Wikipedia talk:Don't be a wuss

Be a man wasn't given a fair shot.
Be a man wasn't given a fair shot because of the arguably sexist "Be a Man" wording. It never should have failed because of that, "Be a Man" should have just been re-worded to something that wasn't arguably sexist. (Two re-wording idea's from the talk page are "Don't be a wuss" by Hooperbloob, and "Be a Good Sport" by Juneappal) I don't have an opinion as for weather this should be a guideline, but if this fails again, then in my opinion this should become an essay. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't going to be a guideline. If you want to make it into an essay, reach for the appropriate template and make it so. Then you can move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that guideline proposals have changed sense 2006, and it wouldn't be a viable proposal now, in 2012, for reasons unrelated to the "Be a Man" wording? I'm not too familiar with how guideline proposals work, it's not usually what I'm involved with on Wikipedia.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It duplicates the message of WP:Dick, but lacks its insight. I see no demand for the guideline, little utility, and no likelihood of support for it. Look at the other behavioral guidelines we have. Can you really see even a renamed "Be a Man" in that company? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Like I said, I'm not usually involved with this kind of thing, and I have no opinion on weather this should be a guideline. The reasons you gave were not the reasons it was rejected tough, it was rejected almost entirely because of the "be a man" wording. Aside the opposition to the proposal based on the wording, almost all of the comments on the talk page are in favor of the proposal. My concern is that it never should have been rejected for the wording because "be a man" is easily re-worded.


 * My question is what to do now.
 * Should it be re-proposed with "be a man" re-worded, and I'm not asking whether, in you're opinion, this should be a guideline, I'm asking weather this should be re-proposed. That it was proposed in the first place (back in 2006) strongly suggests that eaver it should be re-proposed now (unless something has changed between 2006 and now to make this a non-viable proposal), or it should have never been proposed in the first place, and shouldn't be re-proposed now. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The two opinions (whether this should be a guideline; whether this should be re-proposed) seem intrinsically connected to me. Since this was drafted in 2006, many things have changed, including a proliferation of essays that say more or less the same things, such as Let it go, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, Wikipedia is not about winning, and The Last Word. (There are tons.) Even the guideline Disruptive editing did not exist when this was created. More importantly, the makeup of editors is very different, and even if it were not editors can change their minds...either because the Wikipedia environment is different now or simply because six years is long enough to reconsider. :) (WP:CCC, and all.) I think it comes down to whether you think the content could be useful as a guideline. If so, feel free to polish it and re-propose. If not, I can't see the value of putting it out there just because it can be polished. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also calculate: at which point in the cycle of a refuse-to-back-down dispute do you anticipate this'll have any utility? Doubtless when calm, everyone and her mother would agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment. Do you really think it'll affect intransigent behaviour? Further, calculate the probability of misuse, of the "this guideline says you have to back down" sort. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this isn't going to be re-proposed, so I've went ahead and made it into an essay. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Having just taken a glance at this, the idea of Wikipedia, a place of high-minded and effete scholarship, imploring people to conform to masculine gender stereotypes is most amusing to me. Seriously though, it's not so much about the sexism, it's that expressions that attempt to use gender stereotypes to push an agenda (even a good one, like not being a tendentious arse) are pretty ineffective. If you look at advertising, the only explicit uses of this kind of masculinity are now ironic. Yorkie (chocolate bar) famously advertises itself as "not for girls". I saw a small girl on the train the other day eating McCoy's (crisp), the packet informing me that they are "man crisps". Their website informs me of such important manly related topics as how to be a "bloke", play darts and assemble flat-pack furniture in order to impress "the girlfriend". It also invites me to take a multiple-choice test to determine how "manly" I am.

If you can't infer the existence of Kenneth Williams-esque sarcasm from the previous few sentences, let me explain it: gender stereotype-based humour is a deliberate throwback to an earlier age, an age of comics in tuxedos telling reheated mother-in-law jokes. It's not about whether it is offensive, it's just the world has moved on and that kind of style is now only used ironically. The idea of Wikipedians imploring each other towards masculinity ("how dare you edit this article, there's a bear to go hunt" etc.) is utterly ridiculous. What next? Are we going to replace Civility with a reference to the "Bro Code"? Stop it Wikipedia, your pretensions of hyper-masculinity are embarrassing. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already said "be a man" should be re-worded, because it's arguably sexist, and I've already re-worded it. Complaining about the "be a man" wording is beating a dead horse. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "Don't be a wuss" makes it much better, given that the one of the widely publicized (but speculative, as with most slang) etymologies of "wuss" is pretty sexist. :/ I guess at least it's not as explicitly sexist, but if I were working on this and trying to avoid sexism I might go for a different term. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's take this to Wikipedia talk:Don't be a wuss. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as we're only insulting the submissive, I guess there's no problem here . Does anyone really think that an essay on "if you do this, you're a WUSS, HAH" is actually going to persuade people to act properly? We're an encyclopaedia, not a primary school. Hands up everyone who, when already in a bad mood (and most of the examples given are bad mood-inducing) has found their brow soothed, their existential crisis resolved and their confidence resolved by having someone come up and insult them? I mean, seriously. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your proposal didn't achieve consensus to become a guideline? Would it be terribly inappropriate to suggest that you be a man and quit whining? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ToaT, I would suggest discretion is the better part of valour here :). Ironholds (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied over due to request to take it to the talk page of the essay. :) On reflection, it's good to have it here for easy retrieval later.

Primary ongoing issue, I suppose, is whether or not "wuss" is really that much better than "be a man" in terms of denigrating women. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "I'm not sure "Don't be a wuss" makes it much better": I had no idea, but even if "wuss" came from "pussy", which according to Moonriddengirl is only speculative, I seriously doubt that would make "wuss" sexist. "Gee", if I remember correctly, came from "Jesus", but that doesn't make it an obscenity. Is anybody really going to be offended because "wuss" might have come from "pussy". How many people would even know that "wuss" might have come from "pussy", let alone be offended by it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In that link "wuss" is listed under synonyms, not etymologies. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * blink I know. I didn't have to look it up. Unless I'm rather more remarkable than I imagine, I'm sure I'm not alone. See wiktionary:Wuss.


 * It seems a little pointless to rework a document so that it will not be sexist by changing it to a term that is "probably a blend of wimp and pussy", but reworking this so that it not be sexist was your idea, not mine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to rework this again, I don't have a problem with that. I think I'd be a waste of time and effort to do that over the word wuss, but it's not my time and effort that would be wasted. Juneappal had an idea for "Be a Good Sport", I wouldn't object to that wording. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's not my fight. I only offered feedback on this failed proposal/essay because you asked. :) It's simply an eye-roll to me, much like "be a man" was. That said, I have to agree with User:Ironholds about the value of insulting people in an effort to calm them down. :) At least Meta:Don't be a dick acknowledges that "Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move" and tells people "don't use this essay as a justification to do so." To me, it really seems like just a way to bypass policy and call somebody a wuss. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In Cherokee, a language which does not have a 'p' sound, the English "pussy" (meaning cat) became "wesa"; so the etymology is not all that far-fetched. --Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that. I guess I'll go ahead and rework this (using the "Be a Good Sport" wording) unless someone objects. Sooner or later, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection, although given that (as mentioned) there about a dozen essays comprised of precisely this, it does seem rather a waste of time. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)