Talk:John Doubleday (restorer)

Craftsman/craftsperson

This article's appearance on the main page yesterday generated controversy over the eleventh word in the article: craftsperson. 16 of the 58 edits following this article's appearance have been to change this word, either from craftsperson to craftsman, or back again. A review of the edits in question, with edit summaries in parentheses, follows:

1. 137.25.104.127: craftsperson -> craftsman (typo)
2. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (Not a typo; discussed at Talk:John Doubleday (restorer)/GA1)
3. 2601:381:4000:190:6487:c131:92e8:f349: craftsperson -> craftsman (no edit summary)
4. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (See previous edit summary and Talk:John Doubleday (restorer)/GA1)
5. 71.191.47.98: craftsperson -> craftsman (Fixed grammar)
6. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (rollback)
7. 2001:569:fac4:7800:d455:8760:15a2:35a8: craftsperson -> craftsman (no edit summary)
8. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (rollback)
9. Kelisi: craftsperson -> craftsman (>>>Reverted PC — absolutely ludicrous example! As if nobody can tell Doubleday's sex from the pronouns or the picture. And by the way, WP is not PC, and no axe-grinding is allowed.)
10. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (No axe-grinding, thanks; the article sailed through both GA and FA with that word structure.)
11. 31.52.160.160: craftsperson -> craftsman (According to that rationale, any GA or FA article could never be edited again. These statuses do not stop continuous improvement, and craftsperson to craftsman is an improvement. The latter term is, in any case, used elsewhere in the article.)
12. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (Get ye back to the 1950s.)
13. 31.52.160.160: craftsperson -> craftsman (Craftsman, + ref to that effect)
14. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (Reference (which is also inconsistently formatted) adds nothing, since the wording is stylistic, and Oddy 2006 could be used for that point instead)
15. Kelisi: craftsperson -> craftsman (The original wording was "craftsman", and changing it to the unword "craftsperson" adds nothing stylistically. My original edit reverted an uncalled-for mangling of the article to restore it to its original non-PC glory.)
16. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (The original wording was also worded by me (see here), and as said in my last edit summary, there are two problems with the reference that you restored. Let's leave the article stable for now and discuss on the talk page.)

In terms of the article's history, craftsman was used when I created the article, and changed to craftsperson at J Milburn's suggestion during the good article review. The word was not mentioned during either of the featured article candidacies (1; 2). During these latter two reviews, the contributors were Squeamish Ossifrage, Casliber, J Milburn, KJP1, Tony1, FunkMonk, Wehwalt, Ceoil, and Serial Number 54129.

Personally, if I tend to think "craftsperson" is a slightly better word than "craftsman," I don't think the difference is that substantial, especially with someone who was clearly an artisan and clearly a man. "Craftsperson" does have the benefit, however, of recognizing that using gendered terms can get awkward (do we term female artisans "craftswomen"? What about non-binary artisans?), and that the substance of the word is a what a person did, not what their gender was. I don't see it so much as an issue of political correctness (and on that note, Kelisi, what is the Wikipedia policy that you seem to be referencing? I searched, but could not find it) as much as a nod to the reality that using gendered terms can lead to situations with no easy resolutions. As Kelisi said, "As if nobody can tell Doubleday's sex from the pronouns or the picture." This is true, but it seems to make the opposite point of what was intended: we don't need the word "craftsman" to make clear that Doubleday was a man, and so little if anything is lost by using "craftsperson" instead. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Forgot to ping Kelisi. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. I confess I don't fully understand some of what Kelisi says in the edit summaries (perhaps he could expand on it here?), though I do want to challenge his claim that craftsperson is an "unword". The OED lists it with the definition "A person engaged in handicraft; (spec. as a deliberately non-sexist term for) a craftsman or craftswoman." It has quotations going as far back as 1920. (Incidentally, the OED recognises unword only as an obsolete, rare verb meaning "To deprive of words; to make speechless". If anyone here is making up words...) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What do the, admittedly dated, sources say? FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the relevant alphabet soup is WP:GNL. In reviewing, I generally won't comment on such language choices.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that some editors stuck up for gender-neutral language. Tony (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

In the 'alphabet soup' we have the following: "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")." I'll add further comments tomorrow - it's getting late here. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would echo FunkMonk and refer only to the sources, although I would not pay much regard to how dated they are. I wouldn't retro-edit sources to match current trends in the application of language. If it's reflected in the sources, it's good enough for me. RandomGnome (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would go with gender neutral language. Shame there is not a term with fewer syllables. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Some basic points: 'craftsman' appears in the original article, created by Usernameunique. The fact that he, as opposed to anyone else, changed it to 'craftsperson' here [1], is totally irrelevant. I'm sure everyone knows this, but I mention it only for clarification - the creator of an article has no special position regarding the continuing development of an article.

Concerning the reference I introduced; this was mentioned as having two problems (see above). I can only see one problem, a formatting problem, but from a user's point of view this is irrelevant, since the reference worked as expected. I don't see any problem with the source - it's reputable - and it does use the word 'craftsman'.

Considering the word dispute itself: In the media and elsewhere, the 'person' suffix is commonly used as a generic form when an individual is not identified. For instance, "we wish to employ a craftsperson". If the individual is known, the 'man' or 'woman' suffix is mainly used. For example, "John is a craftsman'. See Mike_Ashley_(businessman) and Philip Green for examples. Indeed, and to repeat what I said above, The Wikipedia MOS suggests this usage in the statement "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")."

I looked at some references in addition to the one I found in the Irish Times. Oddy seems to be the main source, and it includes this statement; "His "greatest triumph" was his 1845 restoration of the smashed Portland Vase, suggesting that Doubleday was among "the forefront of the craftsmen-restorers of his time". It appears that Oddy is quite happy with craftsman. In fact, the precise reference was incorporated in the article until this edit [2], whereupon it seems a reference was removed simply because it contained the word 'craftsman' (apologies if I've misinterpreted what happened here, but you can see why such an edit might raise eyebrows).

In summary, 'craftman/woman' is the more common usage when the identity of an individual is known. The major reference source, and other references, use 'craftsman'. And in fact 'craftsman' does not imply the holder of the title is male. Some women also describe themselves as 'craftsmen'. I suggest the word is changed in the article from 'craftsperson' - an awkward word - to 'craftsman'. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to respond to one point—I might respond in more depth later—since it concerns an edit of mine you say "raise[s] eyebrows". Oddy 2006 is still in the article, with the exact quotation you mentioned: see John Doubleday (restorer)#Portland Vase. That is why, in the edit summaries quoted above, I said that your new reference was not needed; Oddy 2006 is sufficient to make the point that you used the new reference for. The rephrasing in the lead had nothing to do with the word 'craftsmen.' It was done to avoid uncertainty over logical quotation (see discussion here), and was probably also influenced by a general desire to cut down on unattributed quotations. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Accepted. Thanks. It also removes an inline ref. from the lead, which is probably a good thing anyway. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

John Doublday: England and Wales Census

Is this a typo lacking an 'e' in the sources? DarkLilac (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)