is anyone actually trying to resist that change? Springee (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)