Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (gender-neutral pronouns)

Gender: "his or her" versus "their"
I must be blind, 'cause I can't find the guidline on gender neutrality... I've just come from CPR which states place the victim on his or her back. Personally I find this style cumbersome and grating. Is there any consensus (or even discussion anywhere) on the use of the plerual gender neutrual: Erich 03:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * their rather than his or her
 * they rather than he or she and
 * them rather than him or her


 * I tend to find this usage of the plural, especially in formal contexts, very much more cumbersome and unpleasant to the ear than the construction 'he or she'. Allow me to quote what Eric Partridge has to say on the issue:
 * ' they, their, misused for he, his as in "Anyone thinks twice, when their life is at stake'; read "his life". But this locution, technically incorrect, arises from our lack of relative pronouns meaning he or she, him or her, his or her. Traditionally, he (or him, his) has been used for any singular human noun, as in "A doctor should visit those of his patients whom he knows to be too ill to come to the surgery." But this may now be taken to imply that doctors are all men. One way to avoid giving offence is to rephrase in the plural: "Doctors should visit those of their patients ...". Another way is to cut out the pronouns, writing "A doctor should visit those patients who seem too ill ...".'
 * Therefore, the easy answer is to rephrase. However, a problem arises when dealing with words such as 'everyone' or 'anyone', since they require the use of the singular; I believe it is only clear and fair, in order to be politically correct, to say 'his or her' in this case.
 * On the other hand, this could very well conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, because our use of this pronoun combination can definitely be seen as our implied support for feminisim and political correctness; the use of 'his' alone might be seen then as supporting traditional rules, on the other hand.
 * Nonetheless, I assert that mismatching singular and plural pronouns is a very inappropriate practice in a formal context; more so than 'he or she' is. I should think it is better to use 'his or her' when it is impossible to rephrase the sentence.
 * You may wish to check the discussion at singular they.
 * And CPR is BRIMMING with misused plurals!
 * Sinuhe 06:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have forgotten to mention that often, words have their grammatical gender, so it would not be overly inappropriate to say 'to lay a person on her back', or 'a child and its toys'. Of course this is just as open to criticism as the traditional use of 'he' is, so it oughtn't to be a style used. &#8212;Sinuhe 06:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

errrh.. I confess, not really then answer the i was hoping for. I'm still hoping somebody will say go ahead use "their" rather than "his or her"... anybody...??? Erich 11:47, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Use "their" as a singular. It has an extensive history. It'll still be disputed, though, so use it as a plural where feasible - David Gerard 12:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have always been taught that using "their" as a singular is wrong, and is not of essay quality. - Mark 14:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This may depend upon where you come from. I was taught that "their" (as the modern version of "thou" and the rest) is quite acceptable. Checking my copy of "The Handbook of non-sexist writing" I find that the use of 'he' to cover both genders is (in the UK) as recent as 1850 whereas the singular 'their' has a much longer history. Even Shakespeare wrote "God send everyone their heart's desire". For an American usage, Walt Whitman: "...everyone shall delight us, and we them." --VampWillow 14:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it is uncommon to use it. I use it a lot, especially in everyday speech. Just not in assessed pieces of work. - Mark 03:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "his or her" and no reason not to use it. Exploding Boy 14:31, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * And there is a great deal wrong with using "their". It's terrible English. The best writers use "his" and "her" in alternate passages; "his or her" is an acceptable but rather clumsy substitute. "His" is no longer acceptable in most circles. Singular "they" is a horrible abuse of a perfectly good language.


 * Luckily (from the point of view of being able to stop arguing and get some useful work done around here) and unluckily (from the point of view of actually getting it right the first time), the Manual of Style is careful not to prescribe any of these alternatives. Those of us who labour under a misguided linguistic fetish such as singular they are free to practice it. Those of us who prefer to express things in English sentences are equally free to do so. Tannin 15:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. There is nothing wrong with using a singular "they" or "them". It is quite common, even though some, influenced by prescriptivist grammarians, get rankled when they read it. older &ne; wiser 15:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * fantastic! this is what i was hoping for. I love seeing a bit of healthy debate, although I'm not keen to see the same debate repeated needlessly. (as an aside, I don't have a URL, but I'm told that Australian Government style includes the single their.) Whatever the conclusion of this debate, I think it should be in the style manual. Avoiding the topic is a cop-out! best wishes to allErich 05:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's fairly late now, so I care not to raise my blood pressure (there will be plenty of time for that tomorrow), but respectfully - you should both be whipped for suggesting this. "He" or "he or she" are both acceptable for singular gender-indeterminant nouns. Using "they" as a singular noun is a common mistake, but don't let that fool you - just because it's common doesn't mean it's not a mistake. If your high school english teacher was worth his salt, he would have instilled that in you and you would never have turned something like that in for grading. &rarr;Raul654 05:08, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Calling it a "common mistake" does not make sense, as noted in the references and examples of teaching noted in this very discussion. It's not going to be resolved by such declaration, bold text or no. The only resolution would be to declare it one way or the other as hard policy, and I really doubt there's going to be consensus on such a move - David Gerard 07:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Pronoun-antecedent agreement is a basic rule of english - we don't need to make it a rule, because it's assumed that when you write here, you follow the basic rules of english. It's not a subject for debate, and I shouldn't have to remind you of that. To quote from the Bedford writing guide: a pronoun and its antecedent agree when they are both singular or both plural. Singular nouns go with singular pronouns; 'they' is not a singular pronoun. Therefore, it does not go with singular antecedents. Now it's not hard to construct sentences where "they" might seem correct instead of 'his'/'her'/'his or her', but (as I said before) just because it seems correct does not make it so. "Each teacher went to _____ car" - fill in the blank. If you said "his", "her" or "his or her", you are correct. If you said 'their', then you are wrong.  &rarr;Raul654 07:43, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, Fowler says singular they has been a part of English for centuries, and implies it is preferable to the "clumsy use of 'his or her'" -- Tarquin 08:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pop quiz: fill in the correct response:
 * Intermission ended; upon returning to the theater, everyone found a single red rose upon _____ seat.
 * a. his
 * b. his or her
 * c. their

Did you say his seat? Whose seat? If you can truthfully say that this question does not spring to mind when you hear that completion for the sentence, then that hypothetical high school English teacher was incredibly successful in indoctrinating you. Most people are quite confused by the substitution of his above. (Not my opinion, it's been tested in the lab.)

His or her seat is little better. The problem with his isn't that it's gender-specific, but that it's individual-specific. People who use singular-they don't use it for specific individuals, even when the specific individuals are unidentified. For instance, Raul's use of the pronoun to refer to the interlocutor's English teachers was unfair, because nobody would use singular-they in that circumstance. Since Raul doesn't know the gender of Erich's teacher, only his or her, he or she would be correct. (The obstinate use of he in the specific sense is particularly problematic, and this is a good example of why. Chances are better than even that Erich's teacher was female.)

There are two completely different syntactic purposes that have been filled by the third-person singular pronoun in English: "back-reference", and "variable binding". Some languages have completely different and non-overlapping words for the two concepts, but without neologism, English is stuck with overloading one or another pronoun. Back-reference, like referring to Erich's English teacher and his or her hypothetical salt, is gendered; variable binding, like directing individuals to their (yes, their) seat is not.

The answer is not as simple as blindly directing the usage of "he" or "he or she" or "they" in all contexts. To say it is that simple is just ideology, ignoring the linguistics. (If you want to promote an ideology and ignore the linguistics, that's an entirely different argument, but one rather hard to reconcile with the idea of trying to produce an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.) --TreyHarris 07:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I did a google search on ("style manual" "gender neutral").


 * The best source I found, by far, was (and I?ve only just noticed it is written by a Queenslander!) which gives practical advice, echoing and synthesising most of the thoughts expressed here:
 * 'Do not use "they" as a singular pronoun unless you are confident that your audience won't mind. This usage is gaining in popularity and acceptance, but a lot of people dislike it or stumble over it.
 * Avoid phrases such as "he or she" and "he/she" or made-up words like "s/he."'


 * The rest of the article is also worth a quick scan. (To save the cynical asking, I declare I have no relationship with this site or writer.)


 * All this is too much out of my field for me to want to touch the style manuals myself, but I hope somebody else will ?be bold?. In general, I confess, I found less support for the singular they/their than I expected. Erich 07:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why we don't just transfer this debate to the Talk:Singular they page? It seems silly to recapitulate the entire acrimonious discussion in this more general forum. -- Jeff Q 14:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

 * Moved from the Village pump.

User:Vapier is going around changing instances of "he or she" to "he" with edit summaries of the gender neutral form in English is "he". This is something that is somewhat controversial, so I was surprised to find nothing in the Manual of Style discussing this. Is there anywhere where what we do in this case has been discussed? &mdash;Morven 04:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to make a prediction that not enough people would agree with Vapier's changes for consensus within the WP community, so she or he shouldn't be doing it. func(talk) 04:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally, I am OK with either "he" or "he or she" -- but I reserve the right to chop off the fingers of anyone using singular-they or (shudder) sie/hir ;) &rarr;Raul654 05:00, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree about the sie/hir pronouns. They're still neologisms. But I don't think the singular they is so bad, myself (see comment below). Yet another option: what do you think of s/he? I think it's a little on the informal side, but wouldn't really care too much if I saw it in articles. &bull; Benc &bull; 05:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's "he" or, if you want to be PC about it, "they". Simple enough. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 05:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me, though there will be some dissenting voices. According to prescriptivists, they is not a singular pronoun. (However, I'm a descriptivist at heart.) The average English speaker uses they as their singular gender-neutral pronoun of choice. (Sorry, bad joke. But you see my point &mdash; that sentence parsed just fine despite the their, didn't it?) &bull; Benc &bull; 05:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think singular they is just fine and probably the best option because "he" offends so many people, although I'm fine with "he" myself. I don't like "he or she" or sie; the former is sloppy and sounds repetative when used, and the latter isn't common enough &mdash; siro  &chi;  o


 * There is nothing whatsoever wrong with singular they. I don't consider it PC as it has been used for centuries (since the 14th century in fact, I refer you to ). People often say that English has no gender neutral pronouns but singular they does the job just fine. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The best alternative is often to avoid the problem by recasting the sentence, usually by making the subject plural, so then it is gramatically correct to use "they." I think "he" is OK, but I don't know if it's worthy of going on a hunt to change.


 * "He or she" usuallly sounds clunky; most people wouldn't talk like that in conversation. "They" is inconsistent with the formality called for by the discouragement of contractions.


 * Maurreen 06:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As has already been pointed out by Trilobite,'they' is the long-standing option of choice and has nothing to do with PC. 18th century prescriptivists attempted to ban it but failed, fortunately. What no earth has 'they' got to do with contractions? Filiocht 07:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Gee, if "they" is acceptable, can I go back to have my elementary school grades corrected? Sorry folks, I suffered to learn the difference between singular and plural, and now it's your turn. Mackerm 08:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Have a look here: seems your teachers cheated you. Filiocht 09:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly favour 'they', because it is gender neutral. :ChrisG 08:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Whether or not your teachers were wrong is irrelevent. (Some of us learnt proper grammar, as part of Latin. :-P)
 * James F. (talk) 09:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a religious issue over which there'll never be complete agreement. File it alongside split infinitives, dangling participles and other arcana. The important thing is that whatever is written is easy to read and comprehend. On that basis I have absolutely no problem with the singular they. But anyway, since no amount of argument on either side will resolve this, perhaps we should just proceed to the vote... -- Avaragado 10:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I see four voting options:


 * they
 * he or she
 * she or he
 * s/he

Anyone got more they want to add? Filiocht 10:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Article creator uses their own preference, subsequent editors maintain consistency on per-page basis.
 * (As with British/American usage. Because as of 2004 there is no authoritative consensus. See long comment below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly prefer singular they, but I doubt we can reach a consensus on this that would justify specifying this in the Manual of Style. I could be wrong here, and will be interested to see how it turns out. An alternative would be to explicitly allow more than one style, as we already do with British or American spellings. This could (shock horror) even include variants that don't appear in the four above. Andrewa 12:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As the problem derives from a user who is not allowing more than one style (see above), it may well be that the outcome will to specify in the Manual of Style that variants are acceptable and should not be edited out. If you can think of more variants, please add to the list. As indicated, it is not intended to be complete, just the four I could think of (equal shock, equal horror). Filiocht 12:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the best practice is the same as what we do now for British/American usage. The creator of an article uses whatever they please, and subsequent editors should keep individual articles clear and consistent without trying to favor one usage over other.


 * It was true in 1960 that "the gender neutral form is he". It is not true in 2004. What is true in 2004 is that there is no consensus on this point among authorities, as witness the Usage Note from AHD4 below. This note strongly questions whether he is linguistically gender-neutral, and gives a particular case in in which a clear majority chose something other than his but could not agree on what should be used!


 * AHD4 concludes that "The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive."


 * Making systematic wholesale changes in articles that are clear and understandable as written is pushing a POV, in particular a cultural point of view about English usage and is uncalled for.
 * Here's the full AHD4 usage note: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Traditionally the pronouns he, him, and his have been used as generic or gender-neutral singular pronouns, as in A novelist should write about what he knows best and No one seems to take any pride in his work anymore. Since the early 20th century, however, this usage has come under increasing criticism for reflecting and perpetuating gender stereotyping. &#8226;Defenders of the traditional usage have argued that the masculine pronouns he, his, and him can be used generically to refer to men and women. This analysis of the generic use of he is linguistically doubtful. If he were truly a gender-neutral form, we would expect that it could be used to refer to the members of any group containing both men and women. But in fact the English masculine form is an odd choice when it refers to a female member of such a group. There is something plainly disconcerting about sentences such as Each of the stars of As Good As It Gets [i.e., Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt] won an Academy Award for his performance. In this case, the use of his forces the reader to envision a single male who stands as the representative member of the group, a picture that is at odds with the image that comes to mind when we picture the stars of As Good As It Gets. Thus he is not really a gender-neutral pronoun; rather, it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical convention; it also suggests a particular pattern of thought. &#8226;It is clear that many people now routinely construct their remarks to avoid generic he, usually using one of two strategies: changing to the plural, so they is used (which is often the easiest solution) or using compound and coordinate forms such as he/she or he or she (which can be cumbersome in sustained use). In some cases, the generic pronoun can simply be dropped or changed to an article with no change in meaning. The sentence A writer who draws on personal experience for material should not be surprised if reviewers seize on that fact is complete as it stands and requires no pronoun before the word material. The sentence Every student handed in his assignment is just as clear when written Every student handed in the assignment. &#8226;Not surprisingly, the opinion of the Usage Panel in such matters is mixed. While 37 percent actually prefer the generic his in the sentence A taxpayer who fails to disclose the source of &rule3m; income can be prosecuted under the new law, 46 percent prefer a coordinate form like his or her; 7 percent felt that no pronoun was needed in the sentence; 2 percent preferred an article, usually the; and another 2 percent overturned tradition by advocating the use of generic her, a strategy that brings the politics of language to the reader's notice. Thus a clear majority of the Panel prefers something other than his. The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive. See Usage Notes at each, every, neither, one, she, they.
 * &mdash;American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition

I strongly agree with the general idea of following the same practice as used concerning British or American spelling. That is, generally following following the practice of the first contributor.

But I would refine it somewhat. Any choice may be controversial, but at least the following are all widely used:
 * "he"
 * "he or she"
 * "she or he"
 * "they"

I would also allow mixing up "he" and "she," as long as the context is clear.

And I think it's OK to change sentences to fullfill both purposes. For example, "Each student must bring his own pencil," could be rewriten as "All students must bring their own pencil."

But I would discourage artificial forms such as "s/he." That is not widely used and can be jarring to the reader. Also, can it be pronounced any way other than "she," which goes against the purpose?

Maurreen 15:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * looks like i started this whole mess ... and i've only been a user for ~24 hours now ;)
 * User:Smrits was kind enough to point out this thread while User:Snowspinner was 'kind enough' to threaten me with banning, but whatever


 * i'll just toss in what i was thinking when i started doing this ... my elementary school, like some others, taught me that 'he' is the gender neutral form as well as the masculine ... some others here remember that as well
 * however, no matter how you cut it, using 'he' just doesnt *seem* right, as this thread (and many others on the internet can attest) ... ignoring the PC issue (which is complete BS imho) and the 'religious issue' (i dont think it's ever been religious), and again working with what others have pointed out, this discussion has existed for many years before any of us here were born :)
 * googling (english gender neutral pronouns) for more background yields these general consensus's:
 * he (and related pronouns like 'man') historically were gender neutral; over time the masculine form was dropped and the gender neutral forms took on duel rolls
 * no one can agree on the 'official proper form'
 * 'he or she', 'she or he', 's/he', 'she/he', etc... are (as someone else put it) jarring to the reader
 * also, if you review any professional printed encyclopedia material out there, i *highly* doubt you will find any instances of 'he or she', 'he/she', 's/he', etc...


 * On page 485 of volume 8, DEM-EDW of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, DRAMA, section 3, Chinese drama, you will read:
 * The chief character of a play represents the author as well as the personage; he or she is hero or heroine and chorus in one.
 * Googling on site:www.gutenberg.net "he or she" turns up examples from such well-regarded writers of English as Frances Hodgson Burnett, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Bret Harte, Edward Bellamy, James Fenimore Cooper, L. Frank Baum, Andrew Lang, George Bernard Shaw, Anthony Trollope, Henry James, George Meredith, and, indeed:
 * And Gareth answered her with kindling eyes,
 * 'Gold?' said I gold?--ay then, why he, or she,
 * Or whosoe'er it was, or half the world
 * Had ventured--had the thing I spake of been
 * Mere gold--but this was all of that true steel,
 * Whereof they forged the brand Excalibur...
 * &mdash;Tennyson, Idylls of the King
 * "He or she" is not a recent coinage. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * so, if my vote matters at all, i would say the policy should be:
 * try to rewrite your work such that the gender pronoun isnt used (but doesnt affect the quality of the work)
 * if you're forced to use a gender neutral pronoun, 'they' is the suggested form, but you may use 'he'
 * SpanKY 22:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It may be a coincidence, but this issue came up recently in the article on the famous Milgram psychology experiment. The British Psychological Society style guide discourages the use of 'he' when sex is not necessarily male.


 * 10.1 Sex-specific language
 * b. Pronouns
 * Singular personal pronouns (he, she and their cognates) often cause problems. There are various possible strategies for coping with this:
 * rephrasing into the plural: When a child is disruptive he often -> When children are disruptive they often
 * rephrasing to avoid using a pronoun: After the client has been greeted by the counsellor he is asked to take a seat. -> After being greeted by the counsellor the client is asked to take a seat.
 * using plural pronouns: You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above him. -> You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above them.
 * replacing the pronoun with an article: The participant completes his task. -> The participant completes the task.
 * simply omitting the pronoun: The trainee must hand in his project work by the end of the course. -> The trainee must hand in project work by the end of the course.
 * There are other ways of avoiding the problem, but these often look clumsy or read oddly and should not be used:
 * using both male and female pronouns (e. g. he or she ; her or him ), though this solution is acceptable in isolated instances;
 * alternating between he and she, etc.; and
 * using the formula s/ he.
 * Making an introductory statement that he, etc. embraces she, etc. is not acceptable.
 * Making an introductory statement that he, etc. embraces she, etc. is not acceptable.


 * Other examples found online:
 * Change to plural
 * Man, like other mammals, breastfeeds his young. -> Humans, like other mammals, breastfeed their young.
 * Humanity is also an acceptable singular alternative to Man. func(talk) 18:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Not in this case. The possessive that corresponds to humanity is its, which we prefer not to use to refer to people, generally. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Rephrase
 * Man's search for knowledge has led him into ways of learning that require examination. -> The search for knowledge has led us into ways of learning that require examination.
 * Avoid personal pronoun
 * The client is usually the best judge of the value of his counseling. -> The client is usually the best judge of the value of counseling. or Clients are usually the best judges of the value of the counseling they receive. or The best judge of the value of counseling is usually the client.


 * I sometimes make edits similar to the above. This is just another thing that some editors consider. Others think it is not important. It is not worth getting into a holy war about it. If user:Vapier (or anyone else) is motivated enough to make an edit, then contributions are welcome as long as they do not merely change 'she' to 'he'.


 * Bobblewik (talk) 16:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style says "Using he, his, and him as common-sex pronouns is now widely considered sexist, if not misleading," but it also frowns on he/she, s/he, or the singular they. "His or her" and "he or she" is the default, then, with the real directive being to recast sentences to avoid these problems ever coming up.

Since I am a firm believer in following legitimate style guides, I'm going to say "Let's go with he or she." Snowspinner 18:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. In some cases there are also plenty of ways to slightly alter your sentence to avoid the use of either she or he.  Exploding Boy 18:41, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain this jarring to the reader thing to me? I have seen, heard, spoken, and written he or she in various places throughout the whole of my life without giving it any thought until I came here to Wikipedia and discovered there is apparently an issue with it. And by the way, "PC"' and "political correctness" are not the dirty words some of you are making them out to be. Language usage that seeks to be inclusive is an appropriate goal for any literary effort. Generally, I agree with efforts to re-word sentences, but the occasional he or she isn't going to jar anyone who isn't simply too jarrible to begin with. func(talk) 22:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In any case, everyone was taught something difference in this regard. We're going to have a hard time mandating one option and then getting people to even remember to follow it. I would think that a good compromise might be, "try to avoid using gender-specific pronouns if you can; if it's necessary to use them, try to avoid accidentally giving an impression of exclusivity". --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent wording. Jallan 23:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This can go into the Manual as is, methinks. We might need to append a sentence about what not to use, though. Judging from the above comments, the consensus appears to be "Please avoid terms that are not widely used (e.g., sie and hir, s/he, and Spivak pronouns)." &bull; Benc &bull; 01:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, how about we vote on these choices for "personal pronouns":
 * 1) Article creators use their own preference and subsequent editors maintain consistency on a per-page basis. (As with British and American usage)
 * 2) Try to avoid using gender-specific pronouns if you can. When they are necessary, try to avoid an impression of exclusivity.
 * 3) Leave out of the style guide until there is either more consensus or more of a problem than a single user making widespread but controversial changes.

I'll take No. 1 or 3, in that order. Maurreen 06:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2. I don't think simply remaining silent about it is a good option: if one new user did it, more will in the future as Wikipedia continues to grow. It's also in Wikipedia's best interests to have the Manual of Style be as comprehensive as possible (without being excessively wordy, which is what I'm being &mdash; sorry. :-)). &bull; Benc &bull; 07:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3, except give some guidance. I don't like following the British English/American English model because sometimes one solution is OK in one context but not OK for something that comes up later.  By "some guidance" I mean that the style guide should address points on which there appears to be consensus: Don't use sie/hir; don't do wholesale changes of other users' preferences; strive for clarity; consider the full range of alternatives when editing a problem sentence. JamesMLane 07:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2 and 1 in that order. I.e., avoid if possible and if it can't be avoided, be be consistent on an article by article basis (while also being tolerant of different preferences). older ≠ wiser 11:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2 and 1 in that order. Plus: state positively that as of 2004 there is no consensus among authorities. Plus: note that "s/he" is disliked; and that sie and hir are not in general use, not in dictionaries, and should not be used. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2 is the only acceptable choice here. It is untrue that there is no consensus among authorities - he has been soundly rejected by all styleguides, which contain sections on gender-neutral language. The solution is generally "Since none of us agree on what the alternative should be, recast the sentence." Snowspinner 14:14, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2. 1 seems like it would involve more internal consistency than is always stylistically appropriate. (If the one writer uses "he or she", that's fine, but it does get awkward if used repeatedly.) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3 because I do not think there is consensus and I believe that the problem has been blown up more than a little. My only desire has been to ensure that the use of 'they' should be allowed. Filiocht 14:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2, in that order. Exploding Boy 15:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2. Number 1 doesn't work, as there is no need for consistancy within an article on this point. An article talking about sailors might quite sensibly use he and him when referring to the nineteenth century and earlier but try to be gender neutral in referring to the present. An author should be allowed to use he or she in one sentence and use they in another, whichever best fits the flow of the language. 3 would be the second choice, as there has been no problem till now. When all style guides agree, we don't need to list their agreement here except for recurring problems (otherwise we will end up with a longer version of the Chicago Manual of Style). The Wikipedia style guide should be a quick reference to points where Wikipedia has some specific preference not covered in some style guides or which disagrees with some style guides. It should also be a quick reference to points where people again and again tend to go wrong. For the rest, use any good style guide. Jallan 17:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll go with "they," for sure. L33tminion 15:53, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * "he or she" shows preference to the male (by putting it first), but "she or he" is non-idiomatic, and "s/he" is, in my opinion, a clunky artificial construction that I don't think should be used in an intellectual work.
 * "They" is acquiring the single person animate gender neutral connotation in English speech, just as the plural "you" eclipsed the role of the singular "thee."
 * In specific situations where "they" is confusing, I would go with "he or she" (because I pick the more idiomatic phrase)
 * Also "one" is commanly used when talking about an individual in general (especially because using the second or first person in a reference book or essay is frowned upon; i.e. using "one can see" instead of "you can see," etc.)

Just to throw in my opinion: Wikipedia's tone is in many cases somewhat more conversational than your average encyclopedia. While I don't expect to see singular they in Brittanica, I think it's quite reasonable on a Wikipedia page, since it's already familiar to all English speakers from conversation and it's not stilted or awkward. That said, I agree with the grammar guides that say first recast the sentence if you can do so without making it more awkward. The use of he is sexist, but traditional &mdash; I think it's okay for editors who prefer it to use it, and others who care more can clean it up later. The use of she is a ridiculous attempt at political correctness that is at both sexist and non-traditional, and so should not be used. Some books claim suggest using he and she alternatedly, but this is no less sexist and additionally confusing.

Another handy workaround is to use an example scenario, like this: "Suppose Debby were a librarian working in Denmark, who wanted to blah blah blah. Then she would have to pay her taxes to her hamster."

Derrick Coetzee 17:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * We seem to have consensus that number 2 is worthy of the manual. The policy is conceptually simple, and in most cases is easy to implement. I propose that something to that effect goes in the manual.


 * I think that rewording an article is easier than describing how to do it. As an experiment, I took some of the articles that prompted this topic and reworded them (I did some other edits at the same time). See:
 * Living will
 * Landscape architecture
 * Reasonable person
 * Softball
 * United Kingdom general elections
 * Water polo
 * Bullseye (American game show)
 * Obsessive-compulsive disorder
 * Feel free to criticise/amend my rewording. If you look at Vapier's contributions and User:Smrits contributions, you should be able to try one for yourself. Perhaps people here might want to try doing one for real and seeing how sufficient that proposal number 2 is.

There is a majority, but not a strong one. I&#8217;d like to suggest the following compromise, under "personal pronouns", based on suggestions by JamesMLane and the British Psychological Society:
 * Many people see gender-neutral pronouns as important, but possible solutions are controversial. We do have consensus on striving for clarity, avoiding wholesale changes of other users' preferences, and considering a broad range of alternatives.
 * The problem can often be avoided, as shown by this advice quoted from the

The British Psychological Society style guide:
 * rephrasing into the plural: When a child is disruptive he often -> When children are disruptive they often
 * rephrasing to avoid using a pronoun: After the client has been greeted by the counsellor he is asked to take a seat. -> After being greeted by the counsellor the client is asked to take a seat.
 * using plural pronouns: You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above him. -> You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above them.
 * replacing the pronoun with an article: The participant completes his task. -> The participant completes the task.
 * simply omitting the pronoun: The trainee must hand in his project work by the end of the course. -> The trainee must hand in project work by the end of the course.

Does anyone object to that policy? Maurreen 03:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm a late-comer to the discussion: This sounds good although I'd still argue that "Rather than towering over the young person, sit at the same level." avoids the plural pronoun and is better writing. IMHO, it's hard to come up with examples where there's no good alternative to the plural pronoun (although I'm sure some exist because I occasionally encounter them). Elf | Talk 18:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The policy that was preferred by the majority above (I fail to understand how seven out of nine votes constitutes "a majority, but not a strong one") is basically what you describe. I'm not sure it's necessary to spell it out in such detail. Perhaps there could be a separate page listing possible techniques? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New choices? -- Second vote
Possibly I miscounted. My tally is six people voted for No. 2, and the other choices got four votes (myself, Benc, JamesMLane, and Filiocht).

I'm not pushing for detail, just trying to find what's least objectionable to the most people.

How about these choices, in order by length:


 * 1) Generally avoid making wholesale changes to others users' preferences.
 * 2) Try to avoid using gender-specific pronouns if you can. When they are necessary, try to avoid an impression of exclusivity.
 * 3) Many people see gender-neutral pronouns as important, but possible solutions are controversial. We do have consensus on striving for clarity, avoiding wholesale changes of other users' preferences, and considering a broad range of alternatives.

I'll take either No. 1 or No. 3.

Both addresse the original problem, both are based on broad areas of agreement, and I think "he" is often OK, or at least no worse than the most commonly used alternatives. - Maurreen 04:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 1, 2, and 3 are all equally acceptable to me, in any combination. I also propose linking to Quest for gender-neutral pronouns. &bull; Benc &bull; 07:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted from style guide
I deleted the following because it doesn't give much guidance and I think any entry should wait until we conclude the discussion. Maurreen 17:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Currently, the style conventions for gender-neutral singular personal pronouns are unclear. ("It" generally only refers to inanimate objects (or sometimes just non-humans) and is therefore an impersonal pronoun.)  Five alternatives have been proposed:
 * "he or she" (disputed as favoring males)
 * "she or he" (disputed as being non-idomatic and favoring females)
 * "s/he" (disputed as being an "artificial and clunky construction", favoring females, and being gramatically incorrect)
 * "they" (disputed as being gramatically incorrect as a singular pronoun)
 * "one" (disputed as being not applicable to many situations and impersonal)


 * I was the one that added this. It seems likely that consesus will not be reached on this issue for some time, and I think that listing the proposed alternatives (and the reasons why they are disputed) would be more informative than merely posting a link to the talk page, where a reader must dig through this long debate to find that information.  I think that in situations where consensus is unlikely in the near future, the article should attempt to summarize the debate on an issue, thus providing information (even though not giving a definate answer).  In my opinion, this is a better alternative than merely leaving part of the article blank.  I recomend that this information be restored to the section (while still retaining the link to the talk page citing the ongoing discussion.  --L33tminion 06:27, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

True or false??
True or false: there has been enough discussion about gender-neutral language so that we should have a poll on what pronouns to use. 66.245.118.119 01:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Not just yet. I just arrived and ask:  Why can not the people who object to the generalized singular "he" consider that the females whom this usage purportedly disrespects might better consider themselves honored by having a pronoun all their own?Sfahey 23:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) (npc in maryland)