User talk:Giraffedata/comprised of/Archive 2

ESL and 'comprised of'
Hey- I was really fascinated to glance at some of the points in your page concerning the use of 'comprised of'. On that page, do you address quotations of people for whom English is not a mother tongue that include the wording 'comprised of'? I didn't see your thoughts on this issue at a glance. I 'reverted' the edit you made to Dadeng Subdistrict but I did add a 'sic' template (a template that I had only heard of through looking at your 'comprised of' page). You are doing some interesting work here. Let me know what you think on this particular facet of the 'comprised of' issue. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you said some people support your work in this area and some don't. I don't know whether or not I really support your work, but I do recognize an amazing drive in the pursuit of excellence. That is an awesome thing to behold. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is only a small fringe of people who actually oppose the work (i.e. would like me to stop), though there are quite a few people who think it is a waste of time.  And lots and lots who are thankful I am doing it.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do address quotations in general (I guess you know this because it's where you would have seen the sic template) and point out that a case can be made that it's not fair to people to quote their mistakes, unless you're trying to make a point about their language. I learned that from my father, a professional writer, who objected to someone quoting Jackie Chan literally, because it made Chan look like an idiot when all he was was a non-native speaker of English.  (And I also note that Wikipedia has a faithful quotation rule, which means as Wikipedia editors, we don't subscribe to that view).
 * But I really don't think "comprised of" is a common thing for a non-native speaker to say. It's something people say because they've actually seen and heard it, not a result of pidgin (applying the grammar of one language to another).  I would frankly expect "comprised of" to be less common among non-native speakers, since a) they are more likely to be using logic instead of mimicry to compose their sentences; and b) when you translate comprise literally into other languages, particularly romance languages where the translation looks like the same word, you get a word that is never used in the backward sense.  That happens only in English.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: I just found five instances of 'degrees' being mistyped as 'degress' in Wikipedia (see my contributions). I think there were more. This is another problem that I think you might interested in. I don't think people are intentionally making this mistake- I think they are typing too fast and accidentally press the 's' twice- that's what happened to me when I discovered this seemingly semi-frequent error. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right about where "degress" comes from . And I think there are more such errors in Wikipedia, and more people fixing them, than you think.  There are more than 50,000 common mistakes (including typos such as "degress" as well as mistaken spelling, grammar, and word usage) listed at Common misspellings.  "Degress" wasn't there, but I have added it.  And there are hundreds of Wikignomes like me on the job, scanning Wikipedia for these things and fixing them.  I decided to limit myself to misuses of "comprise" because I knew I had to set a boundary on my Wikipedia commitment somewhere.  Most Wikignomes like to spread their work around and set their boundaries in other ways.  Maybe you would like to assume the mission of keeping "degress" (and maybe a few other mistakes from the D list while you're at it) out of Wikipedia.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Tour Championship lead section
Have you read this Collins dictionary page? According to their description, both forms are becoming acceptable. Do you agree that there's a difference between "comprise" as a verb, e.g. the group comprises 8 members, and "comprised of" as an attributive term, e.g. the group is comprised of 8 members? I would argue that 'of' after the verb form is incorrect, e.g. the group comprises of 8 members. However, even the Collins dictionary makes use of this form in its examples.

You made a change to 2019 Tour Championship, which we're currently getting ready for FA nomination. I reverted your change as I think the alternative "consisted of" sounds awkward. But I fear your edits are carried out by a bot so you will likely come round again and change once more. As a compromise I will use the verb form of 'comprise' without the 'of'. Best wishes. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:Rodney Baggins: Yes, I have read all the dictionaries and all the major style guides. Nearly all of them state that "comprised of" is often used to mean "composed of" or "consists of" and its acceptability has been increasing.  But they also say it is not as of today fully accepted, while "consists of", "comprises", and various other substitutes are.  In fact, there is plenty of evidence that many Wikipedia readers consider "comprised of" just plain wrong.  Hence, it makes sense to use alternatives in Wikipedia.
 * Though I've heard from many people over the years who don't think changing "is comprised of" to "consists of" is an improvement, I believe you're the first one to say "consists of" is more awkward. Dictionaries say that's one of the things "is comprised of" means.  But it's true that people mean various things when they write "comprised of" and it may be that "consists of" isn't precisely what you want this sentence to say.  I see you prefer "comprises", which to me isn't as good as "consists of" for the following reason.
 * Through my work on "comprised of", I actually see many instances of this same usage in Wikipedia: a championship is comprised of [list of competitors]. A championship is not a set of competitors.  The set of competitors is an essential property of the championship to be sure, but the championship is also the set of matches, judges, dates, venues, etc.  So I actually prefer not to use any synonym of "comprised of" there, and say something more precise like, "the championship was played between".  But since the author of "comprised of" may understand the use of the "xxx Championship" proper name better than I do, I am often conservative, as in this case, and stick with some synonym of "comprised of".  Among those, "consists of" has the distinction that it is the fuzziest.  "Consists of" is a fuzzy "is".  While the set of competitors may not be the championship, they're one way of looking at it.  But "comprises" is a term that precisely indicates collection.  I might say the field of competitors in the championship comprises competitors A, B, and C, but not that the championship itself does.
 * Nonetheless, "comprises" passes the grammar test (for everyone, not just the young people and grammar liberals), so I appreciate your compromise and I will not be changing it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me on this. I think the reason "consists of" sounds awkward in the context of our snooker article is precisely because that is not what we want this sentence to say! So I think you've hit the nail on the head! The championship does not literally consist of the players, they are just the pool of participants, i.e. they make up the "draw" for the competition. So we need to change the wording to make that clear: "The draw for the Tour Championship comprised the top eight players" maybe? I'll put it to the nominator and see what he says. So thank you for helping me to identify a fundamental flaw there!
 * My personal bug bear in the English language is misuse of the apostrophe, particularly the it's contraction where it is used incorrectly as the third person singular possessive pronoun. I pick them up occasionally on my travels, but what I'd really like to do is set up a bot that seeks them out for me. I would need to make the correction manually, because there is the possibility that the it's is actually being used as a contraction to represent the two words it is (or it has), which whilst perfectly acceptable in English, is in fact not recommended for formal encyclopedic writing. Would you be able to help me with that? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style specifically says not to use contractions, so it should be as easy as eliminating all "it's" from the encyclopedia. Except for the quotation problem.  I did a search for "it's" and the first 200 results were all quotations of titles of things (such as the movie title "It's a Wonderful Life").  There are thousands of those.  I don't know any way to pick out the non-quoted instances (but it would sure be a boon to copyediting if there were a way).  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting read!
This was quite interesting and informative! Thanks! — MarkH21talk 03:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Íllar edit - thanks for the interesting read!
Hello!

You edited my use of 'is comprised of' on Íllar, which led me to your essay. I wasn't previously aware of how new this particular usage was and haven't come across, or at least not noticed, the 'the whole comprises its parts' usage in contemporary writing, so thank you for the read and the information!

I agree with your arguments re: clarity and finding language that is, as much as possible, universally accepted for Wikipedia's very wide audience. This is certainly the kind of consideration I'd expect from a grammatically opinionated manual of style or any widely distributed publication, even if it goes against any given writer's personal use of language in personal or less formal written communications. I admittedly disagree on some points made on this Talk page, if taken on a global scope of language, but the approach of avoiding ambiguity (in meaning or in acceptability) in the Wikipedia scope is highly reasonable.

I admit that my initial reaction is an association to previous experiences with single-user efforts that are, well, less well thought-out and less civil than yours. I would have liked to see a formalisation of this discussion and decision in WP:MOS, if only it covered grammar—ah, well.

Cheers,

Laogeodritt [ Talk 21:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I am definitely not the only wikignome attacking suboptimal use of "comprise", though the others probably get discouraged pretty quickly because all they find after I'm done is quotations.
 * I wish WP:MOS would cover word usage like this; it seems like a natural thing for an MOS to do, and for other publications, it usually does. It would also resolve an issue I see come up a lot (with respect to words other than comprise) where people argue that a Wikipedia article should use a word the same way as a source for the article, which is not how sourcing works.  Wikipedia has its own language.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I learnt something new, thanks.
I've used 'comprised of' for as long as I can remember. Thanks to you I've marginally improved my grammar. Keep at it :)  Debit pixie 💬 12:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you see it that way. For many people, "I've used X for as long as I can remember" is followed by, "It sounds fine to me; the grammar perfectionists will just have to get used to it."
 * I personally appreciate finding out about things I've been using all my life that I shouldn't, and it happens regularly. People tend to share those with me because of my work on Wikipedia.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
You, sir, are doing God's work. I hate seeing "comprised of" show up in an otherwise enjoyable article—it just ruins it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.208.102 (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Missed one ;)
But it's ok, I credited you in the edit summary at Andrii_Derkach. :) Keep up the good work!  Despayre  tête-à-tête 22:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That one actually uses "comprise" in its primary, undisputed meaning: the whole comprises the parts. It said "a media company comprising four newspapers".  The disputed usage would be backwards: "four newspapers comprising a media company" or "a media company comprised of four newspapers."
 * You changed it to "a media company consisting of four newspapers", which is also undisputedly good, and probably better since "consisting of" is much more common than "comprising" and because "comprise" is poorly understood enough that it makes sense just to avoid it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Prescriptivism
Hi G. Just a quick line re. your project to edit "comprised of" out of wikipedia. I occasionally use this phrase, and see nothing wrong with it, so if you edit it in my contributions I will revert (as I have with your recent edit on Romani people in Romania). I disagree with your project, but I'm not going to follow you round reverting, so no need to worry about that.

I'm more interested in knowing why you feel so strongly about this. I have seen your reasoning, and it is obvious you have thought about it a lot, so you must have come across the linguistic concepts of prescriptivism and descriptivism. Obviously, I am a descriptivist and I have studied where the rules which prescriptivists apply come from, generally simple preference justified post hoc or a reaction to changing usage. Therefore, I usually ignore them and follow my own judgment on what constitutes the standard usage of educated speakers. But as a prescriptivist, what is it that gives you a passion for correcting this particular phrase? Why do you feel so moved by it that you invest such a large amount of your time in eliminating it? What do you feel the consequences would be if you just stopped?

I hope you don't mind me asking those questions, they are genuine ones that I would like to know the answer to, rather than rhetorical attempts to show you "the error of your ways". I've no desire to stop you, although I think what you are doing is based on harmful assumptions about the world, I don't think you are doing anybody any harm. Folk can just do what they want, as my nan used to say. Anyway, all the best for Easter, hope to hear from you. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think I feel as strongly about this as you think. I spend relatively little time on this.  There are lots of people who spend much more time editing Wikipedia, even copy editing Wikipedia, than I do.  I am unusual in that I limit my work to this one phrase, but that's because I have to set limits or it will take over my life.  There are thousands of phrasings (and spellings) that some people consider poor writing (Lists of common misspellings); there's no limit to how much of my time it could take.  I was well aware of the objection to "comprised of" when I first encountered it in Wikipedia, so corrected it then just as a matter of course, but then out of curiosity I searched the rest of Wikipedia and found it common, so decided to do my part by fixing a bunch of them, and then just kept going.  Few people have the patience to do a task so tedious, so other copy editors normally mix it up.  But I find it more comfortable to specialize.  I know a tremendous amount about "comprise" by now and can edit sentences that use it effortlessly.
 * What you're describing in yourself is not descriptivism, by the way, it is prescriptivism, but using a different, newer prescriptive grammar than I do. If you changed whatever I wrote to "comprised of", it is apparently because you believe "comprised of" is the proper wording for that sentence, and I got it wrong.  We follow different rules for the appropriate use of the word "comprise", yours giving more weight to current popularity than mine.  Descriptivism is a belief that it's more important to describe how people write than to prescribe how they should.  Or just preferring to do that yourself.  Here, you're not describing how people write.  If you did, you might  point out that while in general, people frequently use "comprise" in a "compose" sense, in certain domains they never do because the writers were specifically taught not to.
 * A descriptive grammarian would tell us that people often write "your" to mean "you are", but when asked for a prescription would mostly likely tell people to use "you're" instead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the full answer, appreciated. I would suggest that you misunderstand descriptive grammar. Descriptivism does not imply a free-for-all, it seeks to describe the situation as it exists rather than how it "should" be. Sociolinguistic factors such as attitudes to language and what is considered acceptable by speakers in practice are very much included in this. In this case, a descriptivist would agree that a variant we might term "High Register Written Standard English" exists, and then observe how it is used in practice. The uses of "comprised of" which you object to are very much part of that variant in practice, no matter what some style guides say, whereas "your" or "you're" for "you are", or "icky" for "distasteful" are not. Thanks again for satisfying my curiosity. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that. You just seemed originally to be using descriptivism to refer to a belief about how people should speak -- in particular the belief that they should speak the way everyone actually does speak, rather than according to some rule book.  Many people use the term that way, but as you're agreeing now, descriptivism is not a belief about how people should speak.  Anyone who takes a descriptive grammar and says, "All Wikipedia articles should follow this grammar" is being a prescriptivist.
 * I don't know an "ism" word that describes whether you put more or less weight on common usage in deciding what usage is best. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue (talk) makes a lot of sense here, and I only just now became aware of this one-man crusade. As Boynamedsue pointed out, the usages that you're changing don't need to be changed, as they're considered proper usage among both prescriptive and descriptive adherents. I would suggest that you leave it alone, but I'm sure that would be a futile request. In any case, much like Boynamedsue, I'm not going to run around reverting your edits, but I would ask that you consider whether or not your entire project is serving to make Wikipedia better, or just serving some personal need. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But you seem to be missing the fact that millions of people don't consider it proper usage. This is easy to see by reading style guides, dictionaries, and messages on this talk page and my personal talk page, not to mention comparing prevalence of the phrase to that of its alternatives in common English usage.  Given that there are alternatives every bit as good that are in fact accepted by everyone, it makes plenty of sense to avoid it, and no sense whatsoever to change back to it from one of those alternatives.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true at all. I'm not missing anything. You're making that up. It may be that "millions" of people don't consider it proper usage (I don't know where you got that number but it sounds like original research), but that doesn't change the fact that more linguistics experts consider it proper usage than don't. It makes no sense to avoid it all, as it's purely a matter of opinion at this point. Benicio2020 (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At least we can agree that it's all a matter of opinion, but I can't see how that changes anything.
 * If you think linguistics experts issue judgments on what is factually proper English usage, you're misreading them. Linguistics experts qua linguistics experts don't make such proclamations.  Linguists are scientists and deal in knowledge.  A linguist will give you information, like that "comprised of" is considered proper usage by a majority of the billion speakers of English, but that a vocal and tenacious minority consider it improper.  They might also tell you that history, etymology, logic, and utility argue against its being proper while popularity argues for it -- all things writers and policy makers can use in developing their opinions of whether or not it's proper usage.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"Illogical"
I take (a minute) issue with "It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things." Contronyms are commonly used in everyday English. For example:


 * Dust (to cover with or remove something)
 * Off (something is or is not working)
 * Oversight (to miss a detail or to inspect closely)
 * Fast (to hold fast without movement or to move quickly)
 * Screen (to hide or display something)
 * Sanction (to approve or punish)

My own opinion of "comprised of" aside, it's slightly flawed to argue against a word or term that is used in contradictory ways. — MouldyFox (talk)  08:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I know this basic argument (mentioned in my essay, referring to "autoantonyms"), and there are actually even more basic, and thus illogical, contronyms than your examples. Furthermore, there's no reason to limit the argument to contronyms, because illogical construction abounds in accepted English.  Ice tea should be made by steeping ice, shouldn't it?  And how does "try and do it" make any sense?  But the fact that there are other words used illogically shouldn't really change one's approach to comprise.  It's basically the same argument as that it's OK to throw a popsicle stick on the ground in a park because there are already popsicle sticks on the ground thrown there by other people.  I guess there's something to that, but I say we should avoid using or promoting contronyms where we can, and it's really easy with comprise, since one of the senses isn't even fully accepted anyway.


 * I could go further and say even if the commonness of autoantonyms in English mutes the argument that it is illogical for comprise to be one, I find comprise to be unlike all the others. The Wikipedia article on contronyms lists lots of them, and I went through it once and could not find one where the senses were opposite in the same sense as using comprise to mean compose, i.e. reversing agent and object.  "Rent" is a contronym so that if Bob rents a house, Bob could be either the landlord or the tenant, but if the word followed the spirit of comprised of, Bob could also be the property.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Rename this page: WikiProject Annoy People For No Reason
This silly nonsense is a great way to annoy people for no reason. I could understand if you were actually going around fixing people's grammatical mistakes, but this is not even a mistake. It's common usage. If you don't like it, then I suggest you WP:GETOVERIT. "Fixing" this on every Wikipedia page is incredibly pretentious, and I think people have a right to get annoyed with you for this; forcing your perspective across all of Wikipedia is rude and arrogant. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'd like to know is what is annoying about this? I've definitely run into a number of people over the years who seem mightily annoyed, but I can never understand why.  I get that lots of people have no objection to "comprise" used to mean "compose", but how is it annoying that other people do? If you don't think these edits improve Wikipedia, can't you just smile and ignore it and let the rest of us amuse ourselves?  It would seem you take Wikipedia articles more personally than you're supposed to.  You don't own a Wikipedia article; we all do.  You can't get annoyed because someone else wants the article to read differently than you do.
 * By the way, this is not my personal perspective. It is a perspective widely held throughout the English speaking world.  There are references in this essay (also look at the talk page for this essay and my personal talk page) - plenty of other people believe it's an improvement to a Wikipedia article to use a word other than "comprise" for compose or constitute.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I suspect people find this annoying because they find prescriptivism annoying. VineFynn (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, probably. But that kind of begs the question.  But maybe I understand after all why someone would be annoyed to be reminded that prescriptivism exists, because I get a little irritated whenever I see someone wash dishes before putting them in the dishwasher.  It doesn't affect me, but because I believe it's the wrong way to do dishes, it gets under my skin a little that someone thinks differently.
 * By the way, I know by "prescriptivism" you mean the belief that writers should follow certain rules of grammar even when those aren't the rules people usually follow. I make this clarification because that's not technically what prescriptivism is.  As the word was coined, by linguists, prescriptivism is the belief that linguists should study prescriptive grammars more than descriptive grammars.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, palpable irony aside, no doubt you would find plenty of descriptivist linguists who disagree on that point. VineFynn (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support, but please be careful not to edit quotes
Thanks for your edit to the article on hapū, but you corrected a quote, which you can't do. I generally support you wholeheartedly in your endeavour, though. —Hugh (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. Thanks for pointing out that error.  I have tagged the quote with a hidden sic tag to make sure this doesn't happen again.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Giraffedata, thanks; I had thought about adding a sic tag but didn't bother in the end. Cheers. —Hugh (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * And I changed another "comprised of" in the body of the article where it is not a quotation. —Tamfang (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

part of a larger pattern
comprise and compose are not the only pair of reciprocals in which confusion is common. I have been asked (by a non-native), "Can you borrow me five francs?" (and made the same mistake once myself in French).

"The cost is worth the benefit" is disturbingly frequent. (One generally wants the cost to be less than the benefit.) —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems like I've heard that French borrow/lend thing before. Not sure why, since French seems to have words just as separate as English has for lend and borrow.  Except that in French, you confusingly borrow "to" someone where in English you would borrow "from".  So maybe French people mix the two up in French as well?


 * In any case, it's a clear indication of how the brain processes language: the direction of the action is just a property of the action, not part of its fundamental identity. Given that, it's not surprising that people with a less grammatical mind can look past the auxiliary words, inflections, and word order and see "the whole comprises the parts" as the same thing as "the whole is comprised of the parts".  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

An email I sent to Giraffedata several months ago.
What follows is an email I sent to User:Giraffedata several months ago which was ignored:

Does it at all bother you that the overwhelming majority of academic linguists do not share your extremely draconian prescriptivist philosophy?

This is especially ironic in light of this quote from your essay:

"Nonetheless, people today learn language by copying it more than by studying linguistics,"

This is a breathtakingly silly thing to say for multiple reasons.

Firstly, infants do not learn language by attending university lectures on syntax and grammar. They literally learn it only by imitation. The rules of a language are created by the emergent behavior of all of the speakers of that language agreeing on symbols and syntax to represent thoughts. The only thing that matters here is whether or not someone is understood by their intended audience. As a result of the emergent nature of language, it is subject to change. Your assertion that this phrase used to have a different meaning is irrelevant given the way many words have drastically changed meaning over the centuries. I am acutely aware of this as a student of Latin. Many words in Latin resemble English words descended from them but their meaning has diverged drastically over the centuries. And yet the Earth continues to spin, society doesn't collapse. Why? Because everyone alive today speaking English knows the intent of these words in Anno Domini MMXXI. You've essentially devoted years of your life to an etymological fallacy.

But on top of all that, that quote also betrays your ignorance of what linguistics even is. It's the study of language as it is, not as it ought to be. As a non-linguist, I can only say so much about this matter outside of my field, but I at least have enough of an understanding of the prevailing attitudes among those who study language for a living that I know your opinions aren't shared by them. As evidence to this, I submit to you this thread on the subreddit "Bad Linguistics", a forum largely frequented by people who studied linguistics in college:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badlinguistics/comments/orwnjb/comprised_of_is_an_unacceptable_grammatical_error/

Very very few people who know anything about the nuts and bolts of language support your efforts. And yes, I realize that the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism is probably something you're already aware of, and I'm sure you've justified your efforts by telling yourself this is all part of enforcing a style guide on Wikipedia. While I do agree that prescriptive style guides are acceptable in a context such as an encyclopedia, these guides aren't created arbitrarily. They should be made with the intention of enhancing understandability and readability. Given the fact that most English speakers have no issue understanding what is meant by "comprised of", I see no reasonable justification to devote years of your life "correcting" it.

I don't expect any of this to change your opinion, of course, since you've devoted so many years to this effort, but I think you should at the very least stop brushing off your critics the way you've been known to do in interviews and in your writings. We have legitimate objections to what you're doing and you haven't satisfactorily responded to any of them.

The reason the email was ignored is that I never got it. I searched all my email for 2021 for the word "prescriptivist" and it did not show up.

I don't know what prescriptivist philosophy you imagine I have with which you think linguists disagree, but it is probably not one that I actually have.

It sounds like you're making the common mistake of thinking that prescriptivism is the idea that people should speak according to certain written rules, as opposed to descriptivism, being the idea that people should speak the way everyone else does. That usage of the terms makes no sense. First, both of those ideas are prescriptive, as you can see by the word "should". Neither is about describing anything.

To a linguist, prescriptivism is the belief that linguists should spend their time studying how people should speak, while descriptivism is the belief that linguists should spend their time studying how people do speak. At some point in your post above, you say you believe all linguists are descriptivists. That's not true. Some linguists study prescriptive grammars. But this is just about science; it's not a linguist's job to render judgment on whether someone's writing is acceptable. All they do is study language and report the facts.

I think pretty much all linguists agree with me that 1) people write "comprised of" a lot; and 2) people object to "comprised of" a lot. There's also fairly widespread agreement on all the facts that underpin a person's decision about which of those groups to be in -- the history of the word, the changing nature of language, etc.

Unless I'm missing some significance of the word "here", your statement that "the only thing that matters here is whether or not someone is understood by their intended audience" is a serious misstatement. Essentially no one believes that. If, for example, you claimed it is a waste of time for people to replace "could of" with "could have" in Wikipedia, you would find virtually no support, even though everyone knows they mean the same thing. That's because people get much more out of language than literal communication. Combinations of words bug people or make them happy regardless of their meaning.

I really didn't follow your argument against my claim that people learn language today by copying it more than by studying linguistics, since you go on to pretty much agree with it word for word. Was it the "today" part? Did you not understand that I'm comparing the degree to which people follow grammar books today versus in the past?

You're mistaken when you say I justify my edits by saying I'm enforcing a style guide. I justify it by saying I'm implementing a usage which is more accepted by Wikipedia readers. Many, many people prefer not to read "comprised of" (their reasons elaborated in my essay), whereas virtually nobody objects to "composed of". So the net effect is you please the most people by using "composed of".

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!
Like many, came to your page to show my appreciation - I saw your edit on International Life Sciences Institute, and I think your project and dedication is so awesome. Thank you for your contributions! Though I'll never be as prolific, I hope to find an honorable purpose such as yours while I'm here. Blacktopdancer (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for taking the time to give this feedback.
 * It's not hard, by the way, to be as prolific as I. People are often awed by my focus and tenacity, which I can accept, but the present time commitment is really pretty small.  The edits are mostly trivial and their number declining as other editors learn of the value of avoiding "comprised of".  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!
I'm honored to have been caught by your filter :-) TAPwiki (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, no
Clearly, you have a passion about the phrase "comprised of," but respectfully, you are passionately incorrect and I reverted your edit of Pompano Beach, Florida. "Composed," is an adjective and means "free from agitation : calm especially : self-possessed. "They tried to remain composed throughout the ordeal." You will find that definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "Comprised" is a transitive verb, as is necessary, and means "to be made up of." You can also find that in Merriam-Webster. An essay on the phrases seems a bit excessive to me. Perhaps you can redirect that energy into the millions of Wikipedia articles that truly need help. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In all the years people have been defending the use of "comprised of" in Wikipedia, no one has before now brought up this alternate definition of "composed", which I agree is completely inappropriate in places where people use "comprised of". I guess you didn't realize that when people write "an axe is composed of a handle and a head", they're using the transitive verb "compose" in its past participle (adjectival) form.  That word is also in Webster's.
 * What's more interesting about your argument, though, is that the definition you choose for "comprise" is the primary definition, and is consequently the one I claim should be used in Wikipedia. It's the definition in use when one writes, "an axe comprises a handle and a head".  In contrast, the definition that you mean when you write "an axe is comprised of a handle and a head" is the second definition in Webster's:  "compose".  Which makes it really hard to say "comprised of" is right and "composed of" is not.
 * As long as people care enough about the word "comprise" to take the time to revert my harmless use of an alternative, I'd say it's worth caring enough about to write an essay. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My take on this:
 * "The Pompano Beach City Commission is comprised of the mayor and five commissioners" was fine regardless of how I'd have written it myself.
 * "The Pompano Beach City Commission is composed of the mayor and five commissioners" is essentially synonymous, and thus a needless edit.
 * The reversion to comprised of was six of one, half dozen of the other.
 * The subsequent change to "The Pompano Beach City Commission comprises the mayor and five commissioners" -
 * 1. evinces concision and precision
 * 2. is a testament to collegiality in view of certain intransigent opinions
 * 3. comports with the first definition of comprise per Oxford (i.e., consist of; be made up of) and per Merriam-Webster (i.e., to be made up of) Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Lexicography 101 re COMPRISE and COMPOSE
I like dictionaries. I like lexicographers. However, because I rely on neither and I trust them even less, I regularly consult them at my own peril or naivete. A lexicographical tidbit of info
 * Oxford lists its definitions for a given entry in descending order according to its proprietary methods for determining frequency of current usage.
 * Merriam-Webster lists its definitions for a given entry in descending order from earliest to most recent etymological coinage according to its in-house research.

Consequently, if you ask me for a primary definition of comprise or compose, my rejoinder: Define primary. Anyhow, here's what Oxford says about comprise


 * VERB
 * [WITH OBJECT]
 * 1 Consist of; be made up of.
 * ‘the country comprises twenty states’
 * 1.1 Make up or constitute (a whole).
 * ‘this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population’

Here's what Merriam-Webster says about comprise


 * 1 : to be made up of
 * // The factory was to be a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings.
 * — Jane Jacobs
 * // The play comprises three acts.
 * 2 : COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE
 * // … a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation.
 * — William Styron
 * // … about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women.
 * — Jimmy Carter
 * 3 : to include especially within a particular scope
 * // … civilization as Lenin used the term would then certainly have comprised the changes that are now associated in our minds with "developed" rather than "developing" states.
 * — The Times Literary Supplement (London)

So, how do lexicographers define comprised of? Oxford has no entry for the phrase. Why not? Don't ask me. Merriam-Webster, by contrast, has an entry for comprised of as tagged with its  idiom  rubric and defined as follows
 * : made up of
 * // The play is comprised of three acts.

Neither Oxford not Merriam-Webster defines composed of, but here's what Oxford says about compose


 * VERB
 * [WITH OBJECT]
 * 1 Write or create (a work of art, especially music or poetry).
 * ‘he composed the First Violin Sonata four years earlier’
 * 1.1 Phrase (a letter or piece of writing) with great care and thought.
 * ‘the first sentence is so hard to compose’
 * 1.2 Form (a whole) by ordering or arranging the parts, especially in an artistic way.
 * ‘compose and draw a still life’
 * 3 (of elements) constitute or make up (a whole, or a specified part of it)
 * ‘the National Congress is composed of ten senators’
 * et seq.

Here's how Merriam-Webster defines compose


 * 1 a : to form by putting together : FASHION
 * // a committee composed of three representatives
 * — Current Biography
 * b: to form the substance of : CONSTITUTE
 * // composed of many ingredients
 * c : to produce (columns, pages of type, etc.) by composition
 * 2 a : to create by mental or artistic labor : PRODUCE
 * // compose a sonnet
 * b (1) : to formulate and write (a piece of music)
 * // composed a symphony
 * b (2) : to compose music for
 * 3 : to deal with or act on so as to reduce to a minimum
 * // compose their differences
 * 4 : to arrange in proper or orderly form
 * // The two men had laid him on the bed, and composed his limbs.
 * — Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu

Accordingly, the primary (i.e., first in terms of current usage) definition of compose, per Oxford, is to write or create stuff; the primary (i.e., earliest known usage) definition, per Merriam-Webster, is to form stuff.

For anyone who, unlike yours truly, relies on lexicographers to govern a word choice prior to a given articulation, Etymonline contradicts Merriam-Webster's assertion about the etymology of comprise and instead says this early 15c., "to include," from Old French compris, past participle of comprendre "to contain, comprise" (12c.), from Latin comprehendere "to take together, to unite; include; seize; to comprehend, perceive" (to seize or take in the mind), from com "with, together," here probably "completely" (see com-) + prehendere "to catch hold of, seize," from prae- "before" (see pre-) + -hendere, from PIE root *ghend- "to seize, take." Related: Comprised; comprising. From late 15c. as "to contain," as parts making up a whole; from 1794 as "to constitute, make up, compose."

As for me, I typically don't construe modern usage vis-a-vis its etymological pedigree, or vice versa. So, "Psychosocial safety climate is comprised of four subsystems" is perfectly cromulent. I don't turn etymological summersaults to read it as, "Psychosocial safety climate is included of four subsystems." Likewise, I don't read "Psychosocial safety climate is composed of four subsystems" to mean "Psychosocial safety climate is formed by putting together of four subsystems." Also, I typically don't make semantic transpositions to read it as "Psychosocial safety climate is constituted of (or, made up of) four subsystems" despite how that word choice might reflect what was intended.

IMHO, abstract arguments of comprised of versus composed of have limited pedantic value and negligible relevance to everyday speech. When I read or edit, "the book is composed of six volumes" sounds contextually right yet "the book is comprised of six volumes" is just as defensible. By contrast, "the soup is composed of six ingredients" sounds contextually attenuated (albeit comprehensible) while "the soup is comprised of six ingredients" has a better ring to my ear. Nonetheless, what's wrong with, e.g., "the book contains six volumes" or "the soup has six ingredients"? In this tower of babble, someone is likely to reply to that rhetorical question by saying contain is the wrong word because a book is not a container; has is wrong because soup is incapable of genitive possession. Ha!

What do I know? This much is sure:
 * 1) This post contains more than 900 words. < Okay.
 * 2) This post now has more than 908 words. < Okay.
 * 3) This post comprises more than 916 words. < Okay.
 * 4) This post is comprised of more than 924 words. < Semantically identical to #3 except rendered in passive voice.
 * 5) This post composes more than 940 words. < Semantically identical to the sense of #3 but admittedly awkward absent familiarity with how ergative verbs express meaning. Recommendation: Know your audience/readers!
 * 6) This post is composed of way too many words. < Semantically identical to the sense of #4 but ridiculous only if you apply the primary  etymology asserted by Etymonline, as disputed by the third sense asserted by Merriam-Webster.

Cheers, folks. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
I almost used the phrase "comprised of" (not on Wikipedia), and I thought of this and stopped myself. Much appreciated!

This is just rude and arrogant
Some people prefer "composed of", some "comprised of". If you write an article feel free to use your own form, but if someone has gone to the effort of writing an article it seems quite rude to impose your own preference after the fact. This would be like changing ize to ise by all the the American authors because I prefer ise. Instead is it generally convention to give some respect to the original author. I recognize some people prefer to enforce historical rules but many also prefer to allow language to continue evolving. Each to their own. Even Nature isn't that picky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypherzero0 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand Wikipedia. The original author does not have priority.  Every article belongs to everyone; every editor is encouraged to make whatever he considers an improvement to any article he finds.  One of the five pillars of Wikipedia states, "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited".


 * Any author who takes offense at his work being reworded just doesn't understand Wikipedia. An edit is not an insult.  Wikipedia articles are for the readers, not the writers, so if there are people who prefer not to read "comprised of", it doesn't matter that the author likes the phrase.


 * The analogy to "ise" and "ize" does not work because there are far fewer people whose grammar says "comprised of" is the only right way to say something than there are whose grammar says "ise" is the only right way to spell something. Almost nobody believes that "comprised of" is better than every other possible wording.  People who write "comprised of" almost always say it is "as good as" the alternatives or that they they weren't aware of the issue when they wrote it.


 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * +1 to Bryan. Grammar isn't a preference.  There's a reason that we're taught it in school initially and not just allowed to develop it on our own.
 * 98.111.204.34 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Giraffedata's dedication to proper grammar on Wikipedia is neither rude nor arrogant. Nor is grammar a matter of choice. Although controversies do arise over competing standards (for example, the atrocious use of the indicative in subjunctive clauses is gaining acceptance in anglophone markets, even though it's, like, really, really stupid), as the G-Man points out, "comprised of" is incorrect everywhere. Perhaps the OP is confusing grammar with style. Grammar is governed -- or at least informed -- by logic, accuracy, and structural consistency. Style is a matter of euphony and historicity. Example: it's legal to split an infinitive ("...to boldly go where no literate person has gone before"), but it's bad style. This first point is not debatable; the second one is. Laodah (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If he actually Giraffedata actually understood what grammar is you ight be right. This is not about grammar however it is about arbitrary preferences.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Laodah, "comprised of" is just fine. It is a nonsense, made up rule that says it is incorrect. See: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17636 GeneCallahan (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the idea that splitting infinitives is "bad style" is another nonsense rule. GeneCallahan (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither of those rules is made-up. Neither of them is nonsense.


 * The split infinitive was ungrammatical for about three hundred years. In the late 20th century, semanticists decided that it was no longer ungrammatical, on the excellent argument that trying to make English more like Latin is illogical. (The split infinitive was outlawed during the same period when most of the Latinate words in English were coined, roughly the 17th and 18th centuries. As Latin was the scholarly language of the time, many felt that English would be made more elegant by finessing it in that direction. Since Latin infinitives are one word, they decided that the leading "to" in the English infinitive was actually -- counter-intuitively -- part of the verb, hence, no other word was allowed between them.)


 * Since the structure of English infinitives is not Latin in origin, there was no objective reason to ban splitting them, and that stricture was lifted by the various worldwide governing bodies of English by the late 20th century. To the best of my knowledge, infinitives may now be split anywhere in Anglophonia without fear of reversion.


 * Except from editors enforcing a stylebook. Style is a matter of euphony and history, not (primarily) logic or structural consistency. Because the split infinitive signaled poor education for so many centuries, it remains less elegant than respecting the to + verb relationship.


 * The split infinitive is grammatically correct. And it's bad style.


 * Laodah 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. I wouldn't say just rude and arrogant, but I'm leaving this here because I don't think this opinion has enough visibility/support. (However I do also think it is rude and arrogant to simply claim Giraffedata is rude and arrogant (in fact more so) but I'm just leaving this here because I don't think this opinion has enough visibility/support.) Perhaps I'm just not clever enough to say it more tactfully; sorry for supporting something so brash. But yes, somewhat/rather rude and arrogant, if not in individual cases then subconsciously, in the gestalt. (I mean this as no judgment, as I also tend to be rude + arrogant.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.54.51 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

simply wrong
Hi there,

I've been described as an excellent writer when I'm paying attention, and also have edited professionally. Look, "comprise" (single word) is when certain things together establish a whole: the whole must follow as an object. It's a rare word. For example, 12 items comprise a dozen. (Because, by definition). A tuxedo, tuxedo shirt, black bow tie, cufflinks, pocket square, and shoes comprise a complete tuxedo ensemble. The word is rare in this context. People don't often know that the whole must follow: "four people comprise the committee" is the correct usage, but surprising and foreign-sounding to people and I would not use it except in an extremely stilted context where my readers will go and look it up. The "12 items comprise a dozen" or Tuxedo examples I might use.

It's a matter of definition and equivalence.

Secondly, like ALL words that have an object, we can grammatically make it passive in the normal way. Can't really think of exceptions. You make it passive by putting the object (the whole) first, and putting the original subject as the object. A dozen is comprised of any 12 items. (Because any 12 items comprise a dozen.)

It is different from your suggested alternatives, because your suggested alternatives don't have the sense of definition. Another very good usage is 'consist' followed by in. (Google 'consist in'). This usage is defined here - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consist

So, you see, "comprised of" is like "consists in" whereas "composed of" just sounds like "consists of". It is missing the crucial definitional nuance.

Since you miss this nuance, it is possible that every one of your changes is wrong and that you should revert every one. Please consider this very carefully and reply with your reasoned response. I think you've been missing something all these years. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "comprise" (single word) is when certain things together establish a whole: the whole must follow as an object. It's a rare word.  For example, 12 items comprise a dozen.


 * This is the definition that is hotly disputed. Traditionally, the word you want here is "compose" - in the words of my first dictionary: "the whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole".  More recently, this additional definition (comprise = compose) has become common, but the original definition has not lost any ground.  In fact, all dictionaries still call it the primary of the two definitions.  My essay is all about explaining why I think it's a good idea to stick to the traditional definition of "comprise" in Wikipedia.


 * I don't doubt that "comprised of" has some nuance for you that none of the other phrases do, but the problem is that it's just you - you want to use a word the way everyone understands it, and as far as I can tell from the thousands of contexts I've seen it in, it's all over the map, but usually one of those things the listed alternatives say. There are definitional nuances in "composed of", "consists of", and "is" that I think most people get, and I use those where the sentence calls for a definitional nuance.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Having consulted dictionaries, I must apologize and declare I was wrong/missing something:


 * You are absolutely correct that comprise has two antonymic meanings. The first is that "(the whole) contains", the second is that "(the parts) constitute".   So the first listed definition is that a typical orange comprises 6-8 wedges, whereas the second is that 6-8 wedges comprise a whole orange.  That is confusing.  It is very likely to be the reason that the word is so rare - such as the word 'fulsome'.  I never use fulsome and very very rarely have used 'comprise'.  Looking at the etymology, it would make far more sense for me to have selected #1 rather than learned #2 as I mentioned above.  The word comes from 'understand' or comprehend, or contain.  It doesn't come from a word meaning 'together constitute'.  So, I must say that with the knowledge that there are two antonymic meanings, I would argue for everyone to agree on the one that is etymological, as that's easier to remember.  In fact the actual result is that it just becomes a very rare word.


 * I would say that, with this knowledge, perhaps I will always use 'constitute' in contexts where I had been using 'comprise' (very rarely), since it means something like (together) 'set up' or 'establish'. So I would argue that for #2, perhaps the word 'constitute' should always be used.


 * Therefore going forward I would use "12 items constitute a dozen" and "A tuxedo, tuxedo shirt, black bow tie, cufflinks, pocket square, and shoes constitute a complete tuxedo ensemble". I simply would not use 'comprise' at all.  I don't use words with two antonymic meanings, especially where it's stilted like fulsome or comprise.


 * We now move on to 'comprised of'. This is problematic because I and others use it all the time: "Our company's core team is comprised of three employees" is absolutely understood and standard.  Contains isn't right.  'Consists of' doesn't have the meaning of 'is constituted by' (which sounds awful!!).  You need a word that means 'is constituted by' .  How is 'is comprised of' not a good candidate to be that word?


 * If you want to strike from usage 'is comprised of', then why don't you suggest a phrase that means exactly 'is constituted by' ? What's your best candidate?  212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Depending on what exactly you wish to say, I claim "our company's core team is composed of three employees", "consists of three employees", or "comprises three employees" will say it to most readers. Or if you want to try even harder, branch out and say, "three employees constitute our company's core team," since you really seem to want to talk about constitution.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's look at your suggested options. I don't think 'is composed of' (our core team is composed of three employees) is current usage at all - it sounds like chemical composition.  "Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen."  That's how I would use 'composed'.  They chemically 'compose' together.  I don't think 'consists of' sounds good, just a list follows, you can just say "sand consists of various small...".  In fact I googled 'sand consists of' and got tons of examples like "The preparation of sand consists of five basic processes: natural decomposition, extraction, sorting, washing, and in some cases crushing."  you see, nothing about parts and whole.  "reclaimed sand consists of halogen-free anionic, cationic and nonionic surfactants" the way it says surfactants means it's not even precise enough to be a definition of 'these parts constitute a whole'.  So that's out.


 * We are now left with exactly your suggestion 'comprise' and no alternatives. But I won't use comprise because it has two antonymic meanings.  Whereas 'is comprised of' has, according to you, no meaning.  So, if 'is comprised of' has no meaning, why can't we assign it the meaning of Comprise that you have suggested?  It is what I do and a good solution.  Let me give you another example of a word I don't use: bimonthly.  It means either every two months, or twice a month.  So, I use fortnightly for the latter and 'every two months' for the former.  It would be like you came along and said, well, look, nobody should use the word fortnightly, it's not a real word.  Since we're filling a niche, why not have it be that?   Etymologically it may be meaningless or wrong, but who cares.  As you have eliminated all other choices, we are left with a word with a paradoxical etymology.  That is fine.  At least it's unambiguous.  Egregious means 'very bad' today - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egregious  - even though it literally means outstanding.  (standing out of the flock) and used to mean outstanding in the positive sense.  So, we're left with outstanding and egregious, both mean standing apart, one in a good way one in a bad way.  Another example is notorious and famous.  of course we will keep notorious for bad contexts - why shouldn't we?  I don't use it in a positive sense, because we have "famous".  Language evolves, and as you have given no good alternatives I must insist on keeping 'is comprised of' in a paradoxical sense where you would use 'comprise'.  I will keep saying, "The team is comprised of 5 members."  It sounds fine, has no natural meaning, isn't rare, and means what I mean. I think you should do the same.  I hope you've found this convincing, but welcome your feedback if I'm missing something. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well put, sir. --A random 67.181.54.51 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Aggressive prescriptivism, subtle connotations, and poorly thought out word replacement choices
In the article I'm working on, Protected areas of the Sierra Nevada, which is still very much a work in progress, you replaced The Kern Plateau, drained by the South Fork Kern River, is comprised of wide meadows, rugged hills, and forests dominated by pine and fir. with The Kern Plateau, drained by the South Fork Kern River, is composed of wide meadows, rugged hills, and forests dominated by pine and fir. To my ear, "compose" is much more of an active verb while "comprise" acts more like a stative verb. The difference, although subtle, is important here. "Composition" implies some level of intentional design with intelligence and purpose, such as a composer composing an opera. Comprise, on the other hand, has no active connotation, purely indicating the state of its subject without implying any sort of intentional process. Obviously these geographic features long precede the anthropocene, having formed over massive geological time scales (also bearing in mind that geology is a non-intelligent process with no directed purpose and no end goal in mind). Thus it is incorrect to imply, even if indirectly through the use of a verb with such a connotation, that this plateau was formed through such conscious intent. All in all, this seems like an attempt to impose a rigid prescriptivism on a massive project comprised of contributions from editors all over the world speaking different varieties of English that each have their own subtleties of grammar. Some quick google searching indicates that in the context of natural geographical features, "comprised of" and "composed of" are used with roughly equal frequency. Prescriptivism is dead. Clearly such a widely used phrase is used so widely in large part because its meaning has evolved such that it has eventually come to be seen as grammatically correct and appropriate. I don't think I'm going to convince you to stop you from making these edits, but I do strongly urge you to think through the subtle connotations of words that might superficially seem the same. CJK09 (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think many Wikipedia readers hear "composed of" that way. I don't, and if half the descriptions of geographical features in your search use it, a lot of other people don't either.  I think if you looked at a bunch of recent uses of the phrase "composed of", you'd find at least 90% of them are of the stative variety - things that weren't actually assembled; the assembly just exists.  An atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.  The US Pacific Northwest is composed of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
 * It may surprise you how much thought I put into this sentence. I encounter regions being comprised of forests and meadows regularly, so have had time to think about it, and I don't really care for "composed of" or any other nuance of composition for this sentence because I think of the Kern Plateau as being a region that contains or even is various kinds of territory rather than being made up of them.  If the Kern Plateau is going to be made up of something, that should be a geological statement.  But I try to stick with the original author's intent, and "comprised of" is always about composition.  I considered "consists of", but that seems to go even further in the wrong direction.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just voicing my support for your arguments and the way you put them. 67.181.54.51 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Giraffedata joins the discussion
I just discovered this page, thanks to Wikipedia's new notification feature, which notified me that someone added to it.

I wish I'd been following the discussion, because there are a lot of comments over the years that really deserved a response.

Much more discussion of my "comprised of" edits has taken place on my user talk page (which I think is a more appropriate venue for discussing particular edits), and I have participated in that.

I believe I am responsible for maintaining this page, as it is the talk page for one of my user subpages, so today I am deleting comments from before this year. Whatever was worth keeping, I've added to the subject page. The comments are, of course, always available in the page history - just look for yesterday's version of the page and you'll see the comments going back to when the page was created.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing this brought me back to this page. Giraffedata (Bryan Henderson), why don't you archive the old comments instead? An archive can of course be added to this page. Do you mind if I create an archive for it? Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Years ago, when I faced this issue with my user talk page, I looked up the Wikipedia guideline on old talk, and it listed several acceptable ways of disposing of it, one of them being just deleting it and letting people look to the history, as I did here. At the time, it didn't seem like archiving would be any better.  But if you think it is &mdash; and you do the work (thanks for offering), I don't mind.  I'd like to do it on a calendar year basis at least going forward.
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * , I moved old discussions to an archive (/Archive 1) and placed an archive box at this page. I hope you don't mind. I did not make a yer-based archives, because there are not so many posts. I copied all of them into one archive. But if you prefer, I can make several archives, one for each year. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's great. Thank you very much.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

NPR had a segment on Fresh Air today about how GiraffeData is an asshole: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/12/392568604/dont-you-dare-use-comprised-of-on-wikipedia-one-editor-will-take-it-out

That's not what Geoff Nunberg said on NPR about GiraffeData and his work on approximately 13 March 2015. Geoff said something elegant, and made a counter-comment. You could have done the same, commentor-who-wrote-the-above little screed. Rainbow-five (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with the insulting way the above person said it, the sentiment is pretty much on-point. "Now if you're like me and don't see anything wrong with the sentence, "The book is comprised of three chapters," you can rest assured that we're in good company. The phrase "comprised of" goes back 300 years." The profanity and personal attack was unnecessary, but the overall point was accurate. Nunberg said the same thing as the above person, but much more nicely. Wes sideman (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like an idiot now, thanks for your edit
I noticed your edit to list of notorious markets and was somewhat intrigued that you had a whole essay about improper use of "comprised of". I got curious so I checked the source I was importing the descriptions from — "Right holders report that counterfeit products composed between 30%–70% of merchandise at these markets."

Yeah, I feel like an idiot. Thanks for correcting me. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't feel like an idiot; your usage was perfectly fine. If someone writes an entire essay explaining why their prescriptive pet peeve is correct, that doesn't mean they are actually correct. They have an opinion on "comprised of" which is flat-out refuted by numerous linguists that will tell you it's fine. Don't mistake a wall of text for actual facts. Wes sideman (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I'm here for. :-)
 * Good for that source; I wonder if that's the result of an editor's pen, because backwards "comprise" really is pretty popular in a sentence like that. Probably not, because an editor would do something about the misused hyphen.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A bit of double standard; Will not change my usage
You say several times that popularity does not define correctness, but then several times you point to the number of affirmative comments (or "there are probably millions who are annoyed by 'comprised of' ") as justification for continuing your obsession.

Anyway, I'm no expert, but I'm good enough at grammar to have a number of pet peeves. My [non-universal] standard for correctness is that I have seen plenty of people I respect as good writers, good at grammar, use "comprised of" throughout my life. I will thus endeavor to hasten the day when it is [more] proper usage, because it seems to me where the long-term trend is headed. In fact, today is the day I learned that a whole comprises parts; I had always thought it the other way, that parts comprise a whole. I will probably continue using it as the latter, as your arguments, mostly based on etymology and order of appearance in dictionary and word counts, fail to convince me to let it ring my "pet peeve" alarms.

I respect your views though, and Happy Editing (but I do think it would be better for the universe if you stopped). 67.181.54.51 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've always said popularity is a factor in proper usage. I've also said I give popularity less weight than many people, so much so that the popularity of "comprised of" does not outweigh all the reasons to avoid it.  The popularity of being annoyed by "comprised of" is similarly relevant, but not conclusive.  It's the same standard.
 * The beauty of the comprise dispute is that we don't have to compare popularity of competing usages because we have usages that satisfy everyone's rules. (But I know there's a deeper conflict where people care not about the text of an article but the beliefs that led to that text, and for that there really is no compromise).
 * I have no obsession. Nowhere in my essay or these comments will you find evidence of obsession.  Obsession is a condition where one cannot stop thinking about something, usually to the person's detriment.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From Merriam-Webster: "OBSESSION is a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling". You are persistent. You are preoccupied. Your idea that "comprised of" shouldn't be used is unreasonable, and almost everyone on this talk page agrees with that sentiment. Yes, you are obsessed. Wes sideman (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just came here after giraffedata changed a sentence that I had recently edited. I don't really care enough to change it back, but after reading a smattering of these comments, I have to agree with almost everyone that points out the ridiculousness of this crusade. Yes, as 67.181.54.51 said above, you are obsessed, and yes, "it would be better for the universe if you stopped". Just my two cents. It's totally insane. Wes sideman (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Crusade" is similarly inaccurate. A crusade is (metaphorically) something done for faith.  I don't know why people imagine some deep psychological motivation for these Wikipedia edits, but it just isn't there.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd leave this alone, but the basic error in this response - come on! A literal crusade is something done for faith. A metaphorical crusade would be any sweeping effort towards anything a person or group is a worthy cause, but actually isn't. For someone so obsessed with one tiny part of the English language, one would think you'd know the difference. Then again, your entire obsession is based on a faulty premise (that "comprised of" isn't being used correctly) so maybe it does make sense after all. Have a nice day and stop annoying people with your pet peeve. Wes sideman (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say a literal crusade is one of those missions undertaken in the middle ages to try to retake the Holy Land as a duty of one's Christian faith and a metaphorical one is a major sustained effort directed toward a goal one believes in. I hope you didn't think I meant religious faith when I said faith.  A better word than crusade for my "comprised of" project is "hobby."  And you continue to imagine things I'm thinking that I'm not when you say I believe "comprised of" isn't being used correctly and that its usage peeves me.  Also, that I don't care as much about other parts of English.  I could list a few dozen other similar areas of common English usage that I think shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and the reason I've budgeted my Wikipedia editing time to just the one is not that I care more about that one.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Call it whatever you want, rationalize away the criticism all you like - you're ignoring everyone that's telling you the hard truth. Wes sideman (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ignoring -- just weighing the reasons they give to stop against the various reasons to continue, including the much larger number of people thanking me for the work. You can't please everyone.  As far as I know, there isn't any dispute of facts here; truth, hard or otherwise, is not an issue.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Stop annoying people" and yet continue to post on a user talk page...probably should WP:DROPIT,. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You pinged me with this 4 days after my last comment and you're telling ME to drop it? That's rich. You should probably concentrate on not reviving conversations that were already finished. Wes sideman (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * and you added your opinion on a thread that was over for 9 days, welcome to how talk pages work – The Grid  ( talk )  15:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You should probably WP:DROP your continued commentary on my talk page habits. Wes sideman (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever appeases yourself. – The Grid  ( talk )  15:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That sentence is comprised of at least one grammatical error. Wes sideman (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Not unique as a form
There have to be more productive ways to get your hit of feeling superior. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this page misses the bigger picture, which is that English verbs can be reversed in this way by rule. Cf. "posessed of", "avenged of".
 * 2) Anyone who thinks it's generally feasible to restrict verbs to their etymological root has only bothered to look into the etymology of a very small number of words.
 * 3) Many editors would correctly revert any use of "comprise" in the older sense because it's too obscure and likely to confuse, which means you're entirely removing the word from wiki. Negative impact only.


 * (1) But there is no such rule. "Avenged of" is not an example, because "is avenged of" does not mean "avenges".  If John punishes his father's enemies, we say John avenges his father or John's father is avenged of his enemies, but we don't say John is avenged of his father.  "Possessed of" has been brought up here before, so I should add that to the essay where it talks about auto-antonyms.  "Possessed of" is in a class by itself.  I don't know where "possessed of" came from, but I suspect it is a mistaken reversal of "dispossessed of".  In any case, I don't think many people consider it plain English -- I've only ever seen it used in flowery speeches and my dictionary doesn't even mention it, so I would oppose using it in Wikipedia.
 * (2) I agree.
 * (3) It's not obvious that ending up with no "comprise" in Wikipedia at all would be negative impact only. Someone once suggested to me that people should just not use comprise at all because it's too widely misunderstood and there are fine alternatives to all of its senses.  But while I supported teaching people just to avoid "comprise" rather than try to teach them which uses are disputed, I don't think removing "comprise" in its primary definition from Wikipedia is helpful.  I wouldn't try to stop someone from doing it, though.
 * Your guess as to what motivates me to make this edit in Wikipedia is wrong, and frankly I don't know how you came up with it. My guess is that very few copy editors enjoy the work because they like the feeling of knowing more grammar than someone else.
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)