Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 224

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mathglot in topic Feedback requested at MOS/Hidden text
Archive 220←Archive 222Archive 223Archive 224Archive 225Archive 226→Archive 228

RfC: LGBT

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is in favour of option B, i.e. do not standardize across Wikipedia. Arguments made in favour of this option included a lack of general agreement among sources about which term to use, that we should not presume that the terms are interchangeable in all contexts but rather defer to what the sources use, and the relative commonness of the different terms changing over time. There was some support for a couple of other options, mainly related to assessments that those options represent the term that is most commonly used, but editors disagreed about which of the options that would be. There was also some discussion about internal consistency within articles, but not enough for a consensus to emerge; this may be more appropriate to discuss at the relevant articles' talk pages as the considerations may differ from case to case. TompaDompa (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How should the use of the acronym that refers to the LGBT community be standardized (not including names of organizations)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the usage lean mostly towards LGBT, but LGBTQ+ pops up in some article language, and LGBTQ appears in both article titles and text. Even the article LGBT isn't consistent in prose.

Options:

  • A: Standardize the usage of the word/initialism
    • A1: LGBT
    • A2: LGBTQ
    • A3: LGBTQ+
    • A4: Queer

Survey

  • B. I think an individual article should be internally consistent but sources used article to article may give a preference to one variation over another. Personally would prefer us to have one set standard but ultimately I think we're beholden to how our sources use it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 10:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    We may not even be able to be consistent within the same article in some cases, since, for example, the scope of various events, laws, etc. have changed over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • LGBT The reason why we need standardization is because various sources in many languages have many names for this concept, and for clarity we as Wikipedia editors can take an editorial position to use one term uniformly even if cited sources use another term.
At meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ we had this discussion many times and the consensus came to "LGBT+". "LGBT" is the most common name and also historically accepted by the organized stakeholder communities. In acknowledgement that other demographics want separate recognition we added the plus.
Problems with "Q" for queer include that 1) this was a slur term until recently 2) its definition varies broadly 3) it is a Western culture concept and increasing Western representation seems counterproductive to shifting the conversation globally. There is almost no non-Western development of the LGBT discourse but to the extent that it happens, I have not seen evidence that queer is anyone's preferred term for talking about how LGBT culture developed outside the Western world. As long as the term is LGBT or LGBT+ we retain more non-Western inclusivity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There are options not listed. The most inclusive variant (found in many sources) is: LBGTQIA+. This should at least be an option. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B. Seems a bit too tricky to standardize, and I don't think there is likely to be a widely accepted standard anywhere anytime soon. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B: The existence of these synonyms isn't a problem and doesn't require fixing; we can just follow the sources. As between LGBT and LGBTQ, the former is still the most popular, but the latter is rapidly gaining on it, so the use of both on Wikipedia is inevitable for some time to come. Queer is often used with slightly different shades of meaning from the initialisms, and where sources use it, our summaries of them should reflect that.--Trystan (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I’ll admit, I have changed LGBT[etc] to LGBT at least twice that I can remember, and I have backed this up with the following: LGBT was the term used in the source(s); LGBT is the common name used at LGBT; and the word LGBT is not an exclusive one (usually noted in regard to the LGBT community). If either of the first two reasons were not there, I probably would not have made the change. In saying that, my non-vote goes to B, but I’ve always liked Q as the letter-equivalent of a plus, as in, “we are LGBT in a literal sense, but if you’re otherwise a bit ‘queer’ you’re also welcome.” But that’s just, like, my opinion. — HTGS (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B. Which to use varies by context. Using something like "LGBTQIA+" or even "LGBTQ" will be an anachronism is some contexts, even as recently as events from the 1990s to 2000s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  •   Disagree (option B): The first thing I ever saw in this discourse was LBT. Later they added another letter LGBT. Some time later I stumbled upon LGBTQ, and now I think we’re at LGBTQIA+? Seriously, an encyclopedia is meant to document established knowledge. Evidently, there is no one generally accepted term. It is politics and I suppose there’ll always be a squabble as regards how to name things. We (as an encyclopedia) should stay away from any politicking (that doesn’t affect our own operations), thus do not standardize. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 08:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    As recently as the early 2000s, "GLT" and "LGT" were common; I had friends that printed up "This is offensive to bisexuals" stickers to slap on GLT/LGT and "Gay and Lesbian" signage at events like Folsom Street Fair (and to this day there's still a lot of sotto voce discrimination against the B among L and G people). GLB and GLBT have also been common; putting the L first came about later and is mostly a 2010s thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Not to mention the sotto voce discrimination against the T among the other three (not all, but definitely present) and the whole "Drop the T" movement. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • B (no cross-wiki standardization), though within an article a term should be standardized. I expect this would depend on the topic and other factors - eg if talking about gay rights in the pre-2000s, I would not expect "LGBTQ+" to be used. --Masem (t) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A2 - is the most common usage, that I've seen. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A1 – from search results, it looks to me that "LGBT" is more popular than "LGBTQ", "LGBT+", etc – considering both general searches, and also those focusing on reliable sources (e.g Google News, Google Scholar, JSTOR). I think we ought to try to be consistent across articles, and we ought to prefer the term which is most popular (especially with reliable sources) over those with less popularity. Mr248 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion on this, but the problem with search results (especially from Scholar and Books) is that you're looking at the average of past usage. With nGrams, you can see that LGBTQ is now roughly equally as common as LGBT. Is this significant? Hard to say.... --Macrakis (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Closure

I've requested closure for this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Simple vs double quotes

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This MOS says "Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes, with no comma before the definition (Cossack comes from Turkic qazaq 'freebooter')." However, this is very difficult to apply in texts about historical linguistics. Scholars describe and define meanings from a distant time with a different cultural understanding from today. Usually, scholars translate historical and reconstructed words somewhat differently, and inevitably based on the scholars' own theoretical and subjective understànding. I don't think it is reasonably possible to apply this MOS, in the articles I write, and here is an example. How can I comply with MOS, when the glosses are more or less subjective, and rarely "simple"?--Berig (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, if I would use simple quotes for "simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms", I would make the definition POV, because another scholar would use a sentence to define a meaning that would be dependent on their theoretical interpretation, and for that I would need to double quotes. So, in order to write in a way that comes close to NPOV, I simply cannot use simple quotes for the definition provided by one scholar and double quotes for those from another.--Berig (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Glancing at your link, I do not see any special situations that would need anything other than the standard linguistic formatting; for example, "Old English hellerune 'seeress, witch' ... in OHG as hellirûna 'necromancy' ... *χaljō 'Hel, the abode of the dead' ... into Finnish, where runo means 'poem' ..." etc. If a meaning is disputed or hypothetical, this is usually expressed verbally, without any need for scare quotes; for example, "Smith hypothesizes that *q'ólhi- means 'canoe' but Jones claims that it means 'land' ..." etc. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Should those occurrences of "simple" be "single" (except for "Simple glosses)? Otherwise, I find it hard to comprehend. Tony (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I think "simple gloss" means "just a gloss, not a functional part of a sentence"; in the MOS example, freebooter is just a gloss, not the object of the preposition or anything else with a syntactic function in the example. Doremo (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I find it convenient, though, not to separate definitions from quotes when I reference the text, as semantics often involve subjective views, and in these situations semantic reconstructions.--Berig (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
"[T]his is very difficult to apply in texts about historical linguistics" – except it's not. This is a usage WP didn't make up but adopted from linguistics in the first place. Just put glosses in single quotes; it really is that simple. It doesn't matter whose gloss it is or what their reasons for coming up with it are, or who agrees or disagrees with them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines relating to people with disabilities

Latest comment: 2 years ago47 comments17 people in discussion

I don't know if I've followed the process properly, but I've made a proposal here for MOS guidelines on how to refer to people with disabilities. It was previously a style advice page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability but I feel that Wikipedia needs a policy on this based on community consensus.

Any input or help people could give would be appreciated! –Bangalamania (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this being an official MOS page (although I don't know what the actual procedure is for achieving this). Most of it is essentially the kind of common-sense approach that should be uncontroversial but may not always be obvious to many editors so having a policy page to point to, rather than an unofficial essay, would be a good step. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the changes made today. For example, it now claims that so-called people-first language is the most common form used by scholars, citing someone's editorial opinion. If that's the new level of the page, no way. EEng 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This has been moved back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice, as an essay, reverting its move to become part of the MOS, as a guideline. A major change like that probably needs a full village-pump-advertised RFC, not just a bold move on the initiative of a single editor. And even setting up such an RFC would be premature without discussions to test whether such a move is warranted and ready. My own opinion is that the page in question is far too discursive and opinionated to be part of the MOS; guidance in the MOS needs to be clear, direct, and non-controversial. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I put it back. Any attempt to propose adding it (or some version of it) to the MOS would firstly need consensus of the WikiProject to even begin an RFC. BOLD moves have a place in Wikipedia, but this was not one of them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't Project:Disability be renamed something like Project: PersonWithDifferentAbility? EEng 22:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not; a person with enhanced vision, extreme intelligence, perfect pitch or unusual strength is a person with different ability. However, I would prefer, e.g., person with disability, to disabled person, since many such people are able to function despite their disabilities. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Take it from me, those things can make your life absolute hell. Back to the point at hand, how is a disabled person different from a person with disability? Does that mean an unemployed person should be called a person with unemployment? Are those different? EEng 14:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This feels needlessly trite. We don't discuss a person's unemployment in biographies generally and when we do it certainly isn't seen to be anywhere near as life-defining as language can make disabilities. We also don't as a society use euphemistic language which equates unemployment with being lesser-than, which is done with disability-related language. What gain is there in taking a path that might hurt people when there's no loss in taking the path that won't. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Grapple X and EEng if the guide page does not adequately address this issue please feel free to start a discussion about it on the talk page. Perhaps the guide could copy some relevant content from the People-first language article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not needlessly trite. This kind of language-reform activism is all over the place (yet not getting much traction changing real-world usage). By way of very direct analogy, there's a movement of sorts among social workers to change "homeless people/person" to "people/person experiencing homelessness". You'll find it all the time in specialist writing, but it is not a norm in journalism or other everyday source usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree. To quote George Orwell, Never use a long word where a short one will do.[1] Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course biographies discuss a person's unemployment. But sorry, I'm confused. Can you give an example of the euphemistic language to which you object? EEng 15:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You mean to say you've never seen terms like "handicapped" or "disabled" used euphemistically to denote a hindrance? Whereas we would never refer to unemployment in that same sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. In the old days blunt terms like crippled were used. Then disabled came in as euphemism. But euphemisms gradually take on the stigma they were designed to avoid, and so new euphemisms were needed like handicapped. Then for a while it was differently abled. Now, apparently, there's a new regime being pushed. But look, you said We also don't as a society use euphemistic language which equates unemployment with being lesser-than, which is done with disability-related language. You seem to be saying that there's euphemistic language that equates (something) with "being lesser-than"; but euphemisms are designed to avoid offense. So I can't tell what you're saying is/are these euphemisms, and in what way that equate lesser-than–ness. EEng 21:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean we very literally use words like "handicap" to denote being at a disadvantage or being at less than full capacity. Golfers can play with a handicap, a security system can be disabled, etc. No such use,s and so no such connotations, exist for words like "unemployed". So it is absolutely a false equivalence. I don't know how I can be any clearer in explaining this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Grapple X, if you were saying that terms like "handicapped" and "disabled" were being used derogatorily, that would be easy to understand. Likewise if you were saying we don't use derogatory language that equates unemployed with being less-than. I wonder if your use of "euphemistic" is being understood in ways you don't intend. I know that for me, a euphemism is something like calling the Greek Furies "the kindly ones". NebY (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
No actually, that's irony. Euphemism is the replacement of an unpleasant or blunt expression with something more palatable. For example, your favorite aunt isn't dead, she's "passed on" or "gone to her reward". EEng 02:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I can see why you'd say that. For a modern who doesn't believe in the Furies, it might be irony. Classically, it was euphemism and is still described as that.[1] Respectfully or fearfully giving a pleasant name to something very unpleasant is euphemism. NebY (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, now I'm going to pull the OED on you:
1. Rhetoric. That figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended. 2. An instance of this figure; a less distasteful word or phrase used as a substitute for something harsher or more offensive.
Notice: comparatively favourable .. less unpleasant ... less distasteful. What's odd about your link is the use of an opposite term, not just a softer one. But classicists are all perverse. EEng 19:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
It is sad to see a little parochial failing of the OED put to perverse use. The eu in euphemism is simply "well/good", not "comparatively", and Fowler correctly refers back to "use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one". English euphemisms do tend to be merely softer, true, though I vaguely remember seeing more dramatically euphemistic uses of wagtail, fudge, golden, chocolate, daisy-chain, pacification and liberation, and in Victorian times a man should not take an interest in a woman's interesting condition. NebY (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh for shame, NebY! What Fowler (2015) actually says is Euphemism, a mild or vague or periphrastic expression substituted for one judged to be too harsh or direct, e.g. to pass away for to die. Mild or vague or periphrastic is consistent with OED in excluding the use of euphemism to mean a word or phrase of opposite meaning, and supports what I said 100%. (In case you're wondering whether that quote is canonical, Fowler (1927) has Euphemism ... a mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth.)
F2015 does indeed then "refer back" (as you coyly put it) to "use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one", but you've hidden the context, which is The word euphemism, which is derived from the Greek word εύφημισμός 'use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one' and εὔφημος "fair of speech" was first recorded in [etc etc] (underlining mine). In other words, the English word is derived from a Greek word with a different (if related) meaning, just as I highlighted earlier. You cannot actually have expected to pull the wool over my eyes by quoting out of context, can you? ;P EEng 01:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, you seem to labor under an explanatory handicap, because I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I still can't tell what in the world you're trying to say. Blind people, paralyzed people, people with significant heart disease are at a disadvantage -- at less than full capacity and less able (in some areas of endeavor -- in others these things may make no difference at all). You said that something (apparently undesirable) is done with disability-related language but for the life of me I can't tell what it is. Can you given an actual example, please? EEng 23:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Can a disability massively impact a person's quality of life? Absolutely,and it is appropriately to attempt to mitigate that with, e.g., accessibility requirements.Is he thereby less of a person? Absolutely not. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • One big problem is that there is a lot of disagreement within the various disability groups themselves as to which terms are considered offensive and which are preferred. Some take the attitude that they can remove stigma by “owning” a pejorative and using it themselves. They actually prefer terms that others with the same condition consider offensive. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Regardless of when and how we establish guidelines, it would be useful for anyone who understands the possibilities to report the state of things. Some government projects require reporting of accessibility features. Previously I requested a report on the WMF messageboard at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)/Archive_2#Request_for_accessibility_specifications. User:RoySmith around the same time made an image alt text proposal. Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_172#Adding_an_accessibility_requirement?. Whatever requirements we have I would like them centrally listed, along with proposed features that we declined to implement or other features on the wishlist. This is a situation where reporting our status and centralizing conversation would help a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    • By reporting of accessibility features, do you mean that there should exist a page describing the current standard of best practices for making Wikipedia articles accessible? Quick, someone, get in your time machine and create MOS:ACCESS! But I'm not sure how that relates to the current discussion, which is more about how to refer to people who might for some reason require the use of those accessibility features (which is, to be honest, most of us as we get older and our eyes get worse). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I want the Wikimedia Foundation to pay professional evaluators US$30,000 (or whatever is the typical market rate) to get Wikipedia graded against whatever professional or government standards exist. The Wikimedia platform is a multi-billion dollar investment and periodically we need a status report and external perspectives to assess what we have. It is challenging to talk about how to provide access to features without a report describing what we already have and what expert consensus has claimed to be important.
Here are some possible checklists -
This is a situation where the Wikipedia community can make a call to the Wikimedia Foundation to spend money to take action. As the Wikimedia Foundation plans the consumption of budgets near US$200 million a year, issues like accessibility do not have to remain projects which the community crowdsources without a schedule for completion. If the community requested new staff hired to accomplish accessibility features, the Wikimedia Foundation would respond with public conversation.
One possible request is for the WMF to advance the Wikimedia community's own checklist; another possible request could be that the community point to established accessibility standards and tell the WMF that we prioritize investment to meet those standards. In many ways we do not have minimal accessibility, and the Wikimedia community can keep the WMF accountable to meet those standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
If anyone wants an example of what such reports look like. See here for how a large tech company reports on their own software products. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As with most other such cases, WP should not be progressive in this area, but instead should follow when multiple mainstream style guide have such advice. While it does appear a major medical-related organization is providing such advice its not clear if this is yet followed by newspaper style guidelines, and so before we can consider that as part of the MOS, that has to be shown to be true. --Masem (t) 23:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Masem, there are guidelines at National Center on Disability and Journalism. This topic seems perennial at MOS and it suffers from trolling (e.g. the "Project:PersonWithDifferentAbility" comment and subsequent arguing). The disruption diverges from what should be a "What do respectful professional publishers and writers practice?" question into a heated argument about editors personal opinions, intellectual willy waving about language, and implications by some that only their opinions are valid because they are prepared to declare their disabilities on wiki. I suspect this issue will not find a solution at MOS because editors who are at home discussing how to capitalise and punctuate are not naturally the ones best placed to think about how we write about (and think about) others, either as individuals or as people-groups. The culture here is too much flame-throwing original research, too much arguing to crushing one's opponent vs discussion towards consensus, and not enough "following best practice elsewhere".
The disability style guideline is not mature enough and is largely the product of two editors. For it to progress beyond essay status would need a fresh approach, be much shorter, and be very well referenced. -- Colin°Talk 11:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
"The culture here is too much flame-throwing original research, too much arguing to crushing one's opponent vs discussion towards consensus" - so discussions about referring to "people with disabilities" are just the same as any other part of MOS - the "dont give an inch" and "win at all costs attitude" is all too common here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Colin, I'm quite sure WikiProject Disability (me BOLDly speaking for the project) would really appreciate some input from editors well acquainted with the ways and norms of MOS writing, to improve the project's style guide. As you quite rightly point out, it is somewhat immature and thus far has had too few contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Like, a recent point of reference is the discussion about the avoidance of "manned" in favor of gender-neutral language where it was pointed out that multiple style guidelines (both press as well as NASA and DOD) all show a recommendation to move away from "manned" to other terms, validating WP to follow suite. In a counter example, a recent discussion about moving away from "commit suicide" language, a practice recommended by professional mental health organizations, was rejected here because its not yet a standard in media MOS. While I am sure that the NCDJ guideline is authoritative, we should also be looking to see if that's followed suit by press as well. That's what I'm saying about avoid being progressive - if its clear we're following the general actions of mainstream sources, then that's good, but we shouldn't move just because one body has issued a statement about preferred language that no other sources has picked up on. --Masem (t) 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Masem I think you mischaracterise the "commit suicide" argument to be merely that mental health organisations recommend it. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 216#"Committed suicide" or "died by suicide"? someone dumped a large list of recommendations or style guides with around half being media and news and half being medical. They were told "Style guides are not actual usage" and some did OR by using Google to look at usage since 1800. Admittedly that discussion has hampered by an unpopular alternative choice right from the start. You say "manned" won recently because "multiple style guides" but that suicide discussion included multiple styles guides and nobody cared. I wonder what some here, who become a shade of purple at the sight of a dash of incorrect length, would think if someone algorithmically claimed that usage of anything other than a plain - was so insignificant as to be negligible. Perhaps we should not let stuffy grammar writers "progress" language beyond its actual usage? It seems really people will claim one rule when it suits their opinion and another rule when that suits.
I think these sorts of difficult issues demonstrate a weakness in Wikipedia, where the crowd is typically ignorant but either has an opinion or can be quickly given one by a statement by someone they respect. They are a timesink for the community, which must I guess drive regulars to despair, but who keep repeating the same mistakes. Maybe for some topics we should simply offer a list of external style guides and professionally-written advice, and leave editors to educate themselves from wiser heads than whoever turns up to an RFC one evening. -- Colin°Talk 18:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Well the other way to consider both the "manned" and "commit suicide" aspects is to also consider how style guides actually get reflected in media. "Manned" is very easy to shown that many sources have avoided using that term, in agreement with several style guides, while with "commit suicide" while there are a handful of those, numerous mainstream sources still frequently use that term suggesting that the recommendation hasn't caught on in widespread guidelines. That same sort of approach would need to be evaluated with any language detailing with handling how people with disabilities should be described. --Masem (t) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Masem, if you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight then that debate did not win because anyone demonstrated that "many sources have avoided using that term", or because of many style guides (only one mattered (NASA) and many more were cited wrt suicide). It won overwhelmingly because it was an obvious extension and consequence of the existing policy on gender neutral language, and because multiple editors respected NASA's style guide wrt talking about space programmes. There are certain causes for which it is a no brainer that Wikipedia should be at the leading-edge of current practice, because they are established in the liberal democracies most of us edit from (feminism, LGBTQ, etc). Nobody is going to win an RFC with "No, let's carry on using sexist language because it is well know that sexism is endemic and we should reflect society rather than lead." or "This is the international English Wikipedia, and most of the world is homophobic. So let's wait till it catches up before we reform our writing style". But mental health issues and disability issues.... nah. There isn't even a mental health wikiproject. So I don't think change happens for the reasons you claim. Wikipedia guidelines around these matters can change because enough Wikipedians want to change and because resisting that change is socially unacceptable even with a anonymous username. Or they can not change because Wikipedians aren't that interested and have better things to do than argue with opinionated shouty editors who resist the change for whatever personal and political reasons float their boat. Let's not pretend it is more calculated and rational than that. -- Colin°Talk 09:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Colin, please note that the most recent RfC regarding the "commit suicide" language was actually in January 2021 at the Village Pump, here. And for the record, guidelines agree to avoid "committed suicide",[2] and you will find that mainstream sources have mostly stopped using the term since around 2018 or 2019 following the high profile suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, though it doesn't change my point that the earlier discussion did reference a large bunch of style guides, including a lot of ones aimed at the general reader. It is ironic that above Masem cites "press" style guides as being influential when the discussion you cite has one editor posting a huge rant containing the claim "WP has no reason to care what news style guides say" (while apparently confusing "major national broadcaster" with "news"). Of course, if one wants simply to bully the discussion, then external sources that disagree with one's position must be trashed, and opponents given a derogatory label like "language-change activists". That way, all can see who is the sole authority who must be obeyed at all times :-). -- Colin°Talk 18:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
trolling – Now now, Colin, by now you should know to look deeper at things I say. That wasn't trolling. As for the willy-waving (you Brits are so cute with your baby-talk!), let people have a little fun to relieve the humdrum. EEng 16:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • For the question at hand just have the entirety of the MOS guideline on 'how to refer to people with disabilities' point at NCDJ's style guide. Firstly its better than anything ENWP could ever conceivably come up with given the various issues Colin has listed above and secondly it will be more likely to be current than any MOS version, since actually getting change on something in the MOS here is a pain. The question/thread title actually answers itself if you read the NCDJ. People with disabilities are referred to (where relevant) as 'person with <disability, usually medical name>'. E.g 'person with albinism' rather than Albino. For the other purposes, statistics etc, the guidance should be familiar to everyone on ENWP, use what the source uses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    Only in death, The NCDJ is unfortunately not the be-all and end-all undisputed authority that you seem to believe. They have also recently retracted their unequivocal support for person-first language. The WikiProject's style advice actually discusses various competing points of view that exist in the field. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yes that was rather my point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Last go-around on this: WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_222#Person-first_language. EEng 16:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Which was notable for original research by the quite obviously ignorant yet opinionated, and by insults thrown towards anyone even suggesting that we might, you know, attempt to be respectful in our language. The whole thing could do with editors being explicitly banned from original research, from stating any personal opinions and from being negative about other's opinions. -- Colin°Talk 17:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Personally I think that's a dumb idea. EEng 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a good essay. It would be interesting to have a bit of a deeper look at a wider range of style guides regarding person-first language and see if it's really true that "By "following the sources" Wikipedia mostly favors people-first language with some specific exceptions." as that seems to be the main point of contention. I do agree that for the MOS itself we'd need something much shorter and snappier. The Land (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Politics and the English Language". The Orwell Foundation. 2011-02-16. Retrieved 2021-11-30.

Collapsing footnotes

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Is there a policy for (or against) collapsing footnotes like this? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine MOS:PRECOLLAPSE in this case. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Why would one want to hide the footnotes? They're already footnotes and, anyway, there are only three of them there, plus they're small.
It almost doesn't matter on that page though; that one table alone is something of an accessibility disaster. The whole page is really for people with good eyes, wide displays and a lot of patience. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The party breakdowns look like those pictures the doctor shows you to test for colorblindness. EEng 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Ishihara tests? – The Grid (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
totally agree about hiding footnotes, but the page owner feels otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a policy about ownership of content. But how would we draft such a thing? Hmmm. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
It's cool that a discussion has been opened on the issue. Would have been even cooler if I had been pinged on this to have a say, rather than coming into this by chance to find some ugly accusations being thrown against me on my back (including WP:OWN, despite I myself having widely accepted one of Frietjes's proposed versions of the collapsible table and no attempt of formal discussion having been made by the bold editor (note WP:BRD is there to be considered as well)). As far as I see, these edits went far beyond what was initially the subject of this discussion (the collapsing footnotes), including a massive overhaul of the table without any consideration for consistency with other articles and with many edits that did not even revolve on any policy-based reason. In particular, we see this edit removing the columns' width to make them "take care of themselves" while simulataneously letting the footnotes' width on the loose, effectively turning the table into an oversized feature with a lot of wasted space (guess this is what comes from ill-thought edits that, seemingly, seek to preserve the essence of "coding" disregarding the actual presentation of it afterwards). I don't find what's the policy-based reason for this change, either. It's basically as if this has been used as an excuse to implement a particular, preferred version of the table.
On this, I would say that what this editor may not know is that the current table's design is, mostly, a result of years and years of contributions by many editors (not specifically in this article, but for previous ones, with the resulting design being implemented in all of them), and is thus a very stable and consensuated affair, even if, at the very least, through WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Many improvements have been added throughout the years, there having been countless versions of the table until arriving to the current one. Obviously, Wikipedia is a work in progress and new improvements are welcome, but I think improvement does not come through in-the-back discussions (with possible aspersions being cast to ridicule a particular editor) and rush editing.
Now, entering on the actual policy-based issues brought forward: On the issue of MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, it only advices for avoiding auto-collapsed tables, not for avoiding using collapsible tables at all (one would have to ask, then, why templates such as Hidden exist; which, btw, have the auto-collapsed function enabled by default). MOS:COLLAPSE is also mentioned: while it is true that it advices against collapsing in general, it then provides for how to proceed when such function is used (again, templates for collapsing do exist, the collapsible function does exist in wikitables, and those have not been deprecated). It is not a general prohibition for collapsing, and in this case collapsing is used to avoid moving the focus from the table away from its main purpose, which is to present election results; footnotes are an annex to it that should only be made available when additional input is sought. It is not a whim, but a result of a well-thought process that has been evolving through the years.
Now, I'm more than willing to discuss any possible issues that may exist with the table's design so that we may collaboratively improve it. I think one such improvement has been already made by fixing the footnotes section with Frietjes's proposal. I will be glad to participate in such effort. Cheers! :) Impru20talk 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
WRT your question -- why templates such as Hidden exist; which, btw, have the auto-collapsed function enabled by default -- the answer is: there's huge amounts of deprecated junk around created by people before it was realized that it's not a good idea to use it. Also, some stuff is used in project space but not article space. EEng 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
"It almost doesn't matter on that page though; that one table alone is something of an accessibility disaster." It does matter; we have MOS:PRECOLLAPSE for a reason. The page having some accessibility problems already is no reason to add more of them. That's like saying "I have a bad tooth, ergo I should gouge out my eyes and cut my legs off."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Minor works - quotation within a quotation

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do titles of minor works follow MOS:QWQ? Should The Old Man and the "C" Student in prose be "The Old Man and the 'C' Student" and should Marge Simpson in: "Screaming Yellow Honkers" be "Marge Simpson in: 'Screaming Yellow Honkers'"? Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of bold and italics in the legend for a table

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Input from more editors is requested at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Use_of_bold_and_italics_in_the_legend_for_a_table. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

How to handle abbreviation at end of sentence, like Apple Inc..

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does an abbreviation like Apple Inc. require one or two periods if ending at sentencing? I couldn't find an example at MOS:FULLSTOP ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"Didn't use to be" or "didn't used to be"?

Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion

Not that I foresee this coming up very often in the course of writing an encyclopedia article, but there is one point of orthography I have never been clear on. Here are some examples I can think of where I'd write it:

  • According to the Podunk Times, the building used to be an umbrella factory in the 1880s.
  • The Podunk Historical Society organized a successful campaign to preserve the building as a museum of Podunk's umbrella industry, noting that it would be tragic if a building that had used to be Podunk's "crown jewel of umbrella-mongering" were destroyed.
  • However, as historical documents were being reviewed, it turned out that the building had never been used for manufacturing; the "umbrella factory" was in fact a front operation for a bordello that had operated from 1870 to 1893.
  • This led the Historical Society, as well as the Times, to conclude that it didn't used to be a part of the umbrella industry at all; the two organizations pooled their funds to rent demolition equipment the next month. Editor-in-chief Kilgore Trout was quoted in a radio interview as saying "Back in the day, we didn't use to run stories without doing proper research [...] this was an embarrassment that could only be fixed with explosives."

It has always bothered me that I could never confidently say it was one way or the other. What do you all think? jp×g 07:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Mighty good question ... That's all I'm saying for now, because I'm thinking so hard. JG66 (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're talking about being "one way or another", but these used to be constructions are a bit informal; try had not been ... never was ... never had been ... was never part of ... had been an ... . We didn't used to is a slightly different case; try weren't in the habit of ... not accustomed to ... EEng 08:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Didn't", as a helping verb, takes an uninflected verb form (the one you would see in an infinitive, but without the word "to"), not a past: "He didn't do it", not *"He didn't did it" nor "He didn't does it". The uninflected form in this case is "use". So, "didn't use to" is correct and *"didn't used to" is incorrect. At least, to my ears, and the English stackexchange seems to agree. Probably the confusion arises because the "d" in "used to" is almost silent in many accents. But both "didn't" and "use to" are too informal for most encyclopedic writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Thanks for the help -- I suppose maybe it'd have been obvious to me all along if I were from some non-Michigan place where the accent pronounces this clearly... jp×g 08:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside the appropriateness of use of the contraction "didn't", Fowler, 2nd edition (1965), under "use", deprecates the use of the present tense at all, as an archaism. The proper form is "He [or "it"] used not to", but that "He didn't used to" is still considered appropriate by Americans. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • JPxG: I'll come back with sources once I get the coffee cooking, but for now, here goes. Both constructions are used (no pun intended). "Used to," as you likely know, (is a verb that) refers to regular events or customary behavior of the past that are/is no longer true. E.g. "She used to sell seashells by the seashore." It is similar to the more formal "would," but the latter generally needs a context, such as, "When her uncle took her to Bayport, she would sell seashells by the seashore." In the affirmative case, as Dhtwiki has stated, "used to" is preferred to "use to." However, if you want to say that the behavior was not customary (as EEng has implied in their last example), you could say, "She didn't use/used to sell seashells by the seashore." My preference is for "used." In many spoken Englishes, as David has implied, both are heard as "yoosta." ("yoosdta" would be difficult to manage). In writing, especially if you want to be formal, you could write, "She used not to sell seashells by the seashore," but very likely some Wikipedian will change it.  :) More soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    From Carter and McCarthy's Cambridge Grammar of English, CUP, 2010: "The alternatives didn't used to/didn't use to both occur as written representation of the negative with didn't, though in speech it is almost impossible to hear the difference. ... In more formal styles, used not to occurs. The contracted form usedn't may occasionally occur but is very rare." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    David is correct that auxiliaries take the infinitive. "used to," however, occurs only in the past as a main verb. So a conundrum could be arising when it functions as the main verb with the dummy auxiliary "do" in questions, emphasis, or negatives and might be the source of the ambivalence. Sidney Greenbaum's Oxford English Grammar (my personal favorite) has both examples: "Didn't there used to be deer in Richmond Park?" and "I mean I did use to go down to Bournemouth." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll just add that the various forms are much more acceptable when used of the actions of people, and that "... tragic if a building that had used to be Podunk's "crown jewel of umbrella-mongering" were destroyed" is surely ungrammatical - "had once been" doing the job much better. The example "the building had never been used for manufacturing" doesn't involve this form at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Hmm, that's a new one on me. I suppose I can see where you're coming from; "used to" can be taken to mean something like "was in the habit of", and inanimate objects don't really have habits. But in today's usage I think it's just a way of rendering something that happened repeatedly in the past, the occurrences being taken as a description rather than an event. Basically a way of rendering (one usage of) the Romance-language imperfect tense, which doesn't exist morphologically in English. I agree with others that the formally correct negative is "didn't use to", but I suspect a larger fraction of speakers who haven't thought about it specifically would be more likely to spell it "used". --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Looking back on this, I realized that this was the talk page for the MOS, whereas I had assumed it was the language reference desk. For MOS purposes I generally think that, if we were to discuss this usage, it would probably be to say that it's too informal for encyclopedic writing, rather than to pick between "didn't use to" and "didn't used to". But I doubt that the MOS really needs to include on instruction on this point. --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    As for the actions of people, I suppose it is generally true. C&M have a pretty (and instructive) example: "... and yet they didn't used to be like that. But they grew to be like that." The OED has, "1927 E. Hemingway Men without Women 154 He certainly did used to make the fellows he fought hate boxing." But it could be used abstractly about states: "2001 A. Gurnah By Sea (2002) ii. 54 It didn't use to be like this." I suppose it could be used for inanimate objects, informally at least: "Everest didn't used to take such a toll of climbers," but I guess you are imbuing it with some ability to inflict. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    I just remembered I had written History of English grammars more or less on a lark long ago. It was written mostly in late April 2009, its history tells me, and then expanded this very day, 23 November, in 2009. It has been updated by others, of course. Readers of this thread might be interested. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    By the merest coincidence I was reading that very article just the other day. When I came to The yoke of Latin grammar writing bore down oppressively on much of the early history of English grammars I thought to myself, Who could possibly drag yokes and oppression into the history of English grammars? Well, now we know. EEng 06:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Guilty as charged. Will fix it in the coming days. I needed the prodding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • He tried to but she didn't try. She got it but he didn't get it. They said so but I didn't say so, you saw but we didn't see. They used to pronounce it ambiguously but they didn't use to spell it that way, not if they considered she didn't tried to, he didn't got it, I didn't said it or we didn't saw it. NebY (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not so much the animate/inanimate distinction that made the OP example seem so clunky, I don't think; it was, I think, the use of "used to" as a past participle: "had used to be". Whether or not that's technically grammatical or not, I don't know, but I can't think of any good reason to ever combine "used to" with "had". As previously noted "had once been" is far better. BUT, it was a simple question of whether used or use in the negative (and I don't agree with that prescriptive grammar book quoted above that claims "used not to be" for formal writing), I think NebY nailed the answer to that question above, as well as to the reason why :). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2DBD:96B:5D46:7722 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It's "used", but WP shouldn't use "Didn't" or other contractions. "Use to be" is a colloquialism like "should of", based on sound.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to rewrite the sentence to avoid using it at all. It seems a bit too colloquial for an encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. vs. District of Columbia

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

Has there previously been a discussion of when to use Washington, D.C., and when to use District of Columbia? They are geographically coterminous ("District of Columbia" currently redirects to "Washington, D.C."), but we have some articles that name the city in the title (e.g., Geography of Washington, D.C., George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War, Crime in Washington, D.C.), and some that name the district in the title (District of Columbia voting rights, Statehood movement in the District of Columbia, List of high schools in the District of Columbia, Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia, List of law enforcement agencies in the District of Columbia). I am not discerning any particular rhyme or reason to the distinction, and would like to have some rule handy. BD2412 T 18:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would generally take the view that Washington, DC is a place, whereas the District of Columbia is a legal entity. Most of the above examples seem to fit that schema pretty well, with the exception of the list of high schools, which should perhaps be renamed. --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
That is a reasonable distinction. I would note that the number of titles using one or the other run into the dozens, and there are bound to be others that don't fit the distinction articulated. BD2412 T 19:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Isn't that an artificial distinction. The D.C. in Washingon D.C. is District of Columbia, which redirects to Washington, D.C.. The latter is just a shorter or informal name for the same place. MB 21:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's more nuanced than that. The District has a certain constitutional status. The city is technically in the District (like Austin, Texas, or Albany, New York), but happens to fill the entire District. BD2412 T 23:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The list of high schools is a parallel to others such as List of high schools in North Carolina, it is considering DC as the equivalent to the state elsewhere. Seems okay to me. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Does the city entirely cover the district? I know the district used to be twice its current size (and geographically square), encompassing 'two' cities - Washington & Alexandria. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they have been the same since 1871. The district is under the control of the Federal govt, whereas the municipal government runs the city (since 1973). MB 00:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd classify this under "not a big deal, so long as there are always redirects from one title to the other, but if someone wants to move pages for consistency, that's fine". I think "Washington, D.C." is the more widely recognized name, so I'd prefer that in most cases. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a big deal, but I think the articles that primarily deal with the constitutional status really should use "District of Columbia" (e.g. the voting one), and the ones that primarily deal with the city as a place on the map really should use "Washington, D.C.". There are going to be borderline cases of course, no pun intended, and it would be a lame thing to move war over. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:VAR synonyms, imo, and "not broken" but one way to eventually establish 'move rule' would be in the editing, and if you get disagreement or controversy have a formal move (where I imagine one thing to discuss would be AT "consistency" and whether it is needed) -- and go slowly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
They are not synonyms, despite being territorially coterminous. The simplest way to think of it is that District of Columbia is used in all contexts in which in any of the several United States the name of a state would be used. The name of the city is Washington. Hence, why there is a comma between Washington and DC. Similarly, when sending mail to any place in the US, the line below the street address is always city name, street abbreviation, e.g., Los Angeles, CA or New York, NY; for the case of mail going to DC it is Washington, DC, with the DC filling the same place as the state abbreviation would elsewhere. Licence plates issued there say "District of Columbia" on them.
In news reporting, especially international news, when talking about an event that happened there, or as a reference to the US government when international diplomacy is the topic, it is nearly universally called simply "Washington". "Washington, DC" is almost never seen outside of domestic US media. Treaties and other international agreements between countries, when signed there, will always say something like "Signed in Washington on the 3rd day of August, 1945"; never will such a document say "in Washington, DC" or "in the District of Columbia". AP stories from journalists located there always begin with "WASHINGTON--".
So, in short, "Washington, DC" is the city and the district in which it is located. When referencing it as a location, "Washington, DC" should be used if there is any chance of it being confused with Washington state. When there is no chance, e.g., if the context is mentioning it as a "city" then "Washington" alone is proper. When discussing voting in federal elections, statehood, or other topic areas under which a state entity would be relevant, the District of Columbia. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A83C:C5D3:22C0:A90F (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I concur that the District of Columbia is a legal entity, like the City and County of San Francisco. Virtually no one uses these as regular place names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
In normal vernacular, perhaps not (though it is common for news stations in Northern Virginia to refer to goings on in "the District"). In terms of federal law (including participation in federal elections) and federal court actions, it is overwhelmingly "the District". BD2412 T 22:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
All of DC, DMV[a][b] and The District are bog common inside the beltway; I've never heard The District of Columbia and rarely heard Washington, except for addressing mail. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
If it's decided to stick with one name. I'd go with Washington, D.C.. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ District, Maryland, Virginia
  2. ^ Confusing, since locally it's also Department of Motor Vehicles.

First mention of a personal name

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Most journals and similar have a house style that indicates that the first instance of a personal name should be in full, no matter how well known the person is (and silly as one can feel writing out "William Shakespeare" or "René Descartes" in a context in which there would be no doubt as to whom you meant by the last name alone). Is there anything like that here? I couldn't find it on a cursory review of the MOS, but it is rather large, so I may have missed it. I was about to edit Hilbert's third problem to this effect, but it would be nice to cite something in support. There seems to be a lot of one-nameism, something without even a wikilink, in math articles (e.g. the plain "Darboux" in Hilbert's fourth problem). Thanks. blameless 03:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

For bios we have MOS:FULLNAME Meters (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't find a general rule for individuals who are not the subject of the article. Meters (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Well, I've made the changes I had in mind with a pointer here, so I guess we'll find out how folks feel about it. Seems to me more clarity is better when the cost is slight. blameless 04:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
In a case such as your edit, we are really discussing the topic Hilbert's third problem, as part of Hilbert's problems, rather than the individual David Hilbert. Those are the common names for those subjects, and I don't know that we really need his full name in the mention of the subject. I don't know that the pipe David Hilbert's list of mathematical problems is an improvement over the original pipe Hilbert's list of mathematical problems. I think a better approach would be to link the first mention of "Hilbert" (i.e., in "Hilbert conjectured that this is not always possible." to David Hilbert. Meters (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
You're right, thanks. I've done so. blameless 04:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Meters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

pronunciations and translations of foreign terms

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Why doesn't the Template:Lang support parameters for pronunciation and translation?! More importantly why doesn't that page even mention those words?! Even stranger is that this main page of the MOS provides no help or even links to those topics in the section on foreign words. --Espoo (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation is something more at home in Help:IPA and Help:IPA/Introduction, as it's largely a technical issue rather than one of stylistics. Likewise translation is a broader topic than a style guide alone should cover, so Wikipedia:Translation is the place to look; there is the help page for it but also policy related to attribution in translation and links to relevant projects. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I meant the pronunciation and translation of individual foreign terms (WP:Translation deals only with entire articles), which is an integral and crucial aspect of the presentation of such terms and which also involves clear stylistic issues that should be addressed or at least linked to in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms.
It's a big problem that this MOS and WP in general neglect the spoken aspect of language and pretend as if language were mainly a written phenomenon that is sometimes pronounced. This extremely old-fashioned and scientifically incorrect upside down view of language is one characteristic of WP that prevents many young people from becoming editors.
It's quite amazing how powerful the tradition of hundreds of years of knowledge being tied to and strangled by the printed page is on the minds of especially educated people even in a technical environment that could return the written word to its correct place as a tool and servant of real, spoken language. This old-fashioned attitude is demonstrated by the lang template not having parameters for pronunciation and translation, which can be easily implemented and which I will suggest in the appropriate place. --Espoo (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hear hear! Sure, the printed page made communication at a distance possible, lets the dead speak to the living, and brought literacy to the masses, but other than that it's been a DISASTER for humanity. EEng 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot about making contracts, banking, law, and government possible, but those are trivial of course. EEng 00:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Surely you aren't under the notion that contracts, banking, law, and government did not exist before the introduction of the printing press..in 1453 (or whatever year)? :P 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2DBD:96B:5D46:7722 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The OP referred first to "the printed page" but then to "the written word", so I guess I'm lumping printing together with writing in general. Either way the complaint is overwrought, to say the least. EEng 02:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Grapple_X's answer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

ENGVAR in articles about multiple countries

Latest comment: 2 years ago25 comments17 people in discussion

How should WP:ENGVAR be applied in articles that contain different sections for different countries, e.g. Driver's license or Wireless microphone licensing?
There are no strong national ties to the subject as a whole, so if we apply the rules strictly MOS:RETAIN applies and we have consistent spelling throughout.
But, most sections of the article would have strong national ties, and it seems wrong that the UK section could be written in AmE, or for the US section to be in BrE. I suspect that many visitors to these articles would only be interested in reading about one country, so whole-article consistency may not be as important as having the local spelling within each section (for the English-speaking countries anyway).
What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Use english, as this is English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You're (deliberately?) missing the point. Which version of English? Bazonka (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
British english in a British section, American english in an American section. But if consistency throughout the article is required? Then go with the majority. Use American english, if the article is mostly about the USA & visa-versa. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
See MOS:RETAIN. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
We cannot have ENGVAR by article section; that would be impossible to manage and would lead to a forest of tags as different sections of every article were tagged differently. The current system works as well as any, and if an article is already tagged as in British or American English, then the entire article is written in that variety regardless of whether particular subsections of that article happen to refer to the US or UK. MapReader (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I can see why you think it seems wrong, but I agree with the current guideline that it's preferable to be consistent in the article as a whole. I would oppose changing the guideline to allow/encourage switching varieties mid-article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agree with Defacto that MOS:RETAIN applies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • For God's sake, an article with little sections for each country is the quintessential example of no strong ties to any one country, so the default applies: the ENGVAR found in the first post-stub version controls (see MOS:RETAIN). And one ENGVAR for the whole article -- that's nonnegotiable. EEng 16:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Driver's license#United Kingdom is a good example of a section where it would be bizarrely dissonant to use the article title's spelling "license" alongside proper names such as "Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) Licence" and "Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) Licence". It's good that MOS:RETAIN applies. We might hope that in other such cases, editors would negotiate a similarly realistic compromise and so we don't need an exception in the MOS, but the strong reactions above suggest otherwise. NebY (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I felt the same, long ago, about cheque#United_States, where there used to be language about sorts of checks defined in the United States Commercial Code, like "bearer checks" (someone had temporarily changed them to "*bearer cheques", but that was wrong). I eventually changed my mind. For the purposes of the article, a bearer check is a type of cheque. The same principle should apply in the article you cite, and yes, we should say "license" together with "Large Goods Vehicle Licence". --Trovatore (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
NebY, I think "in a proper name" always counts as an exception to ENGVAR spelling rules. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeed, which would give us a section where we used Licence and license together. NebY (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Well as others have pointed out, go with MOS:RETAIN. The MOS is the result of such 'past' disputes. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yup… keep the English variety consistent within the entire article. Do NOT switch section by section. MOS:RETAIN applies. That said, it IS possible to change the variety that is used after a variety has been established… you just need to explain why you think the variety needs to change and convince other editors to change it (ie discuss and gain consensus). Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What EEng said. —valereee (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Concur with EEng.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter so much if one section uses one variety of English and another uses another variety? Frankly, some of the comments I see above about what a "nightmare" that would be to maintain are absurd. Maybe if you are relying on AI to maintain the encyclopaedia because you drove away most of the humans by fussing over petty nonsense like this, would it be a nightmare to maintain.. But no, there are no "cheques" in America, and there are no "licenses" in England. "License" is a verb, the noun is "licence". 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:887D:791D:9BE2:E8BC (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure such a scheme would have been so terrible if people were used to it, but I think you'll find very little enthusiasm for relitigating the issue at this late date. WP:ARTCON is the rule, and while it results in occasional slightly odd-looking outcomes, they don't seem to be so troubling as to be worth coming up with a modification to it, getting consensus for it, and re-educating the editor base on it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • It matters because a lot of people care about it. It matters because EngVar is the compromise that allows us to have one project that draws editors from across the English speaking world. It matters because reopening that debate and shifting the boudaries of that compromise would at best be an unproductive time sink. Of course if we were to leafrog beyond this and make the version of English displayed a user preference that defaults to the spelling default for the location of the IP viewing Wikipedia, we would have a much better project for those who care about the version of English concerned. But that would require a serious investment by the WMF into something that would actually reduce conflict in the project, as opposed to jousting with mechanisms for the harvesting of energy from atmospheric turbulence and motion. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
      Good answer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If a section is pertaining to a particular locality, then clearly the prose should be written in that locality s English. There is no benefit to doing otherwise, except "consistency within the article", which is in general a good rule but doesn't apply here. If the MOS says to do otherwise, then it's causing friction and illogical styling for no benefit at all other than to assuage those who like rules. The correct response is to invoke WP:IAR and move on with your life.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the same variety of English in all sections for consistency. An exception, as always, is proper names, which are retained in their 'native' form whatever article they're in. There can be other exceptions, but apply common sense to these. For instance, in the colour sergeant article it would be madness to use British spelling in the section on American ranks, as the USA never had a rank of "colour sergeant". Even though this is not a proper name it should use the American spelling in that section as it is not being used generically but referring to an American-specific term. "Colours" and "colour party", however, are being used generically and therefore should be in British English per the rest of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that makes senses and stops short of the "let chaos reign" results we'd get with Amakuru's version above. We should not have dialect veering wildly from section to section, but we also should not misrepresent specific terms of art like the US military rank "color sergeant".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it should be consistent throughout the article, which is how the policies have always been interpreted. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on capitalization in headings of BLPs beginning with numbers

Latest comment: 2 years ago32 comments8 people in discussion

Regarding the guideline found at MOS:HEAD, would it be proper for a heading beginning with a numerical value, say a year, to have it's first alphabetical word be capitalized, even if it's not the first character in the heading? Does it also make any difference if the first alphabetical word is located right after a colon? I ask because there is no specification regarding the use of this guideline with numbers, which makes it complicated to apply this with articles of many BLPs. There's another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalizations in headings that begin with numbers derived from Talk:Nicole Kidman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), where it originated, involving this as well, specifically, if section headings such as "2004-2009: Established actress", which can be found in it's main article, should have the letter "E" in the word "Established" capitalized, or lowercased. — Film Enthusiast✉ 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Capitalization of headings is the same as capitalization for running text, as it all uses sentence case. You wouldn't do that in a regular sentence, would you? The first character of the sentence or heading is the one to be capitalized. Being a number, it makes no difference when it is "capitalized", but the capitalization isn't transferrable to a character other than the first one just because the first one doesn't have an "uppercase version". —El Millo (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I have wondered about this. If this isn't stated in the MOS, I propose that it is. Off hand, I know I have seen many times (usually when a heading starts with year: when the following text is capped), so this would be a case of New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue. MB 14:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, if it's a recurring problem it's best for us to add it. —El Millo (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, the heading serves a different purpose than a regular sentence, as you say. It's purpose is different for a BLP than for any other article, therefore it should be applied differently IMO. The years are only there as a dating reference, but not to elaborate on what the section is about. I also agree that MOS should specify how to apply such guideline for these situations, but until then, since there's others who see this the same way, as GoodDay has shown, then I think this should be left for consensus for now, since there is no official rule saying we shouldn't capitalize a word after a number in headings. — Film Enthusiast✉ 18:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Heading/subheading examples: "2021–present: Educator", would seem correct. Where's "2021–present: educator", would not. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    Somehow the first of your two looks right, but we need more examples (here repeating your example):
    (A1) 2021–present: Educator vs. (A2) 2021–present: educator
    (B1) 2021: Educator vs. (B2) 2021: educator
    (C1) Postwar period: Educator vs. (C2) Postwar period: educator
    (D1) 2018 Elections vs. (D2) 2018 elections
    (E1) 2018 and 2019 Elections vs. (E2) 2018 and 2019 elections (I hoipe we can rule out 2018 And 2019 Elections and 2018 And 2019 elections.)
    EEng 19:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:HEAD is pretty clear that headings should be in WP:SENTENCECASE. There are no special exceptions for biographies or years. If you wouldn't capitalize a word in running text you shouldn't capitalize it in a section heading. Furthermore, headings are supposed to follow the same rules as WP:TITLES, which advises against using colons except in a few limited cases. pburka (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Right, of course they're in sentence case, but there are little situations -- such as the ones I just listed -- that come up in section headings but not in sentences (or article titles, for that matter), WP:TITLES notwithstanding. Certainly bios and years (per se) have nothing to do with it, and most of the times that I've seen colons used in section headings they've been awkward and in need of changing. But the examples above certainly are possible. So I'd be interested to hear what choices people think are best. EEng 22:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
A1, B1, D2 & E2 would be acceptable. C1 should be made into a heading, sub-heading form. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. No one is disputing WP:SENTENCECASE. The issue here is when should it be applicable, on the first letter of the first alphabetical word, or should none of it be capitalized if beginning with a numerical value? Also, I agree with GoodDay regarding the acceptable usages for these specific headings, I feel the above options would be suitable as well. — Film Enthusiast✉ 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you're asking if 1984 is a word. It is. Never capitalize the second word unless it would be capitalized in running text. Write "1984 in film" not "1984 In film". pburka (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel that 1984 in film and 1984: In film (or 1984: in film if following your guidance) present two different meanings. The colon serves as the distinction between the two. Because I agree 1984 In film should not be utilized. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:TITLES says "Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages." Since "1984: In film" is neither of those, it's not an acceptable title or section heading and the question is moot. pburka (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Does the policy apply to section headings as well? It concerns article titles, but unless I missed something, I don't see anything referring to headings. Do correct me if I'm mistaken though. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. MOS:HEAD says "Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles." pburka (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
EEng: I think A, B and C are all examples of titles plus subtitles. The MOS would seem to forbid subtitles in section headings, although I'm not sure if that's intentional or accidental. pburka (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Not necessarily, because in the case of BLPs at least, examples like A, B, and C are there to describe what occurred during that specific year or time period, which is discussed in the respective section. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
By BLPs I'm sure you mean bios of any kind, but really that's all a red herring; the discussion is applicable to the history of anything (corporation, political movement, person). Sometimes in an actor's bio you see 1940s: Early screen career ... 1952-1956: Stage work ... 1964: Forced retirement and I'm torn about such things. On the one hand it helps orient a reader skimming the TOC, on the other hand there's just something "Let-me-tell-you-the-fascinating-and-tragic-story-of-Mary-Megastar" about it, especially when they're like 1950s: Descent into alcoholism and 1970s: Return to popularlity. It's sits a little better, methinks, if you turn them around with parentheses: Stage work (1952-1956).
But let's assume such things might occur somewhere. I agree with GoodDay on A1, B1, D2, E2. For C, let's suppose B and C are consecutive sections in the same article; surely it would look weird to use B1 and C2, so I guess it's got to be C1. EEng 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
For C1, make Postwar period a heading & Educator a sub-heading, particularly if there's more then one sub-heading. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Stage work (1952-1956) wouldn't be such a bad idea. If the consensus results in a definite decision to not use capitalization of the first letter in headings beginning with numbers, then that'd be a good alternative. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The parenthetical years are better than colon-separated subtitles, but I'm not convinced either is necessary in most cases. None of this has anything to do with capitalization and numbers, of course. pburka (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Isn't there another way to reword the headings so that they comply with the MOS? The use of parentheticals that was suggested above seems to be workable. To try and carve out an exception to the MOS (whether that be MOS:TITLE, MOS:HEAD, or MOS:SECTIONCAPS) seems like the last option when all other alternative approaches have been tried and deemed unacceptable. Having said that, it does seem that the date range <<colon>> description heading is used quite a lot in many different types of articles. For example, you have Lebron James, Clayton Kershaw, Nicole Kidman, The Beatles and Apple Inc., but you also have Michael Jordan, Nolan Ryan, Halle Berry, U2 and Atari. Then, there are articles which seem to try and do a bit of both like Meryl Streep (or maybe that's just incomplete) and articles that use a comma like George Clooney and Megan Rapinoe. If the consensus is that it's bad for this one particular case, then it should be bad for all such cases, shouldn't it?. Simiarly, if it's OK for this one case, then in should be OK for all other cases as well, right? The formatting in an individual article could come down to who created the article and what "template" they were following when they did so. It also could depend on what kind of guidance is being given at the WikiProject level since articles about politicians seem to favor seem to use a parathetical approach in most cases, whereas there's more of a mix in articles about athletes, performers, etc. Many articles don't use date ranges at all in headings and they seem to be OK; so, I'm not sure they're actually needed at all. Anyway, if the consensus is that truly that the date range <<colon>> description is always inappropriate, then it seems like there's going to be lots of cleaning up to do because it makes zero sense to cleanup the Kidman article and leave the others as they are. Such a decision, however, would be best made by a formal WP:RFC with relevant WikiProjects being notified given how many articles it is likely going to affect. Otherwise, it might be a case or trying to make things work as best as possible for the Kidman article and in my opinion that would be in this order if the date ranges are considered necessary: 1. paranthetical and 2. A1. I think C1 works best if there are multiple subsections within a date range section as clarified by GoodDay (e.g. Joe Biden). Options B1 and B2 make little sense to me since why bother listing a single year at all, but I do think D2 and E2 would be always preferable over D1 and E1 (except when there are proper nouns involved). In general, I don't think C2 should ever be preferrable over C1 if the consensus is that C1 is acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, looks like another fascinating thread has collapsed under its own weight. EEng 23:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    You have a weird definition of "fascinating" then. Heh. The reason we begin a heading with a capital letter is because we treat headings (and captions, and table headers, and in most cases list items) as if sentences. There is no rationale to capitalize mid-sentence. If an actual sentence was "2010 was a major growth year for the company", this would not be written "2010 Was a major growth year for the company." Ergo the correct answer in this thread is to write the heading as "2021–present: educator", since "educator" isn't a proper name and there's no other rationale to capitalize it. FFS. This is simple as dirt, and it's ridiculous and WP:LAME that a big thread developed about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    It's true: I do have a weird definition of fascinating. That's why I get the big bucks. EEng 23:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    ...except the MOS also tells us to avoid colons in headings, so "2021–present: educator" is incorrect, no matter how it's capitalized. pburka (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not saying you're wrong, but where does it say that? EEng 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    MOS:HEAD says "Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles", and WP:TITLES says "Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages." I infer, therefore, that colons shouldn't be used in section headings, except in the limited case of subtitles. pburka (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    Which is an interpretation no one else has ever arrived at, and we routinely use colons in section headings. You've simply discovered a wording/interpretation glitch than can produce a pseudo-rule. You have not discovered a rule.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    I thought it was a straightforward interpretation, but apparently not. I feel that allowing colons opens a can of worms. Section headings are titles, but we present them in sentence case. But when a colon is used in a title, it usually indicates that a subtitle follows. Colons aren't used this way in sentences, so we either end up with awkwardly capitalized subtitles in section headings ("Music career: the Who") or we bend the capitalization rule and capitalize the first word of both the heading and subheading. My preference is to simply forbid combining headings and subheadings this way, just like we forbid introducing subtitles into titles (with a few exceptions). pburka (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll be content with whatever's decided. Just as long it's applied consistently across the board. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC on wheelchair-based language

Latest comment: 2 years ago522 comments67 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
In this Request for Comment, editors discussed whether to deprecate two specific phrases to describe people who use a wheelchair: "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair". The discussion focused on the stylebooks of other media organizations, guidelines on offensive material, censorship on Wikipedia, the topic of instruction creep, the desire to right great wrongs, the policy of neutral point of view, and wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living people. When read in light of policies and guideline, there was no rough conesnsus to change the manual of style to deprecate those two phrases nor to issue any guidance in the Manual of Style against their use.

Those in favor of deprecating the two phrases offered various arguments. These included that the use of the phrases could offend people who use wheelchairs unnecessarily and that the phrases impart a negative connotation upon how an individual views their wheelchair that might violate WP:NPOV. Others argued that the usage of the terms have changed in style guides of other organizations in recent years, which they state should indicate that Wikipedia's style guide may be ripe for change. Some argued particular concern for how these issues would apply to living people.

Those in opposition to deprecating the two phrases also offered various arguments. Some argued that the phrases were not patently offensive or that their use does not contravene the guidelines on offensive material. Others noted that Wikipedia is not censored and pushed back against the general notion of generally deprecating particular phrases, with some arguing that this was an unacceptable level of instruction creep that would serve more to harm the project than to help the project. Others noted that there are indeed people who identify themselves as "wheelchair-bound" and that instructions against the term's use would harm the ability of articles use different terms in different contexts.

Numerically, those in support of the change and those in opposition to the change were roughly even in number. Consensus, however, is not determined by a strict vote, but is instead ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, through that lens, this discussion achieved no rough consensus to modify the manual of style. As a result, the MoS should remain in its status quo state.

Editors are reminded to avoid tenditious editing; this RfC did not establish a consensus to make mass changes en masse in order to remove the two enumerated phrases from articles. As there is no community consensus to deprecate the phrases generally, editors who believe that the use of a particular wheelchair-related phrase is inappropriate in a particular article can discuss specific results at the relevant article's talk page or on a relevant noticeboard in order to achieve a local consensus on the optimal phrasing.

(non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the terms "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" be deprecated for use in article prose? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (wheelchair-based language)

  • Yes. The following public or governmental bodies, style guides, and academic sources all clearly and without qualification recommend not using the terms "confined to a wheelchair" and "wheelchair bound", in favour of use-based language—ie, "uses a wheelchair" or "wheelchair user", etc. UK government style guide, the NDA (Ireland's statutory body on disability), Greater Manchester Coalition and New Mobility, American Psychological Association, Americans with Disabilities Act National Network, National Health Service, Stanford University, and the Associated Press Stylebook. No exemptions should be given for context (ie, describing a fictional character or a real person should use the same language as the concern is for the reader, not on the person described), although direct quotation and words-as-words usage should remain as-is. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes; "wheelchair user" is better and more descriptive than "wheelchair-bound" in all contexts I have been able to find. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    On second thought, replace but don't document. We shoudn't be using "wheelchair-bound" in BLPs for a similar reason as why shouldn't call people "stupid", but there's no need to document either of those in the MOS. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes per Grapple X and Jochem van Hees, and per Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, now in its 95th year:

    Fowler, H. W. (2015), "disability, the language of", in Butterfield, Jeremy (ed.), Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 219–220, The language now generally considered suitable to describe and refer to people with different kinds of physical or mental disabilities is very different from what it was only a couple of decades ago. The changes are due partly to the activity of organizations which promote the interests of particular groups with disabilities, and partly to increased public sensitivity to language that might perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices. ... If you want to use appropriate language, you need not only to avoid words which have been or are being superseded, such as mongolism or backward, and which are listed below with their more neutral equivalents. You should also try to: ... 2 avoid using words such as victim, suffer from, and wheelchair-bound which suggest that the person concerned is the helpless object of the disability. Suitable alternatives to suffer from are have, experience, and be diagnosed with. Instead of talking about victims you can talk about a particular disability; and instead of wheelchair-bound you can say who use(s) a wheelchair

    As Fowler implies, the phrases "is a wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair" make the user the active subject and imbue her or him with a purposefulness that is absent in "wheelchair-bound." This is true even when I say, "The accident forced (say, rather than caused) X to use a wheelchair." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    PS As stated in reply to Jochem van Hees in the section above, "'Wheelchair-bound' is a more restrictive term than 'wheelchair user.' People who use wheelchairs use them in a range (of adverbs): occasionally, intermittently, habitually, constantly, uninterruptedly, ... 'Wheelchair user,' being more general, allows us to achieve greater precision by choosing our adverbs wisely. In other words, it is not just a non-ableist term, a term that does not perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices, it is can also be more precise with supplementation because it is unencumbered." Consequently, per Grapple X, no exemptions are required for fictional characters that are described as "wheelchair-bound." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    avoid using words such ... wheelchair-bound which suggest that the person concerned is the helpless object of the disability – Except in some cases (e.g. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane) it is the sine qua non of the entire story that Blanche is the helpless object of the disability. (Not to put too fine a point on it: [3].) If Blanche's wheelchair is an independence-empowering mobility aid, the story loses its entire foundation.
    Fowler and his successors have the respect for their readers to assume they will apply their advice with common sense. When he says avoid they mean avoid, not banish absolutely, as you are trying to do. EEng 04:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    You and your two cohorts keep bringing up two or three examples from the movies in your attempts to play gotcha, but without the script, so you can handwave your objections. Please give me the script which uses "wheelchair-bound" and I will show you how to skin that cat without. So script please, Strangeglove or Baby Jane, or a critical work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Comprehensively supplied below. EEng 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am inclined to support the proposal, but it would help to know what exactly is on the table. Is this a proposal to introduce new language into the MOS, and if so, where and what language? Would we instead leave the MOS alone, and expect editors to point to this centralized consensus when editing or discussing? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    Presumably the best way to incorporate it would be a passage under the "Vocabulary" heading which summarises usage as per the above, but the exact wording and implementation of an entry can be agreed upon if the basic principle carries first, I think. If people would prefer to have an exact passage to consider before commenting then I can write one and open it up to critique. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    I think "a passage under the 'Vocabulary' heading" is specific enough for me, thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. In addition to the style guides cited above, the MLA Handbook also recommends against "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No - Best we observe WP:Euphemism, and not water down language. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes per style guides reffed above and Siegal, Allan M.; Connolly, William G. (2015). The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative News Organization (5th ed.). Three Rivers Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-101-90544-9. OCLC 90851739.
    People with illnesses or disabilities do not necessarily consider themselves confined to their beds, homes or wheelchairs; the term may exaggerate their limitations. Write instead that they use wheelchairs or are housebound or bedridden.
AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
So it's OK to call an elderly person housebound but not a quadriplegic wheelchair-bound? Because many elderly people consider their homes places of comfort and refuge which they toiled their whole lives to secure, not something they're "bound" to, even if for whatever reason they can't leave it. And yes, I'm serious. EEng 04:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. 'Wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' are inaccurate and misleading terms. The many style guides above reflect years of progress by disabled people who like me find this terminology offensive. The very negative connotations are precisely the reason it is so frequently used, as a shorthand for deeply rooted unpleasant stereotypes. It is a conception of disability that derives from non-disabled people's imagining and fear of disability. Nobody is 'bound' to their wheelchair (except in the odd horror film). It is not specific and clarifying as some imagine. In editing 100+ WP articles which used this term, I found when I checked the source it frequently did not actually state the person solely mobilised using a wheelchair, but 'this person was seen in a wheelchair'. It obscures reality rather than reflecting it, and its continued usage has real life implications for those of us who use wheelchairs. 'Wheelchair user', 'uses a wheelchair' etc are always preferable. As other editors have noted above, it can then be qualified with 'occasional', 'full-time', etc. Persicifolia (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. No adequate replacement language has been given. "Uses a wheelchair" is vaguer and therefore inadequate because it does not indicate what level of use is made of the wheelchair. Proponents of this change have repeatedly refused to answer whether it is intended to replace specific wording with other equally specific wording or to deliberately make things vague as a WP:EUPHEMISM. Deliberately making things vague is not what Wikipedia is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    Uses a wheelchair, wheelchair user, and uses a wheelchair for mobility are generally what we're seeing in reliable sources. How is wheelchair user any more vague than wheelchair bound, which implies they never get out of the wheelchair, which in 100% of cases isn't even accurate? —valereee (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    Hello David. "Differently abled" or "physically challenged" are euphemisms because they mask specific forms of disability (Down's syndrome, Muscular dystrophy. etc.). "Accessible parking," "uses a wheelchair," are not euphemisms; they describe an objective reality that is a part of the lives of people with many forms of disability or injury. "Wheelchair-bound" does not describe a physical condition. It is a term for people who in fact use a wheelchair in various modes of use (the short-term (in a full leg cast a la Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window), the long-term (a la Raymond Burr, but much later, in Ironside), occasionally or recurringly (in diabetes or some forms or stages of cancer), habitually (in old age), continually, constantly, uninterruptedly (in other conditions). Encyclopedic language is precise; wheelchair-bound is not. "uses a wheelchair" suitably modified with an adverb achieves greater precision. Saying, "In her 90s she habitually (or customarily) used a wheelchair," is not the kind of circumlocution that detracts from communication. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    "Differently abled" or "physically challenged" are euphemisms because they mask specific forms of disability – Huh? By your reasoning disabled (which also "masks the form of the disability") is a euphemism too. "Differently abled" or "physically challenged" are euphemisms because they mask the fact that there is a disability, a limitation. EEng 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    "Disabled" is not mask; it is just a catch-all term for the different more specific forms of disability. (Mask (verb): to cover up (as a thing, fact, state, quality, or emotion) so as to mislead concerning its true nature) No one uses "disabled" to mask a specific form of disability. They might use it to be concise in writing or conversation. Please no playing gotcha. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    We don't modify policy because someone used a vague term in an article, we fix the article. MarshallKe (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Mostly because this seems like unnecessary WP:CREEP. What problem are we solving by adding this additional rule to the MoS? Allow editors to decide the most appropriate language on a case by case basis, according to the circumstances and sources, whether that's "was confined to a wheelchair", "was a wheelchair user", "required a wheelchair for mobility", etc. Colin M (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Avoiding these terms can hardly be called euphemizing when it’s the prevailing guidance in professional style guides. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Professional style guides concern how to talk to patients without causing them distress. Encyclopedic style guides concern how to explain things in clear unambiguous language to disinterested readers. Because they have different purposes it's reasonable to imagine that they would suggest different approaches to the same topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. No proposed terms have been adequately equivalent without also being tortured and verbose. Meaning should not be sacrificed for political correctness. MarshallKe (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The guideline on offensive material states Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. As others have shown in this RfC and the preceding discussion, terms such as "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are considered offensive and the suggested alternatives ("wheelchair user", "uses a wheelchair", "full-time wheelchair user", "occasional wheelchair user") are in fact more informative, accurate and precise. Therefore, the existing guideline already disallows usage of "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair". Given the large amount of editor time and energy this discussion has already taken, I would be in favour of explicitly clarifying this somewhere, so I would respond yes to this RfC. GreenComputer (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    None of the alternative terms you listed communicate whether or not the wheelchair user is unable to move around without the chair. Even "full-time wheelchair user" has a subtle difference in meaning. MarshallKe (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    @MarshallKe: If you don't want to use "full-time wheelchair user" and "part-time wheelchair user", surely "wheelchair user who cannot walk" in comparison to "sometimes uses a wheelchair" conveys the desired meaning without the need to use offensive language? GreenComputer (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, as written. The proposal is too sweeping, and would prohibit use of the phrase even to describe fictional characters who are clearly identified in their source work or in analyising sources as "wheelchair-bound"; it would even prohibit use of the phrase for subjects who describe themselves as wheelchair-bound! BD2412 T 17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No The case has not been made that there is enough evidence to support the idea that reliable sources are consistently avoiding the use of "wheelchair-bound". Some sources are, but not a preponderance, and certainly not enough to deprecate the usage here at Wikipedia. We should allow multiple variations, and not change existing phrasing when well established in an article already. --Jayron32 17:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No Largely per BD2412. My comments above are about recommendations, not mandating. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. This language is out of date, widely considered offensive by the disabilities community, and is quickly falling out of use in RS. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. This looks like WP:CREEP and we don't need more of that. As long as it's not vulgar and offensive, I really don't think we need more rules like this. I also agree with davideppstien. Masterhatch (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes We're not here to use archaic, possibly lazy, and, in our time, offensive terms when there are equally good alternatives ways of explaining disabilities. For example, our article on Davros (who is definitely unable to leave his wheelchair without dying) avoids those terms and we end up with better descriptive prose (The lower half of his body is absent and he is physically incapable of leaving the chair for more than a few minutes without dying).--RegentsPark (comment) 19:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @RegentsPark: I don't think the equipment that Davros uses is really a "wheelchair" at all. Also, I would agree that a more in-depth description is appropriate for an article on the character, but what about an article on a Dr. Who episode where the character's condition is only just enough of a plot point to mention? BD2412 T 05:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, not for all cases, particularly for material describing literature, where the drama might turn on a character's disability, so terms like "wheelchair-bound", "mad", "demon-haunted", "scarred", "drug-addled", etc might be appropriate even tho they might not be for a WP:BLP. Since there's one rule to fit these various situations, let's not have one and instead trust our editors. Herostratus (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    For the record I rush to add that it doesn't have to be a demon-haunted, drug-addled, wheelchair-bound madman; it could also be a gentle, loving, philanthropic, abstinate wheelchair-bound missionary saint. EEng 04:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes and no – such language should already be considered deprecated in most cases. I don't think we need more specific guidance about it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, although I am unsure of the wisdom of the MOS trying to be a compendium of every way in which it is possible to write badly. There is simply no way we can systematically list every single clumsy, odd, obsolete, circumlocutious, or otherwise objectionable word or phrase – and this natural impossibility, should we try to go down that road regardless, might then give rise to the simplistic interpretation on the part of some editors that whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the MOS is permitted, when in most cases writing well is a matter of choosing among competing shades of grey rather than a binary "mandatory / forbidden". Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Not a MOS issue. If you find there's a better way of calling this, just edit the articles where you find they can be improved. There's no point in the MOS legislating minutia like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, the terms should not be deprecated. The usage really depends on the context. See this comment by EEng, where describing the characters with the clumsy and awkward alternative "full-time wheelchair user" loses precision and misses the point.
    I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment above; it is not necessary to document this wheelchair debate on the MOS page (which I'm assuming is one of intended results of the RfC [4]) per WP:CREEP. There are already debates around commit vs died by suicide; prostitute vs sex worker; black vs Black; enslaved people vs slaves; chairman/chairperson; blacklist; gender neutral language e.g. women vs "menstruators"/"people who menstruate"; people-first language; "hanging" via wp:rope; wp:lunatic charlatans; and now this wheelchair debate. There will always be new language debates in the future and, imho, the MOS page shouldn't be the place to compile and document every single one of them. Some1 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No – Attempting to ban two phrases that are perfectly good and succinct ways of describing people who do feel confined and bound by having to use a wheelchair. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    This is a rationale I haven't seen before in this debate, and I think it carries a lot of weight. If I go my whole life being able to walk and suddenly I need a wheelchair, I'll be damned if I don't feel confined and bound. Banning this terminology is fitting our language to suit a specific subgroup of wheelchair-using people, and that's wrong. MarshallKe (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, are you evoking an imaginary wheelchair user who agrees with you and disagrees with the consensus, and finding that persuasive?! A consensus has been reached amongst real wheelchair users, reflected in every style guide referenced. You're speculating on something you have not experienced and some of us here have. If you cannot walk, that is because of your body. Not a wheelchair. The wheelchair-as-bondage construction given it is literally a tool of freedom and mobility is bizarre. Nobody is policing how disabled people feel about their disabilities. Persicifolia (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Really, @Dhtwiki:, they do feel confined and bound as opposed to what other option? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Probably the majority of wheelchair users are those who have done so when in hospital or temporarily need one due to acute injury. Are they not to be accounted as "users"? Those people are apt to feel it as confinement, as opposed to those with more chronic impairment, who might well feel their use as liberating. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Dhtwiki: Is the majority of the literature using the expression "wheelchair-bound" that we on Wikipedia are in the business of paraphrasing also about these sojourning users in a hospital? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Dhtwiki, I believe that the majority of wheelchair users on any given day are people who are using a wheelchair long-term (months or years or decades), but who do not have spinal cord injuries and may be able to take at least one step. Think frail elderly people, not wheelchair athletes.
    At least in the US, in my experience, most temporary users (e.g., after surgery) and new-but-likely-permanent users (e.g., after a stroke) seem to feel restricted by their disability, not by their mobility devices. The feeling isn't "ugh, this wheelchair makes my life miserable, and I'd be better off without it"; the feeling is usually about realizing how difficult some things are when pain or other problems make it difficult or impossible to just bounce out of your chair and walk into the next room to pick up what you wanted. There's probably someone, somewhere, who has turned their wheelchair into a hated symbol of their disability and mortality, or who feels like the wheelchair binds and confines them while not having it would be freedom (because freedom means not getting that glass of water at all, rather than wheeling over to the sink for it?), but I've only ever seen that in fiction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    The term "wheelchair bound" doesn't sound to me as conveying anything more than needing such a device to get around; the example of FDR should suffice to show that one isn't limited to being in a wheelchair all the time. The term is an idiom, jargon, or term-of-art, such as we construct all the time and which aren't to be taken literally. The term is not inaccurate in an article that gives a full and fair description of a disability at one point and where the term is used later on to reference it. The term isn't meant to be hurtful in my experience, although any term can acquire a sneer factor. Could Silas address Teabing in the movie The Da Vinci Code as "wheelchair user" with the same apparent contempt as "cripple" (although one often can feel insulted by words based on one's own tendency to use language with the intent to insult)? In any case, setting up a list of banned words here probably would lead to mechanistic and possibly clumsy substitutions throughout the encyclopedia, whereas the style guides we are taking our cue from are meant for professional writers who will have the chance to find graceful althernatives going forward, with limited need to correct past dispatches. Having controversial usages on a words-to-watch list that won't give encouragement to word fetishists seems the better alternative. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Dhtwiki, do you think that this is a suitable term for inclusion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, then? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    Tried that [5]. EEng 04:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    And you were reverted in favor of Proposal E, which doesn't seem that much different, and which is now redlinked. So, I'm confused by that. I'm in favor of some recognition that the wording under discussion is an issue, without a more-or-less outright ban (depending on how vigorously people act to enforce "deprecation"). Dhtwiki (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
No, actually, if you read the edit summary, I was reverted in favor of nothing. And that's what we've ended up with -- nothing. EEng 02:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
We've got a discussion you can point to in support of almost any argument you want to make, because no one's going to read through it to check. That's not nothing. —valereee (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is outdated language that is widely avoided, and we should join the groups avoiding it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes All of the style guides and the disability organizations agree on the language change. Using "wheelchair bound" is considered discriminatory and offensive to the actual community in question and trying to keep forced language that implies confinement is harmful to all of those readers and those connected to them. Honestly, to see people claim otherwise here is shocking, considering past discussions on disability language have largely supported such changes. SilverserenC 17:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    As it happens, I'm right now sitting next to someone in a wheelchair who says I should communicate the following response to you: <rolls eyes>. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Good for them? Are they the public spokesperson for one of the disability groups in question or a member of the news organization style guide designers? In short, are they a reliable source that Wikipedia is meant to be based on? SilverserenC 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Neither, to my knowledge, is Persicifolia a spokesperson or style guide designer, but you don't seem to have a problem with him/her pontificating on behalf of all wheelchair users. It seems amazing that an editor of your tenure doesn't understand that in project space, we not only can use, but are expected to use, our own common sense and experience in shaping guidelines and policy. Passing on my friend's reaction is a perfectly valid rejoinder to the doctrinaire insistence that this or that source represents the interests of all people in a particular group. EEng 06:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm sympathetic to the argument that is wheelchair bound is less vague than uses a wheelchair. But I think it's important to listen to the disabled community here and find alternatives. Cannot walk and uses a wheelchair is wordier but gets across the same information without (I hope) being offensive. – Anne drew 19:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: The Guardian style guide sums it up nicely: "Say (if relevant) that someone uses a wheelchair, not that they are “in a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” – stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate". PamD 00:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: as per National Center on Disability and Journalism [NCDJ] - "Recommendation: It is acceptable to describe a person as “someone who uses a wheelchair,” followed by an explanation of why the equipment is required. Avoid “confined to a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” as these terms describe a person only in relationship to a piece of equipment. The terms also are misleading, as wheelchairs can liberate people, allowing them to move about, and they are inaccurate, as people who use wheelchairs are not permanently confined to them but are transferred to sleep, sit in chairs, drive cars, etc." As others have mentioned - precision and politeness are really important and the terms in question are neither. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes The current UK goverment could hardly be described as woke or politically correct, yet its own guidelines on words to use and avoid when writing about disability recomments against 'wheelchair bound'. The majority of style guides consistently recommend against that language, and none consider it appropriate. As I noted above, I don't think a poll on individual terms is a good approach because it generally gets uninformed votes, unconvincing rationales, and those with an anti-woke/anti-pc agenda dominate and troll the discussion. When an oaf like Boris Johnson is held to a higher standard than Wikipedia, we are doing something wrong. -- Colin°Talk 11:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Terms like wheelchair-bound are deprecated by all or most style guides in the English speaking world. I also don't buy that "uses a wheelchair" is actually ambiguous; that argument seems like a red herring designed to throw a wrench in this discussion. "Wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" must be also be ambiguous by the same token then. (As to the concern that some fictional characters are literally confined to a wheelchair at all times, I would remind everyone that the MOS is a guideline and occasional exceptions to its rules are allowed.) Calidum 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No (in case that's not obvious). In addition to the many reasons discussed below, wheelchair-bound is commonly used in medical publications [6]. In our medical articles, is the proposal that we substitute other wording of our own formulation for the medical term? EEng 15:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am detecting a degree of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in this RFC. I have no opinion on the actual question (because I am not familiar with the relevant sources), but… I do want to remind everyone that Wikipedia follows sources when it comes to changes in societal terminology, it does not lead those changes. As the terminology used in sources changes, we absolutely should change the terminology we use… however, because we follow (as opposed to lead) we are always going to be a step behind any change, not in the forefront of it. That may mean that we continue to use “outdated” (and even “offensive”) terms for a while, until enough sources adopt the newer terms. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    It is precisely because we follow and not lead that the change should be made; a significant number of style guides and public bodies all endorse the change (many listed above) and we're simply following suit. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    Blueboar, can you point to where your "Wikipedia follows sources when it comes to changes in societal terminology, it does not lead those changes" is encoded in policy, rather than in the imagination of a few editors who trot out this nonsense every time we have such RFCs. You can believe this all you like, and it may well influence some gullible voters, but it is rot. Wikipedians can write any way we choose and are not bound to follow the writing style, prejudices and ignorant word choices of our sources. The supposed standard, that "enough sources adopt the newer terms", is ridiculous hurdle we do not impose on ourselves wrt other matters. It is easy to google for "wheelchair bound" but impossible to google for its absence. There are so many ways to express oneselve and rarely just one "newer term" to replace it. Therefore editors cannot satisfy this "requirement" that text avoids a certain language. No, we aren't required to continue being offenseive if our sources do, and we do have official guidelines against that. Btw, it is worth reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, rather than incorrectly assuming the UPPERCASE SHORTCUT actually supports your argument. It is about facts, not writing style. Wikipedia is an important publisher, and our requirements to be neutral require our language to be neutral too, and not to gratuitiously and carelessly undermine, diminish and offend those we are writing about. -- Colin°Talk 09:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes If we need to talk about how someone (including a fictional character) feels or thinks about using a wheelchair, than we should explicitly talk about those thoughts or feelings, but ascribing all as feeling or thinking they are bound or confined is not warranted by the style guides, nor common sense. Moreover very, very few people are actually tied with some kind of binding to their wheelchair, and none are forever literally locked in them (for example, exercise is regularly done outside the chair). And should we ever need to talk about someone being literally tied in their chair, say that explicitly. (Quotes, of course, are a different matter). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. I would be fine with a note indicating that the proposed revision is preferred where it is reasonable to do so, but that there are some contexts where terms like "wheelchair bound" are more appropriate such as quotes, as well as medical or scientific contexts where there may be a real distinction that needs to be drawn between people who are confined to a wheelchair and people who voluntarily use them, or only need them part of the time. The distinction may also be useful in areas like Wheelchair basketball, where there is a need to identify different levels of impairment for eligibility purposes. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. "Wheelchair bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" violate NPOV. Per my first comment at WT:MOS#NPOV vs Consensus, the article "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language" from UK based journal Disability & Society states that both terms are incorrectly applied ... [and] they misrepresent disability. We determine the meaning of terms based on RS not opinion, and NPOV states that This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. We can use appropriate accurate phrases such as "chronic wheelchair user", "dependent on a wheelchair", "paraplegic who uses a wheelchair", or just "unable to walk". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes we should avoid those terms, with the usual exceptions, e.g., direct quotations. It is never necessary to use these terms, and they carry unintended meanings. We should also document this decision somewhere (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles could be functional places) so that we don't have to have this conversation every few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No – The MOS is no place to issue such blanket rules. Context matters. This can be dealt with in individual articles. Further, no need for this change has been demonstrated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - ok first of all MOS is the place to issue such blanket rules. Our MOS should follow what style guides are doing in 2021, because that's what our readers will expect, because those style guides dictate how everything else they're reading is written. The style guide evidence is overwhelming for current (non-)usage. Levivich 07:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Our style guide should follow reliable sources' style guides. Grapple X detailed those in the first comment. If there are specific cases where there are good reasons to deviate from a general rule, then we can cope with those, as we do all the other times there are specific cases where there are good reasons to deviate from a general rule in MOS. Bondegezou (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes with some surprise that it's taken so long. This has been the direction of travel for 25 years to my knowledge, to the point that insisting on "wheelchair-bound" now seems a deliberate statement. The BBC News style guide explains it plainly in its "disabilities/illnesses" section: "wheelchairs provide mobility - not confinement".[7] NebY (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, wheelchair user disabled accessibility (P2846) We have external style guides making this recommendation, lack style recommendations for the proposed alternative, and the recommendation makes sense in Wikipedia's context. Besides biographies, we also sometimes have information about places like museums, libraries, and hotels where the sources emphasize accessibility information. In Wikidata and Wikivoyage I have seen datasets about hotels with accessibility for wheelchair users or conference spaces for people who use audio transcription. The phrasing would not be that the space is for people bound to devices related to some ability status. This is worth putting in the manual of style because the issue spans multiple types of articles and Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No per WP:CREEP. However, WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and "uses a wheelchair", "wheelchair user", etc. are pretty obviously more sensitive and sensible terms to use than something that comes across judgmental at least in implication. We just don't need a rule about it. There are hundreds if not thousands of terminological debates like this in numerous topics, and if we had a rule about each of them then MoS would be longer than the AP Stylebook.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish, I wish we didn't need a rule about it either. Are you saying it would be better to argue this out for every article? Because it looks like "wheelchair-bound" is used in between 500 and 1000, and "confined to a wheelchair" in several hundred more. Wouldn't it just be better to gain consensus in a single place and then generalize it to the other places? We have at least one editor in this discussion who is absolutely adamant that switching from "wheelchair-bound" to "wheelchair user" is unacceptable because it somehow represents "softening the language". Wouldn't it be a good idea to at least put "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" on WP:WTW? —valereee (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Your wish is effectively granted. There is sufficient "no" response here that we're not going to get consensus that we need a rule about it. However, citation to this discussion will be sufficient evidence that, despite opposition to WP:CREEP on this subject, there is actually a consensus to use more accurate and sensitive language. I hope the closer adopts wording similar to what I just wrote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I thought, too. :) —valereee (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, in my experience, when an RFC closes with something like "no consensus to write down a special rule", even when there is a consensus about what the rule would be if it were written down, a few wikilawyers will stretch that conclusion into the opposite, and we'll see them claiming that the RFC strongly endorsed whatever it is that that the RFC actually opposed.
    Also, I've looked at this RFC three times now, and the balance has shifted each time. (To save anyone the trouble, on a straight count of votes, it is currently about 58% in favor of writing down this advice and ~65% in favor of the advice itself [but not necessarily writing it down], but I'm sure it will change again.) I think it was premature to declare that whatever balance happened to exist last Thursday is proof that there will be no consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    "Too bad, so sad." There are 10,000 things WP could have a rule about yet works fine without one. There will always be petty disputes, some of them repetitive. We don't need a rule about something unless the disputation is routinely disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It depends - like “blind” vs “vision impaired”, the choice of wording depends on the severity of the disability. Lots of people are “wheelchair users”, a few of them are “confined to a wheelchair” or are “wheelchair bound”. I don’t mind adding something about this in WTW… but keep it flexible. Encourage thoughtful writing, but don’t disallow terms that are (in specific circumstances) appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. This is instruction creep at best, and euphemistic at worst. "Wheelchair user" implies that the person in question actively wants to use the wheelchair (compare with "computer user", "forklift user"). If a disabled person cannot walk and must use a wheelchair, then that is what we should say. If somebody, for some reason, is using a wheelchair by choice, then this may be appropriate. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    All wheelchair users are using a wheelchair by choice. Some may have limited other options to achieve mobility, but there are no wheelchair mandates currently in place. —valereee (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Valereee: What about people who would prefer not to go anywhere in a wheelchair, but have no physical ability to assert their will in the matter, so some caretaker or family member puts them in one anyway and uses it to take them places against their will? It's an unpleasant reality, but is definitely a thing that happens. BD2412 T 05:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    I believe the politically-correct term for that is "kidnapping". Levivich 05:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not at all, if the person making the decisions is legally empowered through a guardianship or the like, or the parent of a minor. BD2412 T 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure this is a fruitful line of inquiry for present purposes. EEng 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. However, terms like wheelchair-bound should not be used for persons able to walk for limited periods of time or with the assistance of, e.g., crutches. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No to prescriptive rules; yes to appropriate use in contexts where the deprecated terms make individual sense, no when they do not. MoS inspires any number of would-be Procrusteans to go change language that was appropriate in its context, just to conform to an MoS suggestion. Let editors make the call to use common sense and sensibilities, because if they don't have that, having an MoS isn't really going to help much, is it? Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • General soft yes, per common usage and professional style guides. However, there should clearly be exceptions for words-as-words and direct quotes, and there should arguably be exceptions for individuals who use that language to describe themselves or similar extenuating circumstances (as determined by local talk page consensus). But as a general matter, someone should be able to replace instances of "wheelchair-bound" with "uses a wheelchair". If this rule is to be documented, it would need to be done with appropriate caveats, and at that point there are WP:CREEP concerns, so I offer no opinion about whether or not to document. I hope that the closer provides clear guidance (clearer than the question) about caveats and documentation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Deprecating language is not something that should ever be encouraged on Wikipedia. It's authoritarian and it's uncomfortably close to thought policing. Just because you may not choose to use it does not mean it should actually be deprecated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes to confined, no to wheelchair-bound. "Wheelchair user" is not always an adequate replacement, the term is not offensive (to me, a wheelchair-bound person). "Wheelchair user" does not adequately describe the level of dependence; someone who can walk short distances might be a wheelchair user, while someone who can't stand at all is wheelchair-bound. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes – deprecate, but gently. No sudden crusade please. People need time to catch up with language change. DBaK (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's complicated I agree with deprecating it for living people, except in cases where the article subject uses the term, but for deceased and fictional people we should follow the sources. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No to a firm rule but wording indicating that "uses a wheelchair" is often preferable would be acceptable. People who use a wheelchair only occasionally or for a clearly temporary period (eg broken leg) should not have this noted in their articles at all. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No Many people had a bad fall or are suffering from a temporary disease and use a wheelchair. This is different than a person who literally cannot move enough to leave a wheelchair without help. Also WP:CREEP. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No, but we should follow what reliable sources use in our reporting -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No. We need such phrases for precision. My grandfather wasn't a "bed user" — he had no choice. Doug butler (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose RfC format. There is currently no disability-related section in the MoS, and thus nothing to deprecate. If this passes, it should not become a blank check to put whatever wording the RfC organizer or closing admin wants into the MoS. The discussion on the wording should have happened first, a proposal finalized, and then a simple up-down !vote would be able to be held, with no ambiguity, on whether the proposed text should be added to the MoS or not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No' as a MOS rule - however source material, reference quotations, precision of the situation, quotations from a BLP subject themselves, and a respectful article tone should guide usage case-by-case. — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (wheelchair-based language)

What are the proposed replacement terms? --Masem (t) 13:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Wheelchair user" and "uses a wheelchair" are the most recommended terms in the sources listed above. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
To which adverbs: occasionally, intermittently, recurrently, repeatedly, habitually, constantly, ceaselessly, uninterruptedly and the like (or sometimes their adjective forms) may be added to achieve greater precision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree and just want to add, there's clearly a concern that 'wheelchair user' is a euphemism. But direct language is often a helpful addition. Eg I've previously suggested something like 'a wheelchair user who cannot walk at all' when it's necessary to convey that information. (For me, wheelchair-bound is the euphemism.) Persicifolia (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
+1. Wheelchair-bound is inaccurate. No one is wheelchair bound. Everyone who uses a wheelchair gets out of it to sleep, bathe, maybe use crutches or a standing frame, maybe to move around short distances completely unassisted. And an unclear euphemism would be 'has mobility issues' or 'has physical disabilities' or something. "Uses a wheelchair or crutches much of the time" is much more clear. —valereee (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That's dumb. Anyone making the claim that "wheelchair user" is a euphemism are just making a purposefully bad and dumb argument. "Wheelchair bound" is very obviously a euphemism. If someone uses a wheelchair, that is a literal statement. If someone is bound to a wheelchair, they are not literally tied up to the wheelchair. Hence "bound" is the euphemism. It always has been. What we're arguing here is to remove the euphemism and use direct language. Any arguments and votes above trying to claim we're changing to a euphemism should be immediately disregarded as just a worthless argument. SilverserenC 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I can only conclude that you have some mistaken idea as to what a euphemism is. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is covering fictional characters, too. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. There is no common-sense motive for not doing so. See my first comment under "Survey" above. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
And your assertion has been repeatedly refuted with quite extensive reasons, with examples, and why and how it indeed does make a difference, with extensive lists of other terminologies that we use when writing about fiction that we wouldn't when writing about real life, which you've conveniently ignored, while continuing to say "I already said once that it doesn't matter and there's no common sense motive". WP:IDHT much? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:14D5:5FC9:8C5F:AB3A (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: I'm not sure why you reverted my edit? I only cleaned the survey section up a bit, I didn't change the content of the comments. If I recall correctly the survey section is only meant for giving an overview of yes/no, not for actual discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:TALKDD and WP:TPO are clear that you should not change others' comments without good reason. Pinging Firefangledfeathers and Grapple X so they can decide whether they would like to move or alter their comments as you did. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think JVH's changes were that serious. They didn't change the appearance or position of those editors' survey stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with moving my comment to this subsection if Grapple doesn't mind. I do oppose removing my use of Template:strong, which indicates semantically meaningful bold and is expressly recommended for this use. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah okay, I didn't think about that actually being on purpose. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Do as ya'll wish, but I'll be concentrating my further input, in the 'discussion' section. That way, the 'survey' section won't get crowded up with back-and-forth discussion (hence the reason, for a discussion section). GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this concern for 'euphemistic' or 'softening language'. "Uses a wheelchair" seems very clear to me. Are we saying it's not clear what the person is using the wheelchair for? Like, maybe they're using it as a kitchen gadget or something? And "wheelchair-bound" is just inaccurate, because no one, no one, is inextricably connected to their wheelchair 24/7. They get out of it to bathe, to sleep, maybe to use a standing frame or crutches or to move around unassisted over short distances. So wheelchair user/uses a wheelchair is actually more accurate. How is it euphemistic or softening language to find a better and more accurate way to describe something that also, btw, doesn't offend the people we're describing? —valereee (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It fails to distinguish between people who use a wheelchair temporarily because they broke their ankle, people who use a wheelchair on a long-term basis to assist with mobility but can stand or walk with difficulty for short periods of time, people who are totally immobile without a wheelchair or other people assisting them, people who make use of a wheelchair for something other than day-to-day living (such as wheelchair racers, who I would imagine are generally people who also use wheelchairs at other times but for which that might not actually be necessary) or people who make use of a wheelchair for something other than their own mobility. In other words, it is vague. And vagueness should not be what we are aiming for here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that Persicifolia has described several instances of finding articles where "wheelchair-bound" has been used as a catch-all when the specific usage is not specified in source, how is continuing to use it any more clear then? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Deprecating two specific phrases does not prevent us from saying things like "uses a wheelchair permanently" or "needs a wheelchair to move around". It doesn't create vagueness to limit our options to phrases accepted by reliable sources. We can still adjust our language to context. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, what's a good, concise, semantically equivalent way to say "needs a wheelchair to move around"? MarshallKe (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Concision and semantic equivalence are not the sole criteria for usage. Moreover, the whole reason we are having this discussion is that a number of editors reasonably believe "wheelchair-bound" is not semantically equivalent to phrases like those above, because it is derogatory. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
"Uses a wheelchair for mobility" is a very common phrase. "Needs...to move around" isn't accurate for many; many use a wheelchair for longer distances but can walk or use crutches or a walker or cane for shorter distances. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
So which one is "wheelchair bound"? Wouldn't it simply be better to say 'uses a wheelchair (for X)' or 'spent much of 2015 using a wheelchair after the accident' if we want to be less vague? Do we need a rule that 'wheelchair-bound' is only for people who never, ever get out of their wheelchair? Because that would work for me. No one is wheelchairbound. Literally no one. It's a completely inaccurate term. Leaving aside the people it's being used on find it offensive, which honestly should be enough for us to find some area we can compromise.
Wheelchair-bound is not equivalent to permanent wheelchair user. It could be someone who has a temporary condition and needs a wheelchair to move around until they heal. MarshallKe (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Those people typically are not wheelchairbound. Typically they're able to tranfer into bed, into the shower, onto the toilet. Often they use crutches for short distances where a wheelchair would be difficult to navigate. —valereee (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Language evolves. Among RS, this language has been evolving. We should be following that. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps in real life no one is "inextricably connected" to a wheelchair, but there are characters in fiction who are explicitly described and depicted as such. I would support a depracation of the phrase as used with respect to real people, but not rewriting fictional characters to be different from their actual depiction. BD2412 T 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Really? They never transfer to bed or the toilet? The fact the author described them decades ago using the then-usual terminology doesn't mean they never pooped. :) Mark Twain used the word n*****. I don't think we'd want to describe any of his characters in our plot summary using that term. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, really. There are fictional characters who can teleport matter with their minds, so perhaps they don't need to transfer to a toilet. Also, there are contemporary uses of the term, not "decades ago", describing wheelchair-bound characters as wheelchair-bound. BD2412 T 18:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
lol...okay, I'm willing to use wheelchair-bound for SF characters who are completely contained within their mobility machinery. —valereee (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Many users have cited WP:CREEP as a reason to !vote "no". This argument would apply in any case where the community adds a provision to the manual of style or any other policy. I don't think citing "WP:CREEP" alone is sufficient to make a !vote compelling. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The page itself also clearly says: Citing to this page without further explanation does not adequately support a deletion or reversion. Additional instruction can be helpful when it succinctly states community consensus regarding a significant point. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I get the concern. I've seen instructions become bloated. Personally I think that when instruction becomes bloated, we just need to start editing. It doesn't necessarily meant we don't need another instruction. It means the current instructions need to be scrutinized and if possible made more concise or culled. But arguing that we've got enough instructions pretty much assumes no new concerns other than the ones we've already addressed are ever going to arise. Which is optimistic at best. —valereee (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The reasoning needed in addition to merely stating "WP:CREEP" is that the issue of the term wheelchair-bound is not particularly special. We can think of hundreds of situations like this. Are we going to add every one of them to the guidelines? No. The clause about trying to remain as respectful as possible without sacrificing meaning is sufficient. MarshallKe (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@MarshallKe, I'd argue that the term is special because it's considered, by the people it's describing, to be offensive. What hundreds of situations are you thinking of where that's true? I can only really think of a few, and pretty much most of them I don't like spelling out because they're considered offensive. This one, for instance. This one. This one. N-word, of course, and other ethnic slurs. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hoping I'm not invoking WP:BEANS here, but all of these terms are deemed by at least a vocal minority to be offensive for various reasons: Arthritic, diabetic, paraplegic, handicapped, suffers from, afflicted by, victim of, able-bodied, mental patient, deaf mute, blind, dwarf, mentally ill, oriental and all the other racial words, whitelist, blacklist, black sheep, man-made, chairman, slum, ghetto, sex change, mankind, reclaimed terms like queer and fat are especially weird cases, prostitute, illegal immigrant, old people, marijuana, cannibal, eskimo. MarshallKe (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and really none of those terms are encyclopedic. I'm like...which of those wouldn't I edit? Chairman, I'd leave. Marijuana, maybe? I might change it to cannabis. Blind...well, that's a difficult one, but depending on whether the person is 100% blind I might suggest that the person has low-vision instead. Deaf mute...no one says that any more. And why would we call anyone arthritic or diabetic when it's just as easy to say they have arthritis or diabetes? Handicapped, no. And suffers from/afflicted by/victim of...I'd edit those too. It's just not encyclopedic language. —valereee (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wait, we're not allowed to say marijuana, slum, blind, or old people anymore? I must have missed the memo. As for able-bodied, well, [8]. EEng 05:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention renaming articles like Warsaw Ghetto. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, may be worth mentioning again that this term is specified as one to avoid by a large number of style guides, including the AP Stylebook [9], the Guardian and Observer style guide [10] the UK gov [11] etc [12]. Unlike many of the terms above. I wonder if I'm missing something - I thought that would carry more weight than it appears to here, these decisions will not have been lightly made and I thought WP was very source focused? Persicifolia (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Persicifolia, what RS are using does carry weight, but in these kinds of discussions there are always a number of editors who prefer we continue to use the older terms and argue that the fact a term is in long use means it shouldn't be abandoned willy-nilly on the basis of what could be argued to be simply current fashion, and they have a point. We have to go with consensus, so we discuss these kinds of things sometimes for months, and sometimes we need multiple discussions. The mills of the gods grind slowly. —valereee (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@—valereee yes that does make sense, and it is worth me remembering that I may have been using 'wheelchair user' for decades but it's clear some editors are coming across it for the first time, which gives a very different perspective (as of course does not being part of the group discussed). I find the idea it's fringe terminology frustrating, I suppose, given the history and sources. But I'm pretty new to this end of WP and understand the need for consensus. Persicifolia (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@—valereee, If the best RS say that "wheelchair-bound" is nonneutral language, then doesn't NPOV overrule consensus? (Unless of course there is no consensus on the interpretation of the RS.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
They are all in agreement in as much as every one that has been presented here--including the largest English-language style guide--is unanimous and not a single one has been provided which says otherwise; however, if NPOV was enough we wouldn't have this debate and it would have been an open and shut case. I think some people genuinely don't see that this is non neutral and an explicit mention of such is needed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut, IMO, yes, but that is still something that needs consensus. Eventually we'll get there, but it may not be in this discussion. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@—valereee, should we start a new subsection to specifically discuss the NPOV issue? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you see my point, though? Are we going to RfC and debate every single one of these terms and add them to policy, re-debating them every year or so as the euphemism treadmill progresses, or are we going to invoke CREEP and rely on the policy that we should try to be respectful as possible without sacrificing meaning? MarshallKe (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course we should never sacrifice meaning. I would argue there's no inherent loss in meaning from 'wheelchair user' vs 'wheelchair bound' (either could need more explanation) and that this idea of a 'euphemism treadmill' is bullshit. Language evolves, and yes, WP will probably have to debate multiple changes because people don't like change. The fact people had to discuss it doesn't mean we weren't right to stop using the n-word. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I think these are good analogies. Another example: some have recently suggested that the term "homeless" is offensive. We could go through and replace all instances in mainspace with one of the suggested alternatives like "experiencing homelessness" or "unhoused". A superficial analysis suggests this would be a clear win. Presumably no-one is offended by the replacement terms (except perhaps on an aesthetic level), and the meaning of the new terms is clear enough to readers, so we've saved some readers from offense at no cost! Except there is a cost to forcing editors to dance around what are natural and widely understood terms to avoid offense to a small minority. (And when I refer to a small minority, I don't mean the people actually referred to by the term. None of the homeless people I've talked to know that they're not supposed to call themselves homeless anymore. Those pushing to proscribe that term are largely wealthy, college-educated individuals who have the luxury to spend their time on (well-meaning) linguistic bikeshedding.) There may come a time when "homeless" (or "wheelchair-bound") is clearly dead and buried, and becomes only rarely used in RS. At that point, of course we should stop using it, simply for the same reason we would avoid "electronic mail" or any other dated term (i.e. it's at best distracting, and might be unfamiliar to some readers). But no sooner. And trying to predict the demise of a phrase in advance is a tricky business, as reversals do happen - in the 90's, it seemed like "differently abled" was going to replace "disabled", which was increasingly seen as offensive, but since then "disabled" has been re-embraced, with "differently abled" discarded as overly euphemistic or paternalistic. Colin M (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree Colin M that allies have often weighed in with proposed changes to language, this has particularly been an issue for disabled people. ('Differently abled' was I believe championed by non-disabled people and has always made me shudder.) But the antipathy for 'wheelchair-bound' is coming from actual wheelchair users like me who find it offensive and inaccurate. 'Wheelchair user' has been used for decades, and now it is the consensus - all the style guides reflect this. I do understand that it might seem jarring if you're unused to it, but 'wheelchair-bound' is a bad term for an awful lot of reasons, many of which but not all detailed in this thread. Persicifolia (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Persicifolia: I understand why you say it's inaccurate, though I don't think you're giving readers enough credit for their ability to understand figurative language. e.g. in your comment above, you say that a term has always made you "shudder", but I assume you don't literally mean it causes you to shake nervously? But I would be genuinely interested in hearing why these terms cause you offense. Above you mention the "negative connotations" of these terms - perhaps you could elaborate on that? Colin M (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Colin M: Surprisingly, many people take 'wheelchair-bound' literally, imagining that wheelchair users never leave their chairs, with real world consequences. Public responses are frequently unpleasant, especially to people who can walk but use a wheelchair for long distances or on particular days. It is a term which genuinely misleads people about disability, the way it is lived, and what a wheelchair is. A wheelchair is a tool, one which should simply be able to be used when appropriate. But the stigma surrounding wheelchairs is massive. And this term encapsulates much of it.
When you cannot walk, or walk with difficulty, a wheelchair means freedom. This term obscures that. 'Bound' is meant to evoke confinement, strangely attributing to the very tool of our freedom the source of our supposed confinement. And 'wheelchair-bound' is used as a lazy shorthand - in fiction and sometimes in WP articles - for confinement, for misery, for the 'bitter crip***' stock character. I am not for changing language without very good reason - I am good with disabled/disability, though the etymology is hardly lovely. But this language causes a great deal of trouble. Getting rid of it would of course not solve the stigma and misunderstandings, but its use actively makes it worse. Persicifolia (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Persicifolia: Very well-written. My thanks and admiration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It depends on the context, which makes it hard to write a rule. "Wheelchair-bound" works (sometimes) for material on literature and art. "Wheelchair user" is probably fine for many impersonal situations ("The building was inaccessible to wheelchair users" is maybe better than "The building was inaccessible to the wheelchair-bound") or in anodyne descriptive passages ("Smith was the first wheelchair user to be admitted to the Academy") and so on.
Literature gets a bit more leeway I think. If the author of the work has made a character's disability an important part of her persona or of the action, I don't think its our place to water that down on purpose. If for Born on the Fourth of July we replace "The wheelchair-bound Kovic sobs 'who's going to love me now, dad?'" with "Kovic, who is a wheelchair user, sobs..." it's not the same. It's also not better.
It's fine to describe the protagonist of a spy drama as being a "desk-bound analyst" before becoming a swashbuckling field agent and so on. In another context, we'd presumably say "Smith was an office worker before becoming a performer with the Solid Gold Dancers" rather than "Smith was desk-bound"...
So, there's no way to have a functional rule here. Of course any rule is going to say "generally, in most cases, and subject to common sense exceptions..." but so what? Nobody pays any attention to that boilerplate and everyone knows it.
My inclination is trust the editors to read the room. Let the writers write using the best language for the situation according to their wits. It's worked OK so far. Herostratus (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
From my perspective, I'd argue that it hasn't worked out so far for editors and readers who find 'wheelchair-bound' offensive, and the way it's used is often misleading. Many of us do find it offensive (and inaccurate for all the reasons given). Which is why that's reflected in the style guides cited in this thread. It's often used inaccurately on WP even according to its own terms, frequently all the source tells us is that the person described as 'wheelchair-bound' has at some stage been seen in a wheelchair. Persicifolia (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Right, sure, shouldn't use any term when it's misleading. If a person was in a wheelchair for six months, don't describe her as either wheelchair bound or a wheelchair user during other times. Is it often misleading? I wouldn't think so.
Hmmm... there are about 50 articles in Category:Wheelchair users, and some several hundreds more in the subcat Category:Wheelchair sports competitors. It's overwhelmingly an athletic category, which makes sense. But leaving aside the athletes for now, out of curiosity I looked at a bunch of them, and what I concluded is
1) For these people, nobody writes "wheelchair bound" (except for one single "confined to a wheelchair"), it's always variations on "uses a wheelchair".
2) I didn't see and kind of can't imagine any situations where a variation of "wheelchair user" wouldn't be perfectly fine.
Since rules are supposed to codify practice, and "wheelchair user" appears to be very much the common practice AND is at least as good on the merits, I'm OK with making "wheelchair bound" be a rule when writing about actual people. Also (I would think) when writing about things and events ("access for wheelchair users" not "the wheelchair-bound") etc.
But, there are 50 people in that cat... there are probably close to that many wheelchair-bound fictional characters here... Professor Xavier... the kid in Mac and Me... Detective Ironside... Miss Marple... the Doom Patrol guy... that's off the top of my head and a bet there's lots more... it's different. If the rule exempts art and literature, then OK I'll get on board. Herostratus (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
But neither Ironside article uses 'wheelchair-bound' or 'confined' currently. There was an instance of it in Ironside (1967 TV series) which I replaced this week, and that edit (like 103 out of 104 I made) has not been altered or commented on so far. Does the article as is suffer from the omission of 'wheelchair-bound'? (I understand the feeling about an exemption for fictional characters - from my perspective if it's bad terminology, it's bad terminology.) Persicifolia (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
You understand that the benefit is for our readers and editors, and not just for the people described though, right? It would still be wrong to describe a fictional character as "mulatto" for example. This idea that somehow articles on fiction aren't read by very non-fictional people strikes me as absolutely unintelligible. Funny enough the articles on Ironside, Professor X, Mac and Me, and Miss Marple all seem to function perfectly fine as-is without using the term "wheelchair-bound" right now so I fail to see the tenacity regarding an insistence on using it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The other thing is - the contention is that the change would be for the benefit of wheelchair users - to save our feelings. Which is of course true. But from my perspective, it's the effect the flawed terminology has on non-disabled people that causes problems. Because they are the people frequently genuinely confused and misled by it, into misunderstanding the way disability really works. In all the ways described elsewhere. (Not to pile on Herostratus - just because it came up.) Persicifolia (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Grapple X: See Une Tempête: "Césaire specifies that Prospero is a white master, while Ariel is a mulatto and Caliban is a black slave". Describing Ariel as a "mulatto" is appropriate and even necessary here, because it recites what the author has specified. It would be factually incorrect to state that the author had depicted the character as some euphemism for the term actually used. BD2412 T 19:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
In a direct quote, that's one thing, but in Wikipedia's voice that absolutely isn't right; you seem to be mistaken for what "euphemism" means. One word being replaced in common usage by another is not a euphemism, if we replaced "mulatto" out of quotes with "mixed race" that's actually less euphemistic. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I can hardly believe my fingers are typing this, but Grapple's right on this point, though we'd actually have to say "of mixed white and black ancestry", since that's specifically what mulatto means. EEng 03:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: It's not a direct quote, though. It's a descriptive statement, in Wikipedia's voice, of the author's characterization. In that capacity it correctly describes the terminology that the author was intentional in using. Also, "of mixed white and black ancestry" would be imprecise in context. There are people (and, presumably, fictional characters) technically meeting that description who would be described as something other than "mulatto". Most people who identify as African Americans are genetically "of mixed white and black ancestry", as are more people than you might think who identify as White Americans. BD2412 T 03:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it's best if we not thresh this particular issue out here and now. EEng 03:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't raise the issue; just pointing out that there are times and places where it is appropriate to use a disfavored descriptor because it accurately describes authorial intent in the depiction of a fictional character. BD2412 T 04:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with that (see below), just the particular example has its own complexities not useful to to pursue here. EEng 06:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if we do end up depracating "wheelchair-bound", where in the MOS should this then even be placed? And phrased how? I feel like those are some somewhat important details. I haven't really been able to find an appropriate place yet to add it to. There's MOS:LABEL, but that deals with terms that are far more extreme than this one. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was at MOS:MED, until there's enough to have a separate MOS for dealing with disabilities and other conditions. --Masem (t) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Masem I have an objection in principle to putting it in MEDMOS. It is precisely the medicalisation of disability that is at the root of much of the problems of disability discrimination and opression. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It feels like it could slot in under Vocabulary on this page, just, similarly to how MOS:DEADNAME is positioned. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:WTW already mentions disability terminology so I think that's probably the best place for it Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Jesus healed the physically disabled". GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Both are useful terms. At my last workplace we had two wheelchair users: one had no difficulty easing out of the chair to press the lift/elevator buttons, but the other was wheelchair-bound and as my workshop was close by, I would slip out and do the pressing. I didn't mind, in fact felt honored to be of assistance, but I could see she felt a little embarrassed at having to ask, so I instigated a refit that worked for everyone. Doug butler (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to expand on an example I gave earlier. For those unfamiliar with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (film), first see this 14-second clip [13] to know all you need to know about it (for the purposes of this discussion, anyway). Our article ...
    • for many years recited that Blanche is wheelchair-bound ...
    • but was changed in 2018 to say Blanche now uses a wheelchair [14] ...
    • then some months later was changed to Blanche's mobility is limited by a wheelchair [15] ...
    • and recently by was changed to to [16]: Blanche's mobility is limited to a wheelchair.
In reverse order:
  • "mobility limited to a wheelchair" makes no sense at all.
  • "mobility limited by a wheelchair" makes it sound like it's somehow the wheelchair's fault.
  • "uses a wheelchair" completely omits the film's indispensible premise, which is (like it or not) that Blanche has no ability to move about at all without the machine (unless you count the incident in which, as the article recites, she "desperately drags herself down the stairs").
And that is why "confined to a wheelchair" or "wheelchair-bound" are the overwhelming choices of serious sources discussing the film:
  • Bianculli, David (March 3, 2017). "'Bette And Joan' Reveals The Electric Personalities Behind 'Baby Jane'". npr.org.
  • Crowther, Bosley (November 7, 1962). "Screen: Bette Davis and Joan Crawford: They Portray Sisters in Melodrama 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' Opens". New York Times.
  • Conrich, Ian; Sedgwick, ‎Laura (2017). Gothic Dissections in Film and Literature: The Body in Parts. p. 152.
  • Hantke, Steffen (2004). Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear.
  • Albrecht, Gary L (2005). Encyclopedia of Disability. p. 17.
  • Nowak, Donna Marie (2010). Just Joan: A Joan Crawford Appreciation.
  • Denby, David (2012). Do the Movies Have a Future?. p. 112.
  • Bret, David (2009). Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr.
  • Schweitzer, Dahlia (2014). Cindy Sherman's Office Killer: Another kind of monster.
  • Holmes, Su; Negra, ‎Diane (2011). In the Limelight and Under the Microscope: Forms and Functions of Female Celebrity.
  • Palmer, R. Barton; Pomerance, ‎Murray (2018). The Many Cinemas of Michael Curtiz.
(And that list includes, do note ... NPR! Plus, that's just the books; skim [17] for the journal articles.) I understand and endorse the desire to describe appropriately and sensitively the reality of actual people who use wheelchairs, and in many or most (though I doubt all) such cases, alternative wording will be better. But I cannot abide the scorched-earth insistence that certain words or phrases be banned, because the in-universe reality for Blanche is that she is trapped, stuck, bound, confined to her wheelchair. No circumlocution can do the job as effectively, which is why sources don't employ them. EEng 06:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
She was not literally "confined to a wheelchair", see this clip of her balancing herself down the stairs. A source which actually discusses both Whatever Happened to Baby Jane and disability terminology is Disabling Imagery and the Media. Quotes: "Joan Crawford (who is also a wheelchair user) is wholly at the mercy of her murderous sister, Bette Davis" and "Also phrases like 'confined to a wheelchair' or 'wheelchair bound' are inappropriate. Wheelchairs empower rather than confine - they are a mobility aid just like a pair of shoes." She was, however, literally bound in bed. We can describe her restricted mobility without using inaccurate, negative terms. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • balancing herself down the stairs – Oh come on, KB, our readers have common sense. Confined doesn't mean absolutely, 100%, at all times, surgically made one with the chair, any more than bound means literally restrained by ropes. Everyone knows that.
  • Wheelchairs empower rather than confine Absolutely, I agree, which is why the wording (in the article at one point) that Blanche's mobility is limited by a wheelchair makes no sense at all. The wheelchair's not what confines her; her paralysis is what confines her -- to the wheelchair. The wheelchair gives Blanche what little mobility she has but unfortunately that's all the mobility she has; she is confined to what little the wheelchair offers. That's what "confined to a wheelchair" means. I'm going to repeat, again, that discussions of actual people should not emphasize (in fact, should go out of their way to avoid emphasizing) limitation as if it's the defining character of their being, but there are times (as with Baby Jane) when emphasizing this aspect of someone's existence is essential, and trying to avoid the point is awkward and strained.
  • A source which actually discusses both Whatever Happened to Baby Jane and disability terminology – No, it doesn't discuss Baby Jane. Here's the entirety of the passage:
The absence in literature and other media of a full range of roles for disabled people strongly reinforces stereotype assumptions that disabled people are unable to look after themselves and, therefore, susceptible to violence. Moreover, the portrayal of disabled people as victims of violence is common in films and on television. The Hollywood classics 'Woman in a Cage' and 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane' are both fine examples. In the former Olivia de Haviland, a wheelchair user, is trapped in a lift by a gang of young thugs while they ransack her flat. In the latter, Joan Crawford (who is also a wheelchair user) is wholly at the mercy of her murderous sister, Bette Davis.
That rightly highlights that it's bad thing when people in wheelchairs are featured only as an easy way to manufacture a helpless victim. But it's not a serious discussion of those films as works of fiction.
EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I would also contrast this with the issue that started this whole discussion, Arnim Zola in Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.; Zola is in a wheelchair because he's ancient. His immobility is not depicted as something that makes him susceptible to abuse; to the contrary it is depicted precisely to show that despite being physically incapacitated, his mind is still powerful enough to overcome S.H.I.E.L.D.'s most powerful psychic. BD2412 T 19:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
People who are no longer allowed by changed societal attitudes to evoke the old language of race, gender, and sexual orientation are making their last stand on disability, and making it over trivial pseudo-exceptions. Unlike Ronald Reagan, they are picking on invalids and cripples. Deep deep shame. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's an idea: How about you take your goddam righteous certainty in your moral fucking superiority and go jump off a bridge in the lake? You're absolutely insufferable. Stick to the issues and stop questioning people's motives. EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
If we are talking fictional works or long-deceased persons, there is an aspect of Wikipedia:Presentism that we should be avoiding in using modern sensibility to reframe something set at a specific time - though this does not prevent newer sources that are critical of that framing to be used to point out the issue. We should not be rewriting history because of what today's attitudes now say. This obviously does not apply to living persons/present-day issues, the point of discussion above. --Masem (t) 13:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, how will you describe FDR, wheelchair-bound or wheelchair user? In his time, not a peep was heard about his disability. Disability is not a topic on which there is voluminous old literature. Even the focus is modern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Who on Wikipedia will use "hunchback" without quotes in describing a character who was described as a "hunchback" both in an old literary work and in the literary criticism of that time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The Hunchback of Notre-Dame#Characters [18]: Quasimodo is a deformed 20-year-old hunchback, and the bell-ringer of Notre Dame. Some1 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
However, no one is saying that we can't say, "In some newspaper reports Roosevelt was described as 'wheelchair bound,' when not supported in the standing posture by his son." Or that, "Film criticism of the 1970s did not discuss her disability; that she was 'wheelchair-bound' was the extent of the discussion." The ability to quote directly is very important, especially in instances in which we cannot discern the full intent or meaning of a writer. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
I edited The Hunchback of Notre-Dame to remove inappropriate instances of "hunchback". For instance: Quasimodo is a 20-year-old "hunchback" with physical deformities, and the bell-ringer of Notre Dame.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The use of quotes here is a very good approach. EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
In regards to FDR, we'd use what the sources of the time described him as, and if they routinely did not discuss his wheelchair use or did not consider it a defining feature (in contrast to someone like Stephen Hawking), then we are probably a bit freer to use more sensibility in language if needed. I note our articles never use "wheelchair-<something>" in an adjective form to describe FDR or his illness, though simple talk about his "use of a wheelchair". (It is perhaps that FDR was noted to go out of his way to not make his paralysis public that the media did not attribute any "wheelchair-<something>" adjective to him) --Masem (t) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's well put, Masem. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree that we should use the language of the time. For instance, we wouldn't use negro except as a proper noun or in quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a difference between terms universally considered offensive and that are now considered slurs, and what we're talking about here with those that have yet to fall into that case but we recognize may be sensitive to some. But even considering that in historical context, like if we were talking To Kill a Mockingbird or Uncle Tom's Cabin, having "Negro" come up in unquote statements in limited conditions would not be unexpected given the nature of the world and the time when it was written, though obviously from modern discussion and criticism, you'd likely only find that term in direct quotes. (I note neither of these articles use that word outside quotes at the time, so its not an issue we have to worry about). --Masem (t) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How about changing the proposed MOS guideline from:

    "'Wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' are deprecated in favor of 'uses a wheelchair' or 'is a wheechair user'"

    or somesuch, to:

    "Generally prefer 'uses a wheelchair' or 'is a wheechair user' to 'is wheelchair-bound' or 'is confined to a wheelchair' "

    In other words, let us start with a preference instead of a rule (a la Fowler and Fowler: Prefer the concrete word to the abstract, etc). That way, the nuances of the exceptions, if any, will be worked out further on the talk pages of the articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Now at least you're beginning to talk sense, but the suggested substitutes are too formulaic. Any guideline should primarily say what connotation's we're trying to avoid, perhaps illustrating with examples of rephrasings, but not make it sound like there are prescribed formulas. EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Well, why don't you propose that version here, and we'll examine it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, too exhausted from beating back the suggestion that we ban certain phrases. We've got plenty of smart people here who I'm sure are up to the task. But I'll be standing by to opine that whatever's suggested falls short of what's needed. ;P EEng 18:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Why don't you do it tomorrow or the day after when your exhaustion will have waned? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Seriously, I'm way behind proofreading a friend's book. EEng 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The reliable sources, ie the numerous style guides, and even the organizations actually involved in disability are quite clear on the language that should be used. Wikipedia should reflect those styles and sources. We routinely update and stop using regressive language and terminology, just as the reliable source style guides do themselves. Arguments to keep to traditional or "oft used language" should be thrown in the trash. And then burned. And then buried in the soil as fertilizer so such worthless opinions can actually be used for something positive in the world. SilverserenC 19:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'll just start by repeating what I said to someone else earlier in this discussion: You can take your goddam righteous certainty in your moral fucking superiority and go jump in the lake. No one here has offered anything like an argument based on what's "oft used", so you better go back and actually read what people have said, and engage it. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    You mean arguments like WP:Euphemism despite "wheelchair-bound" being the actual euphemism? I have read them. They're crap arguments. SilverserenC 19:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    I said elsewhere that it seemed you might misunderstand what the word euphemism means. I'm afraid that's now an unavoidable conclusion. Seriously. You don't seem to understand what the word means. EEng 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • :(Silver seren) - I no longer have any objections to 'any' terminology that's used. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

My frustration levels have lowered. But, looking at the "NPOV vs Consensus" debate? Tempers appear to be reaching a boiling point, from both sides. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm cool as a cucumber. EEng 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Procedural diversion

A request

Folks, can we please indent our posts properly? Make it easier to follow the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You changed the indenting in a way that mixed up whose comments were responding to whose (whomses?). I've changed it back. EEng 18:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
In future, perhaps you (and others) will 'name' (not ping) the person being responded to, to avoid future confusion. We've many participants in this discussion, so it would be helpful. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The indenting shows clearly, for each comment, which comment it refers do. I don't know why you're changing it, and there's no need for people to explicitly address other people except in unusual circumstances. I suggest you simply delete this subthread (in which only you and I have participated) as it's a needless interruption. EEng 19:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
(EEng) It's so easy to do. But if you (or anybody else) are going to refuse? then there's nothing else I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm still mystified by what you're asking for. You want everyone to open all of their posts with the name of the editor they're responding to? When did that become de rigueur? EEng 06:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You & editor F&F have a habit of mis-indenting, but you more so. The others don't, so they don't need to start their posts with a 'name'. Again, it doesn't matter anymore. GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV vs Consensus

If the best RS say that "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are nonneutral language, then doesn't WP:NPOV overrule consensus? The RS say:

As language use, both terms are incorrectly applied because confined means "to keep shut up, as in a prison" and bound means "tied" (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1977), and everyone who uses a wheelchair leaves the chair for activities such as sleeping. When journalists use these terms, they misrepresent disability, as well as showing their misunderstanding of the disability experience. Wheelchairs are not binding or confining but actually increase mobility, speed and ability.[20][21]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
What we do by NPOV is based on consensus, we are not a bureaucracy. There are only a few policies that are absolutes, and those are ones that have legal implications (BLP, NFC and COPYVIO). --Masem (t) 23:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The principles of NPOV can't be overriden by consensus, but the argument if "wheelchair-bound" is non-neutral still remains a determination to be made by consensus, not by policy. --Masem (t) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
And this is what we need to discuss. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
At the same time, a local consensus to ignore the entirety of the reliable sources that aren't even vague, but extremely direct and clear on style guide and terminology usage and to also violate things like NPOV is not a valid consensus. SilverserenC 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, per WP:NPOV#Words to watch: Strive to eliminate expressions that are ... disparaging. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately you're omitting the opening words of the very section you're linking: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care. If the discussion can proceed on those terms, then we might get somewhere. EEng 06:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
The question is , has consensus determined that "wheelchair-bound" to be disparaging? This is the same type of question around the "commit suicide" RFC. Just because some sources claim it is, we need to see if editors on WP agree it is as well, and then we can treat it that way. --Masem (t) 23:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, so in this section I'd like editors to weigh in so that we can determine consensus. What do you think; don't the RS say that "wheelchair-bound" is disparaging and inaccurate? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe "disparaging" is referring to MOS:LABEL, since that seems to be the closest relevant section in MOS:WTW page that NPOV links to. I don't think "wheelchair-bound" was intended to be a MOS:LABEL. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Masem—I don't believe a single source has been provided which explicitly states otherwise; no style guide or usage discussion which says "it's fine". The "evidence" to the contrary has just been to point to the phrase in use, which could be done for any language we've already agreed not to use. That not everyone is in agreement here is not to say that it isn't in wide agreement outside of WP. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying on which side we fall on due to sourcing or lack thereof. That's why there's the RFC to see if, given these arguments ("most sources say it's a problem, and its hard to find those that say its not a problem") that we'll let consensus come to a conclusion if we should consider it a problem. What we can't jump to is says "sources say its a problem, therefore, without establishing that by consensus, we should avoid the term" as that can lead to a lot of preemptive actions in other areas. --Masem (t) 23:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
One source explicitly says it is only considering a US context (which is a {{globalize}} issue), and the other source is published in a US journal with < 20% international collaboration, and incidentally also a 0.4 SJR and ~50 cites per year, and the author of the piece appears to be a disability policy consultant, not a scholar, so it does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
If local/global issues are a concern, the Grauniad and Observer style guide also specifically states it is stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, the first source is considering US newspapers, but the quote is the opinion of the UK published Disability & Society. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
There's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to sources ProcrastinatingReader so a great many style guides have been referred to. Re international consensus:
From the Australian IDPWD style guide: "avoid words and phrases that are negative or demeaning, such as 'wheelchair bound'" [22].
The Australian government style guide does not mention usage of ‘bound’ or ‘confined’ but specifies best practice is 'person who uses a wheelchair..' [23]
From Canada: 'Avoid phrases such as confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair bound. Instead, use phrases such as "a person who uses a wheelchair" or "wheelchair user". People are not "confined" or "bound” to a wheelchair".' [24]
The New Zealand government lists in 'terms to avoid': "Wheelchair bound, confined to a wheelchair". And in 'terms to use instead': "Someone who uses a wheelchair or wheelchair user". [25]
On top of the sources mentioned just above by Grapple and Kolya, for the UK and US there's the UK government style guide and the AP Stylebook. Persicifolia (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You're assuming, of course, that those sources are not themselves representing a point of view. BD2412 T 03:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there any point whatsoever in your comment? We follow what the reliable sources say on subjects. Every source has a POV. It's pretty obvious what you're actually trying to implicate is the nonsensical claim that these style guides are biased because they are supportive of disabled people and appropriate language toward them. SilverserenC 04:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Earlier in this discussion I was asked to provide examples of sources using the opposed terminology. It has been amply demonstrated that there are contemporary sources that do. Further to that, a Newspapers.com search for the last five years returns over 5,000 hits for newspaper articles using the term, "wheelchair-bound", including instances of people using it to describe themselves and their family members, as well as instances of the term being used to describe fictional characters in film and book reviews. What is missing in the invocation of style guides is any sense of context. The style guides referenced apply to news reporting and government documents, both almost overwhemingly applied to real people. There certainly won't be government edicts describing how laws should apply to fictional characters. I would gladly support a guideline to this effect as applied to real people, but deprecating the phrase even with respect to fictional characters in the context of their fictional portrayals would prohibit accurate discussion of those portrayals. If this rule proposes to prohibit us from directly quoting a reliable source in print, then it invites a POV favoring original research over the sources in those articles. BD2412 T 06:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And as I explained above, not a one of those sources discusses the term to say it's considered acceptable. Newspapers.com also returns over a thousand matches for "for all intensive purposes", 282,214,956 results for "should of" so let's not pretend that's a metric we can trust. What is missing is any source arguing in favour of the term, likely because no cogent argument has yet been made for it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you get why a list of newspaper articles (including most of which are probably just duplicates of a much, much smaller number of actual articles, since that's how Newspapers.com works) isn't relevant to discussing style guides and terminology usage? And they are clear in writing in all instances in how that terminology is used, as are the disability organizations themselves. Since the issue isn't about applying the term to just real people, it is the usage of the term at all. As this is also about our readers. And nothing of the above applies to quotes in the first place. Just as you can still use even outright slurs in quotes, which you wouldn't do in non-quote Wikipedia voice sentences. We are discussing Wikipedia voice parts of articles. SilverserenC 06:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Yah, BD2412, doncha know how Newspaper.com works, you're so ignorant, it's probably just a bunch of duplicates, though of course I didn't actually check since I can just pull statements like that out of my butt.[FBDB] Hmmmm... well, let's see. How about Google Scholar [26], Silver s? Lots of duplicates there? EEng 06:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I cannot believe you guys have gone off on this track. NPOV and RS are content policies, and apply only to articles. We certainly look to other high-quality publications, and their style guides, for ideas on what style decisions we want to make (if we make one at all on a given point -- instead of leaving it up the editors of each article), but in the final analysis we make those decisions ourselves according to what we think best serves the goal of building the encyclopedia. Phrases such as "we follow the reliable sources" show a fundamental misapprehension of the project's policies and guidelines.
    Words and phrases, on their own, are not neutral or nonneutral, POV or NPOV. It's how they're used in a particular article that counts, which is why any attempt to outright ban any give phrase is a nonstarter. EEng 06:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • EEng, you stated, Words and phrases, on their own, are not neutral or nonneutral, POV or NPOV. It's how they're used that counts. Well, we're talking about using these words to refer to people who use wheelchairs, and I am suggesting that is a nonneutral use, because the RS say it is a nonneutral use. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    There's no way to say it's nonneutral in all cases, all places and times, and particularly not for fictional characters and (as noted elsewhere in the sprawl) in medical contexts where sources use the term, whether you like it or not. You insistence on a blanket ban is where you lose people. EEng 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    EEng, as Calidum stated above, MOS is a guideline and occasional exceptions to its rules are allowed. (Not that I can think of any where it would be necessary.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that some people are not recognizing the clear "asymmetry of complaint" that always happens. The only people who ask for change are those unsatisfied with the status quo; so when people above are saying things like "What is missing is any source arguing in favour of the term", those will never exist because the term is already standard so people who agree with that standard don't complain. They just use the term. It is only people who object to the term which write statements to the effect of "we shouldn't use the term". What we should do is look for usage rather than overt arguments, because people who agree with how things are doing don't make arguments to continue to do what they have always been doing. I don't really have a horse in the race, I am just interested in following Wikipedia's own ethos which is to follow mainstream usage and not to be "ahead of the curve". Maybe usage is changing. Maybe usage has already changed. Maybe usage is not changing at all. I have no idea, but what we should do is use actual usage of the terms to determine what to do, not to depend on finding people who make arguments one way or another, because that always unnaturally favors those who propose changes. --Jayron32 17:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Based on the evidence from style guides (internationally) already linked above I think it is safe to say that usage has already changed. We are supposed to follow recent RS guidance, here, not the average of the last 50 years. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
      • If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree. What we shouldn't be doing is cherry-picking complaints from advocacy organizations, which are not reliable experts on usage. --Jayron32 17:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, there's a preponderance of honest-to-goodness style guides. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Surely the UK government, NZ government, Australian government, the AP Stylebook, the Guardian & Observer style guide - all linked above - cannot be considered advocacy organisations? And the UK NHS, for anyone concerned about medical usage. [27] This is already common usage, including on WP where 'wheelchair user' etc dominates already. Persicifolia (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
            • I've already pre-agreed with you, so I have no idea why you are taking up an argumentary tone with me. When I said "If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree." what I ACTUALLY meant by that was "If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree." I hope that clears up your confusion. --Jayron32 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
              • Jayron32 see my comment to Blueboar above. Your vote used the preponderance word wrt sources, not style guides, as you are arguing now. And your original argument was similar to Blueboars in claiming that Wikipedia's voice should reflect our sources wrt writing style that has a social aspect (vs punctuation or the length of a dash). I don't know where that misguided concept came from, other than that it is a falsehood useful convenient to support certain political agendas. You make a case that people explicitly complain to change rather than explicitly request the status quo. This isn't entirely true, and culture wars in the UK and US demonstrate advocates of the status quo can be as vocal as any advocacy organisation. But as I noted to Blueboar, there's an asymmetry to the demand that we follow sources style, because one cannot search for the absence of something, for the lack of offensive, outdated and prejudicial language in high quality sources. Many of these style issues are covered by the guides of journal publishers, newspapers and press agencies, as well as government bodies such as the NHS and national government guidelines. These are not advocacy organisations, but are in the information business like us. And like us, they recognise their language choices have an effect. But unlike us, they recognise that all style guides lead, not follow, that they represent best practice, not typical practice. Nobody ever published a style guide in the hope that it would have no impact whatsoever. Yet that is what some here think our style guide on social word choices should be. -- Colin°Talk 10:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                • How many fucking ways can I agree with you? Look, I don't care how long of a wall of text you write in response to me, I've already told you you're right. There's not any thing to be gained by repeatedly telling me things I already agreed with you on. It's apparent you're here to pick a fight and not to convince people that you're point is valid, since you're still trying to argue me into a position I've already accepted. Please just stop. It's getting wearisome. --Jayron32 19:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

including on WP where 'wheelchair user' etc dominates already – That being, of course, because someone (you) went around blindly changing it. From your contributions history:

  • 12:54, October 28, 2021 m Laurence Olivier ‎ Just replacing 'wheelchair bound' with 'wheelchair-using', as I proposed on the talk page. It could equally read 'an elderly soldier who uses a wheelchair' or just 'disabled' but I think this is the least obtrusive option.
  • 11:59, October 28, 2021 +4‎ m The Bridge (2011 TV series) ‎ →‎Series 4: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is now widely considered outdated and misleading.
  • 11:19, October 28, 2021 −2‎ m Four Tops ‎ →‎Later years: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is now widely considered outdated and misleading.
  • 11:10, October 28, 2021 +11‎ m Surendra Gadling ‎ →‎Work: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 11:04, October 28, 2021 −2‎ m Bad News Bears ‎ →‎Legacy: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 11:02, October 28, 2021 m Jill Clayburgh ‎ →‎Career setbacks and TV movies: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 11:00, October 28, 2021 +11‎ m Satan's Slaves ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate! And 'mute' for the same reason.
  • 10:46, October 28, 2021 −6‎ m List of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise) characters ‎ →‎Other characters: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - in keeping with the rest of the article which already uses preferred terms.
  • 10:42, October 28, 2021 m Byculla to Bangkok ‎ →‎Storyline: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:38, October 28, 2021 −12‎ m Otto von Bismarck ‎ →‎Death: also replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is also considered outdated and a bit offensive.
  • 10:36, October 28, 2021 +6‎ m Otto von Bismarck ‎ →‎Final years and forced resignation: just replacing 'confined to a wheelchair', which is widely considered outdated - 'full-time wheelchair user' gives us the same information and is less loaded and more accurate.
  • 10:32, October 28, 2021 m Öyle Bir Geçer Zaman ki ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:31, October 28, 2021 m Our Lady of Lourdes ‎ →‎In popular culture: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:29, October 28, 2021 +1‎ m Dick Grayson ‎ →‎Earth 2 (New 52): just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:26, October 28, 2021 +2‎ m Jimmy Durante ‎ →‎Later years: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:24, October 28, 2021 m Agent Smith ‎ →‎The Animatrix: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:23, October 28, 2021 m Werner Kniesek ‎ →‎St. Pölten murders: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated.
  • 10:21, October 28, 2021 +1‎ m Star Trek: The Original Series ‎ →‎Notable guest appearances: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:19, October 28, 2021 +4‎ m Haunted (Palahniuk novel) ‎ →‎Characters: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
  • 10:15, October 28, 2021 +3‎ m Venom (character) ‎ →‎Black Panther: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!))
  • 09:34, October 28, 2021 +11‎ m Morrissey ‎ →‎Solo career: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's widely considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!). Also changing 'the disabled' to 'disabled people' for the same reason.
  • 09:28, October 28, 2021 m List of The Office (American TV series) characters ‎ →‎Phyllis' family: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:26, October 28, 2021 0‎ m Peter Sellers ‎ →‎Dr. Strangelove, health problems, a second marriage and Casino Royale (1964–1969): just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:24, October 28, 2021 +11‎ m Inferno (1980 film) ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:19, October 28, 2021 +1‎ m Funland (TV series) ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:17, October 28, 2021 −5‎ m Taxi (TV series) ‎ →‎Recurring: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:15, October 28, 2021 +2‎ m Urban Legends: Final Cut ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:14, October 28, 2021 +5‎ m Stacy Galina ‎ →‎Early life: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:11, October 28, 2021 +2‎ m Seeta Aur Geeta ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:09, October 28, 2021 +9‎ m Baby Driver ‎ →‎Cast: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:08, October 28, 2021 −4‎ m Heroes (2008 film) ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:06, October 28, 2021 m Majboor (1974 film) ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 09:05, October 28, 2021 +11‎ m Peter Mayhew ‎ →‎Personal life and death: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 08:53, October 28, 2021 +1‎ m John Edward Robinson ‎ →‎Murders begin: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 08:42, October 28, 2021 +13‎ m Mom (TV series) ‎ →‎Main: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
  • 08:35, October 28, 2021 0‎ m Alex Krycek ‎ →‎Character arc: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 07:10, October 28, 2021 Freddy Got Fingered ‎ →‎Cast: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 07:08, October 28, 2021 m The Time Traveler's Wife (film) ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 07:07, October 28, 2021 +1‎ m Bloodborne ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 07:05, October 28, 2021 +1‎ m Philomena (film) ‎ →‎Historical authenticity: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 07:03, October 28, 2021 0‎ m Checker Taxi ‎ →‎History: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 07:00, October 28, 2021 m Waxwork (film) ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 06:59, October 28, 2021 +1‎ m Wentworth (season 8) ‎ →‎Episodes: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 06:57, October 28, 2021 m Murders of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and Khandalyce Pearce ‎ →‎Arrest: just replacing 'confined to a wheelchair', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 06:55, October 28, 2021 +12‎ m List of Shameless (American TV series) characters ‎ →‎Terry Milkovich: replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 06:52, October 28, 2021 −10‎ m List of Shameless (American TV series) characters ‎ →‎Neil Morton: altering 'in a wheelchair' to the preferred 'wheelchair user'
  • 06:50, October 28, 2021 +9‎ Jason Stryker ‎ →‎In other media: replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!) Also 'mute'.
  • 06:49, October 28, 2021 −5‎ m Uncle Drew ‎ →‎Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
  • 20:28, October 27, 2021 0‎ m Willem Dafoe ‎ →‎1980s: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', as it's widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:27, October 27, 2021 m Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', as it's widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:24, October 27, 2021 +112‎ Madison Ferris ‎ Placing the first wheelchair user to play a lead on Broadway in the opening, because it seems important.
  • 20:16, October 27, 2021 +1‎ m Facing the Giants ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:14, October 27, 2021 +6‎ m Scott Templeton ‎ →‎Season 5: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:12, October 27, 2021 −6‎ m Aunt May ‎ →‎Fictional character biography: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:09, October 27, 2021 0‎ m Audition (1999 film) ‎ →‎Reception: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:08, October 27, 2021 0‎ m Another Cinderella Story ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:07, October 27, 2021 0‎ m Timothy Busfield ‎ →‎Career: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:06, October 27, 2021 −2‎ m Tales from the Darkside: The Movie ‎ →‎Cat from Hell: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:04, October 27, 2021 m Tierra de reyes ‎ →‎Main: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:02, October 27, 2021 +1‎ m Achari America Yatra ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 20:01, October 27, 2021 0‎ m Angela Lansbury ‎ →‎Career beginnings and breakthrough (1957–61): replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 19:59, October 27, 2021 0‎ m Glass (2019 film) ‎ →‎Cast: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 19:57, October 27, 2021 List of Money Heist episodes ‎ →‎Part 4 (2020): replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 19:56, October 27, 2021 The Lost Symbol ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 19:55, October 27, 2021 +4‎ Scissors (film) ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 19:52, October 27, 2021 +1‎ Khadim Hussain Rizvi ‎ →‎Death: Changing 'wheelchair bound' for the same reason.
  • 19:51, October 27, 2021 Khadim Hussain Rizvi ‎ →‎Early life: just changing 'confined to a wheelchair' to 'wheelchair user', as the latter is considered preferable.
  • 19:48, October 27, 2021 30 Degrees in February ‎ →‎Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 19:47, October 27, 2021 −2‎ Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022 film) ‎ →‎Cast: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
  • 19:44, October 27, 2021 0‎ Panja Vaisshnav Tej ‎ →‎Career: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.

You must think we're all morons. EEng 02:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You must think we're all morons. Not all of you, but I'm on the fence about anyone who'd sooner post 13,000 bytes of someone's edit history than listen to core policies. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Boy, that sure is clever! Anything similarly clever to say about your friend Persicifolia (and I have no hesitation in saying this) blatantly lying that on WP ... 'wheelchair user' etc dominates already? EEng 03:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it's not as clever as suggesting someone jump off a bridge but I'm too busy trying to follow the sources here—precisely, by the way, what that wall of edit history you posted is also doing—to worry about cleverness. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
It is, indeed, not as clever, since one is an effective denunciation of the repeated questioning of other editors' good faith, while the other was a lame feint to distract from the fact that your friend lied. EEng 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Except it's not really lying, is it? To say that a term in greater usage "dominates"? I'm sure you would have picked another word but I find it utterly laughable that someone who has dedicated this amount of time and effort arguing what is indisputably a bad-faith position to begin with, with vigour and vitriol, would take umbrage at it being questioned. You are utterly indistinguishable from a troll at this point and I hope you can take a step back and see that. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to be questioned, and I never take umbrage. (I like walking in the rain, actually.) Lying may have been a bit strong, but when you move sand from one pan of the balance to the other, then say, "See, it tips in my favor!", that's not a good look. As far as indisputably a bad-faith position and indistinguishable from a troll, I encourage you to take to ANI and see what kind of reaction you get. EEng 05:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
PAG includes not disrupting WP to make a point, which what the edits above, claiming there's a reason to make the substitution prior gaining consensus, is exactly the problem. This is exactly why if editors thing there is a shift in language that needs to be changed on WP, it should go through a consensus-based change before any mass edits are made for that. --Masem (t) 02:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
... not to mention changing everything to your preferred phrasing, then claiming that it "dominates". I'm trying to think of the word for that. Let me see ... mendacious? disingenuous? deceitful? Maybe dissembling? I just can't decide. EEng 03:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Which is precisely what the discussion on this page is, Masem. Those edits are NOT PAG. Look at the dates of the edits. They occurred prior to this RfC being opened. And are why we are here right now. Please don't fall for EEng's purposefully misleading claim. And if only 100 pages make up the bulk of usage of either term, then it's clearly not prevalent enough to start with to have a meaningful editing usage consensus statement one way or the other. Hence why this discussion is about reliable source usage among style guides and other such sources instead. SilverserenC 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Their edits eventually hit the Nick Fury page [28] on Oct 29, which launched discussion there and subsequently onto here. Their edits instigated this for all purposes. As well, when one does mass edits like this, that falls under WP:ONUS if they had have not sought prior concensus for the mass change. So yes, the behavior around this falls under PAG issues. Now, we can still debate the question of the language without talking about the behavior, but we have to discount what happened or exists on WP due to this. --Masem (t) 04:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
EEng We are having this discussion because I edited 103 articles which included the term 'wheelchair-bound' - I have made absolutely no secret of that. Of my 103 edits I believe one was reverted. (Which has since be re-reverted by another editor). I was under the impression this was literally how WP worked. A few people who voted 'no' above suggested exactly this course of action, article by article, instead of this formal process (which I did not instigate or expect).
There were approximately 1,600 uses of 'wheelchair-bound' before my edits. There are currently 1,806 examples of 'wheelchair user'. I have not edit warred. I changed no direct quotes, or medical pages. The protected pages chose to accept my edits. (Eg Morrissey, Laurence Olivier) I did not edit medical articles. I had RS. I stopped these edits when this discussion started. Persicifolia (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that you "had RS": given the speed at which you made these changes, you cannot possibly have checked the sources for facts to support phrasing less cookie-cutter than the old standards (bound, confined), nor do I believe that the sources on (say) Otto von Bismarck actually refer to him as a "wheelchair user". You just blindly changed stuff. EEng 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
But it is improper that after making these changes, to claim "wheelchair user" dominates, since your edits have tainted that. --Masem (t) 03:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Except for math? 1,600 uses of "wheelchair-bound" and 1,806 usages of "wheelchair user". If we take away the 103 pages Persicifolia made in the latter case, that's still 1,703 cases. So, they were completely correct in saying there are more cases of the latter than the former even before they were involved. SilverserenC 04:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that if you take away the 103 "wheelchair user" pages, you would also have to add them to the "wheelchair bound" pages that they previously were. Which oddly enough brings it to exactly 1,703 for each term, making it inaccurate to say that "wheelchair user" was more common before the edits in question. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
And that's before you bring in confined to a wheelchair, which brings the score to about 2200 verus 1700. Not that anyone's counting. EEng 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no also sense of context in those raw numbers, just as there is no sense of context in reference to style guides directed towards writing government documents and reporting news stories rather than writing articles on subjects like fictional characters and the media they inhabit. Perhaps all 1,703 original usages of "wheelchair user" were in reference to paralympians, for whom its appropriateness is not in dispute. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of losing brain cells, I'm going to ask again for you to show me a single instance of any style guide or usage discussion that shares this delusional idea that fictional characters have some sort of exemption here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
What part of style guides directed towards writing government documents and reporting news stories rather than writing articles on subjects like fictional characters and the media they inhabit do you not understand? EEng 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The part where at any fucking point any guide has said "this doesn't apply to writing about fiction". You're pulling an exception that doesn't exist out of your ass. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
These guides don't touch on writing about fiction because writing about fiction is outside their scope. EEng 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
It is absolutely not outside the scope of The Guardian, the Observer, the Associated Press, or the Modern Language Association to write about fiction. And yet they are all in agreement in this with none of this whimsical, fantastical exception being clung to. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed those among all the links to the advocacy groups.
  • Guardian – OK, I'll give you that.
  • AP – Here you've got a problem: [29].
  • MLA – MLA Handbook recommends that we Avoid language that can evoke emotions or imagery that may not be accurate such as describing a person who uses a wheelchair as "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". No one disagrees that we should avoid language that can evoke emotions or imagery that "may not be accurate". But emotions and imagery are the stock-in-trade of literature, and when (according to sources) a work evokes such emotions or imagery, we are bound (if the choice of words may be forgiven) to report that, not substitute a more bland formulation of our own design specifically designed to avoid the very atmosphere the work is intended to evoke.
But there's still the Guardian, anyway. EEng 05:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x 3) Honestly, I wasn't sure of the exact number of times the term 'wheelchair user' appears on Wikipedia till 5 minutes ago. It is my opinion that it dominates in the best quality and most up to date articles. (Lots of articles use language like 'uses a wheelchair' and other variables so a search like that is always going to be approximate.) Look I'm a relatively new WP editor, and may well never darken your door again after this week honestly, it's been deeply unpleasant. I had no idea this process even existed a week ago. I edited in accordance with WP disability language guidelines (or is it an essay?), and RS (all the style guides). I expected perhaps a series of small discussions, in which I'd share my sources, and maybe be reverted - in which case I would leave it. I've mentioned these edits repeatedly, I've been keen to discuss them, in part because only one (that I've found) was reverted. This has confused me, because there is so much opposition on this page, yet almost none in the actual article space. I am confused about how my edits made before this discussion, which I have been completely open about and are in fact the reason for the discussion, have tainted anything. If I hadn't made them we wouldn't be here. Persicifolia (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You might not believe this, but I'd really be sorry to see you stop contributing. But ... when you are (as you recognize) new to a situation, you need to take time to find out how things work. Your desire to bring nuance to articles' presentation of those in / using / confined by / bound to / assisted by / happy with / unhappy with / whatever their wheelchairs is laudable, but if you insist on seeing the issue in terms of black and white, and implying that those who disagree with you have evil motives, or don't care, you're going to run into trouble. EEng 04:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: The Guardian:
BD2412 T 05:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian's style guide says "wheelchair-bound" is stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate. If you contact The Guardian I'm sure they'll correct their errors as they've done in the past.[30][31] Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
And the International Paralympics Committee says in its Guide to Reporting on Persons with an Impairment (2014), page 2:

Avoid using emotional wording like “tragic”, “afflicted”, “victim”, or “confined to a wheelchair”. Emphasise the ability and not the limitation, ie, by saying that someone “uses a wheelchair” rather than “is confined” or “is wheelchair-bound”.(see here)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
It all comes back to the 'big question'. Do we want to erase the phrase "wheelchair bound" from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler:, I completely agree with the International Paralympics Committee that we should be following those guidelines in our articles on Paralympians. The IPC guidelines are not directed towards discussion of fictional characters. BD2412 T 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Just as we shouldn't use the word "crippled" to describe a fictional character, we shouldn't use inaccurate and offensive wheelchair terminology for fictional characters, regardless of what secondary sources say. However, the proposed guideline wouldn't prevent a quote from a work of fiction describing a character using offensive language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Authors describe their characters as crippled. We can't rewrite their works to make the characters meet some more palatable descriptor. BD2412 T 01:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I just said that we can quote the primary works themselves. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we, though? Nothing in this proposal to "deprecate" the terms suggests that we would still be able to do that. BD2412 T 01:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this would be incredibly bad form. There appears agreement that "wheelchair-bound" can be demeaning to BLP, but that doesn't mean it is a 100% derogatory term comparable to the 6-letter N word for African Americans. In the latter case, I would fully expect any use of that word to be in quoted materials to maintain quote consistency, if it has to be used, even for fictional and historical situations. But wheelchair-bound is nowhere close to that level of dehumanization, and so I see no issue where the term would be appropriate to use (fictional and historical situations) that using it unquoted would be fine. Otherwise we'd be creating effective scare quotes which we absolutely want to avoid. --Masem (t) 02:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"Deprecate": to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of (something, such as a software product) in favor of a newer or better alternative (Merriam-Webster). It does not mean to outright ban. We can, for example, in a direct quote still use racial terms which we absolutely do not use in wikipedia's voice. But there is no encyclopaedic need for these terms in prose (for example, if you need to convey that a fictional character has been written so to be unable to walk, you absolutely can do so perfectly well without these terms) so their use is discouraged [...] in favor of a newer or better alternative. A direct quote is still permissible where it cannot be realistically (realistically) avoided. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ
Given that over at RS, there is presently confusion between "deprecate" meaning ban (as in relation to the Daily Mail's use on WP) and this above meaning (which most computer-savvy users would also recognize), I would recommend we not use "deprecate" in any language outlining this in guideline/policy/MOS. --Masem (t) 02:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I specifically used deprecate instead of ban because of this dictionary definition; if there's a better word to use I'm all ears but the aim is "should not be used unless unavoidable" (and 99% of cases are avoidable, really outside of direct quotes we can't paraphrase), not "absolutely verboten" (which very little truly is here). ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Very little indeed, especially when we're talking about the MOS, with it's big banner at the top noting that it's a guideline and that exceptions may apply. I'm fine with not using "deprecate" if that's the sticking point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Question for those who voted no: are our PAG for using the word "handicapped" consistent with the recommendations in the NCDJ's style guide? Obviously that word isn't as offensive as the N-word, but I still don't think we'd call a fictional character handicapped outside quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we vote for something simple for now, such as: "Prefer 'uses a wheelchair' or 'is a wheelchair user' to 'is wheelchair-bound' or 'is confined to a wheelchair' ?" Once a general guideline is in place, you can duke out your nuanced disagreements over the handful of exceptions on the talk pages of the relevant articles. If you think "Prefer" is too strong, how about "Generally prefer?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Fowler&fowler's guide to those who might be depressed that liberals, hunchbacks, and the cripple are getting away with murder. I speak of the murder of our cherished English language (which we can't really write with any felicity, but no matter) and old ways (which we would be hard-pressed to describe, but no matter) Don't be deterred if they tell you that the Google search: "wheelchair-bound" site:guardian.co.uk for the period after January 1, 2016, returns only one link, their style guide, which says: " wheelchair Say (if relevant) that someone uses a wheelchair, not that they are “in a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” – stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate." Don't be depressed if you've never read the Guardian or think it has to do with Angels. Go back in time, open the trapdoors to the past, the bottomless past of prejudice, and persist until you catch the Guardian using "wheelchair-bound." Remember Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger (or some other liberal)'s very accurate perception: "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Remember we have nothing at stake in this, so we can go on abusing anyone verbally, engage in dumping data of the most trivial variety, interpret the policy literally, make its implementation hinge on the presence of even one example to the contrary. We will outlast them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    You're lapsing in unintelligibility again. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    It is better to say, "I don't understand what you are saying, and this is what I don't understand." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    I get the drunken part about how the white males fell through a trapdoor into a pit and ended up in a wheelchair, but the rest is Greek to me. EEng 14:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    The have empathy bit just doesn't impress me, in any discussion. Already today (at another RFC) somebody said my position (in that other RFC) might offend people. So again, I re-state my position on this topic, we should not be softening words on this project, on the basis that those words - might hurt somebody's feelings-. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    I already said, "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Wikipedia remains a preserve of young males of the Anglosphere, most of whom have technical backgrounds, and most are socially conservative. There is a reason that women stay away in droves from Wikipedia. There is a reason that minorities anywhere stay away in droves from Wikipedia. It is that WP has become a preserve of amateur majoritarianism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    Ah yes, the ol' stakes-are-so-low bromide – always good in a pinch. And while the "Wikipedia is socially conservative" bit rings a bit hollow, nonetheless we can all agree that whatever the problem is, the white males are at fault. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't say anything about white males. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    That is a load of complete and utter bollocks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thus spake who? Not: "Why do so few women edit Wikipedia," Harvard Business Review, nor "Wikipedia's hostility to women," The Atlantic, nor "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia, Guardian", nor yet "Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly." New York Times, which says, "when the free encyclopedia was established in 2001, it initially attracted lots of editors who were “tech-oriented” men. That led to a culture that was not always accepting of outside opinions, said Ms. Poore, who has edited Wikipedia for 13 years." Like I said, (paraphrasing): The preserve of males of the Anglosphere, generally with technical backgrounds, with unreconstructed views of the world, .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    The article that quotes Ms. Poore also says A spirited debate over a detail in an article can spiral into one user spewing personal attacks against another; sounds like she's been keeping an eye on you. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    She's been? It is not Sydney Poore who says that. It is the author Julia Jacobs who says later, "A few informed clicks on any Wikipedia article can reveal the lengthy discussions that shape a published narrative. According to interviews with Wikipedians around the world, those digital back rooms are where harassment often begins. A spirited debate over a detail in an article can spiral into one user spewing personal attacks against another." I've already stated that a reliably sourced demographic is not a personal attack. I didn't say anything about "white males." I said only males of the Anglosphere. I also said "amateur majoritarianism." Political majoritarianism exists in many countries whose population is not considered "white," or for that matter English-speaking. Unfortunately, it spills over into Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    In past discussions over 16+ years (please, don't ask me to look up the diffs), I've been called a "fascist", "homophobic", "xenophobe", "mentally ill", etc etc. None of that intimidated me (as I'm neither of those things) away from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    This is a purely emotional argument full of WP:ASPERSIONS about anyone who might have a different opinion on a matter of language, and doesn't say anything of substance about the issue at hand. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    Emotional disputes are better then edit-warring, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    But, @The Wordsmith:, that link says, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.". But I—in the more than two or three dozen posts—on this page alone, have made several different arguments. My latest is hardly calumny; it is an observation that there is a reliably sourced demographic of Wikipedia membership, which has reliably sourced implications about matters of equity. (Equity = a system of law based on general principles of justice that stands side-by-side side by side with common law, but has precedence when there is a conflict. Almost all the major changes in America, women's suffrage, the repeal of separate but equal, belong to that realm.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    But anyway the white males are still the problem. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Also, side by side takes no hyphens in this context.
    True. Corrected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't say, "white males." Please don't put words in my mouth. I also said "unreconstructed" worldviews. "Unreconstructed" means: "gen. not reconciled to a changed or current social, political, or economic situation or ideology; maintaining beliefs, attitudes, and practices regarded by other people as outdated." (OED, Third Edition, December 2014). It means their outlook has not been rebuilt. As for you, when I ask you to propose something, your answer seems to be that you are too exhausted, or that you have to proofread a friend's book. But you never seem to tire of playing gotcha on this page. So, again, please propose something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    OK, but for sure it's the males who are at fault. Everyone knows that. And I did propose something [32]. EEng 13:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Was there a time they weren't? I mean, sure, maybe we hadn't realized it yet. —valereee (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(F&F, Eng) You're both competent editors. So why are you both continuing to mis-indent your posts? Either you're both doing so willingly or you simply don't care. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, GoodDay, I am generally happy to go with the indenting sequence: *New comment (time 1), *: (time2>time1), *:: (time3>time2), *::: (time4>time3) , ... i.e. chronologically until there is a new comment. There are two possibilities here: (a) either both EEng and I feel so chastised by your earlier admonitions that we are overcompensating by indenting more than is needed, or (b) EEng in the eternal quest to be in the limelight is disregarding the traditional indenting by interrupting in the middle, and once they have so interrupted I continue with the interruptions, a la *New comment (time 1), *: (time2>time1), *:: (time3>time2), *::::::(timeEEng>time4), *:::::::(timeF&f>timeEEng>),*::: (time4>time3) , ... Is it one of these two? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what GoodDay will have to say (I don't always know what GoodDay has to say when they say it...), but I suspect it's the latter, although your examples are hard to parse inline like that. And I don't know what the times have to do with anything, although I believe posting time is a factor in EEng's arbitrary and proprietary system for Talk page intercourse. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I indent by three, when responding to you (JFP), as your post is indented by two. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Which is absolutely perfect, GD. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I indent by two, when responding to you (F&f), as your post is indented by one. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Which is absolutely perfect indentation-wise, GD, but imperfect MOS:INDENTGAP-wise because you left a space (empty line) between your three-colon reply and your two-colon reply, which I have now filled with my four-colon reply. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
So, I didn't know the rules of indenting. Thank you GoodDay for explaining them to me. As you will see, I've left an "indented" linespace in the manner of INDENTGAP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you JFP for explaining INDENTGAP. That was very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I rarely use INDENTGAP. I just leave a whitespace, if I'm responding to the same editor the individual before me is responding to. That way my response won't get blended into the preceding fellow's response. PS - Now in a discussion where only two editors are involved (usually on an editor's talkpage), the indent-outdent-indent method supposed to be is used. But editors (including myself) 'rarely' use it. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not-at-all arbitrary break

A big part of why this proposal is so misbegotten is that -- instead of stating a general principle (applicable to a range of situations instead of just wheelchairs) and offering sample rewrites to inspire editors to craft the best approach according to the needs of a particular article and what the sources makes possible -- it rather picks that one wrong to be righted and prescribes a verboten phrase to be blindly struck out. Here's a rough of something more useful, IMHO:

When discussing a person's disability or medical condition, strive to avoid broad or imprecise statements that may imply more limitation that is actually present.
  • For example, instead of The increasing weakness left her wheelchair-bound, sources may allow an article to explain that As the weakness progressed, it became difficult for her to walk unassisted, and by 1977 she always used a wheelchair outside of her home. (The AMA manual of style states to avoid wheelchair-bound and confined to a wheelchair, preferring uses a wheelchair.)
  • Or, instead of A series of strokes resulted in progressive dementia, readers would be better informed by After a 1962 stroke he sometimes missed cues or faltered in delivering scripted lines, though his talent for ad libbing seemed unaffected.
But where sources do not elaborate, it may be necessary to repeat what they say while highlighting their potential imprecision:
  • A few months after Smith's 1943 accident, his wife wrote to friends that he was "practically wheelchair-bound".
In discussing works of fiction, editors must take care not to draw their own, unwarranted conclusions not directly revealed in the work. Just describe what the reader or viewer is told or shown.
  • Instead of John is unable to walk, it may be more accurate to say Except in a flashback to his childhood, John is seen only in a wheelchair.

Esteemed fellow editors, feel free to edit the above. If something like the above had been presented (though I realize it doesn't advocate the blanket ban some would like, and there's a lot off kilter about the way it's formulated) I think this discussion would have taken quite a different course. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A guideline is not a "blanket ban"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the issue is with the word "deprecated" in the proposal, which has typically been used within Wikipedia to signify a blanket ban on sources found to be unreliable. Without more explanation, that's what it sounds like to those familiar with that usage. BD2412 T 07:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated has a specific english-language meaning, if editors weighing in on a discussion on language use are perplexed by that then it may be that they should not be weighing in on language use especially in a case which requires the reading of sources discussing meaning and subtext. Furthermore citing "RGW" is a tiresome trope of those who cannot fathom that sometimes they actually are wrong, especially when this is backed up by a plethora of sources, and especially since RGW specifically states we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion, which is clearly language in favour of the change and not in defence of retaining the old language. As to "when sources do not elaborate"—as stated several times above, often sources do not elaborate on why someone is using a wheelchair, and wikipedia has defaulted to using "wheelchair-bound" in these cases, instruction needs to be clear that this is incorrect. Specific language for the actual MOS addition can be hammered out but the cut and thrust based on the proposal is that "wheelchair-bound" et al should only be used when it cannot be avoided, and it has yet to be demonstrated that outside of a direct quote it cannot be avoided. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
If sources don't elaborate, but only say "wheelchair-bound" then that's what we'll have to go with. That's not WP "defaulting", just following the sources. If the source says "used a wheelchair", without further elaborating, then we'll go with that. EEng 14:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The point is that sources often aren't using "wheelchair-bound", we are. In films especially, someone is simply seen using a wheelchair, and it is editors who are then introducing the term "wheelchair-bound". ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Obviously what our articles say needs to be grounded in the sources, and merely being seen in a wheelchair doesn't warrant a description of wheechair-bound. But you seem to be saying that because wheelchair-bound is sometimes used inappropriately, we need to create a special onus for use of the term. EEng 14:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we agree on:

"When discussing disability or medical conditions, strive to avoid the expressions "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". Prefer instead "uses a wheelchair" or "is a wheelchair user." However, where sources do not elaborate, "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" may be repeated within quotes; in addition, their usage in specific works of the imagination is best discussed on the talk pages of the respective Wikipedia articles.

This is not exactly prescriptive. I'll give examples shortly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Grapple X & Fowler&fowler. Why must "wheelchair bound" & "confined to a wheelchair" be avoided? GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Do I have to list the myriad sources explaining this again ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No. I, at least, get (and always have getted) that bound/confined are often used inappropriately. It's the jump to the idea that they're always inappropriate, or offensive, that I'm not on board with. (If the jumping on board imagery may be excused.) Any thoughts about my rough text above? EEng 14:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
(Grapple X), I'm just not accepting the 'let's not offend anybody' approach to all of this. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
That's not the approach though, that's just your narrow interpretation of it. The approach is that wikipedia is built on following reliable sources and not original research (content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors), and every usage guide, every style guide, every source provided in this discussion which explicitly discusses the terms in question is in agreement to avoid the terms. "Not accepting" that is just entirely counter to the basic principles of how we write content. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
F&F as mentioned in introducing my proposal above, a special provision just for wheelchairs is ridiculous, when clearly there's a broader issue for all disabilities, debilities, and illnesses. And is there some reason you're ignoring that proposal? EEng 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
EEng, the uncompleted parts make your proposal unclear to me. And I really don't see why we'd ever use term outside quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the term "wheelchair-bound" continues to be widely used in current medical literature. The idea that we're never going to use it in Wikipedia's voice is just not realistic. As for the uncompleted parts, roll up your sleeves and suggest something. EEng 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, well that's why I don't support your proposal. We don't need to use terms just because others do. And I'm curious if the best medical journals actually use that term regularly. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Your wish is my command:
EEng 15:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Some of those are over 40 years old. I think we need to look at what's being used currently in the best journals, or what's being specified in their own MOS. I can't get to the AMA's full MOS, but it's new this year: here. —valereee (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, one is 40 years old, one is 10 years old, and the rest are from the last 5 years. Here's more since 2017: [33]. EEng 16:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, @EEng: is correct, @Valereee, Kolya Butternut, Grapple X, GoodDay, and BD2412: Both "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to the wheelchair" do seem to be current diagnostic or descriptive terms in medicine. See use in JAMA since 2016. I shall be incorporating it in my mixed proposal below. Your feedback is requested. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced those terms are standard or needed just because they're widely used. They're still offensive and inaccurate. Also, see WP:SSF. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm pinging the author of the SSF essay to opine on whether SSF has anything to do with this. EEng 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Not really. To the extent it's slightly applicable to this discussion, it could be applied or possibly misapplied against Kolya Butternut's position, which favors newer language found primarily in specialized publications over everyday language found in orders of magnitude more publications. But SSF is really about styling of text (capitalization, etc.), not selection of wording. I deplore the amount of invective in this discussion, but lean toward favoring more neutral language like "uses a wheelchair". "Confined" and "bound" may be common but they're judgmental at least by implication. I don't agree that they're "offensive" or "ablist", they're just informal and not maximally sensitive. There are many, many debates like this, over everything from "transsexual" to "albino", and they all end up resolving the same way: use the language favored by the group to whom the terminology applies and which is favored in high-quality, modern material written about them, thus "transgender" and "people with albinism".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the AMA Manual of Style says not to use these terms. The search results are hard to read, but it looks like the transcription of a chart.[34] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I found Chapter 11 of AMA's MOS; just search for "wheelchair". Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't say "not to use" these terms. It says "wheelchair user" is preferred, and a note adds that the recommendations shouldn't be strictly followed if the results are awkward. (Awkwardness isn't the issue here, but it shows that there's meant to be flexibility, even for a comparatively weak reason -- stylistic "awkwardness".) EEng 04:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That's not right. It states to "avoid" "confined (bound) to a wheelchair", and "uses a wheelchair" is "preferred". The less awkward way to say "uses a wheelchair" would be "wheelchair user" not "wheelchair-bound". By your logic, the AMA would be saying it's ok to use "crippled" when saying something else would be awkward. The actual text states: Note: Some manuscripts use certain phrases many times, and changing, for example, “AIDS patients” to “persons with AIDS” at every occurrence may result in awkward and stilted text. In such cases, the adjectival form may be used, although this is not preferred. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The footnote uses AIDS patients as an example (like it says: "For example") but the point applies to everything: the recommendations are not absolute imperatives. The very words avoid and prefer are inherently flexible. EEng 15:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A Mixed EEng + F&f proposal: Can we agree on:

When discussing disability, s Strive to avoid the expressions "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" because they may imply more disability than is actually present. Prefer instead "uses a wheelchair" or "is a wheelchair user," supplemented where needed with adjectives, adverbs, or other additional description for precision greater accuracy. However, w Where sources do not elaborate, "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" may be repeated within quotes. ; in addition, t Their usage in specific works of the imagination is best discussed on the talk pages of the respective Wikipedia articles. Both "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to the wheelchair" may continue to be used in medicince-related articles in which they are a if there is evidence that they are diagnostic terms or widely-used descriptive termsstill in current use.

This is not exactly prescriptive. I'll give examples shortly. (Added later: I have incorporated some very useful elements of @EEng:'s proposal and I offer my thanks to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Last updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that the AMA is currently telling authors to avoid the terms "confined to a wheelchair" and "wheelchair-bound", I suspect they are not diagnostic terms, and that they're becoming less widely-used daily. —valereee (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Examples of preferred usage 1: With “Run,” Kiera Allen was the first wheelchair-using actor to star in a major feature thriller since Susan Peters’ role in John Sturges’ “The Sign of the Ram” in 1948. San Francisco Chronicle, 2021
Example 2: A wheelchair-using elite athlete, who has won five gold medals for Britain, is facing deportation after being convicted of a driving offence. ... At the end of that sentence, he was arrested and taken to Dover Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), which would not admit him, because he does not have the use of his legs. Guardian, 2009
Example 3: “The most accessible feature on an airplane is the fact that the arm rest lifts up to get in and out of the seat, and that’s about it,” said Lee Page, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair full time and serves as the senior advocacy director for Paralyzed Veterans of America. ... An accessibility consultant, John Morris, a triple amputee based in Orlando, Fla., uses a motorized wheelchair. New York Times 2018
Example 4: A teacher was pregnant. Students built a device so her spouse, who uses a wheelchair, can stroll with the baby. After undergoing brain surgery in 2017, the 37-year-old Marylander was left with mobility and speech challenges. ... “Even going out on a walk is so incredibly difficult for me,” said King, adding that balance is his biggest struggle, and he often uses a wheelchair to get around. Washington Post, July 2021
Example 5: Bruckmann is a wheelchair user and part of at least 12 percent of D.D. adult residents with a mobility disability. Washington Post, July 2021
Example 6: I cannot walk into wilderness areas any more. I got hurt backcountry skiing in wilderness seven years ago and am now a paraplegic wilderness advocate. I still ski, only now on a cross-country sit-ski - as I did last winter across Yellowstone National Park. Where a trail allows, I will explore in my wheelchair ... The ADA provision affirmed that Congress did not bar mobility-impaired people dependent on wheelchairs. The Christian Science Monitor, 2005
Example 7: Anthony Rew, 44, from London, has cerebral palsy and is a wheelchair user.The Times, London, 2011
Example 8: She is a wheelchair user and, although she has few words of identifiable speech, she is very sociable and loves company. The Times, London, 2005
Example 9: Two men have been arrested in Sydney after police released CCTV footage which showed a wheelchair user being robbed at an ATM. Julian Stewart, 42, has cerebral palsy and was withdrawing his disability pension when the cash was allegedly snatched out of his hands by two men who were seen loitering behind him. Independent, 2020, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
What are those supposed to be examples of? And is my proposal above invisible? EEng 14:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have incorporated parts of your proposal. Your full proposal is too general to have any practical use on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
So it's impossible to discuss an approach to disability in general, and instead we need a guideline specifically about wheelchairs? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. And there's no way we're going to use your examples in the guideline, because they're not text that could possibly appear in our articles. Guideline examples need to show editors things they actually can do. EEng 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
If your goal is to write a disquisition on disability, you are welcome to write it, but it has no practical use on Wikipedia, nor your homemade examples together imprimaturs of usage. A guideline on Wikipedia is best built with specific expressions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
As the primary architect of the presentation of essentially everything you see at MOSNUM, and much of what you see at MOS proper, I can say with complete confidence that you don't know what you're talking about. MOS does not quote news sources and expect editors to use them to figure out what encyclopedia articles should look like. EEng 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Also, what does "nor your homemade examples together imprimaturs of usage" mean?
Did I pick on "more limitation that is actually present?" I merely corrected it in mine. You can't add "constitute?" We are not talking Dates and Numbers, i.e. polishing the rungs of a ladder. We are building a ladder a rung at a time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@EEng And is my proposal above invisible? Actually, yes. I didn't realize "Not-at-all arbitrary break" meant "Here's EEng's Proposal", and this discussion is certainly long enough that others may have missed it, too. I actually do like your proposal, and I'd support it. Normally I wouldn't edit someone else's contribution on a talk page. Are you saying we should do that to complete the proposal, or should we suggest additions for you to add? —valereee (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, by all means add and tweak. (If you think a particular change is worth highlighting, then use < del> and < ins>, otherwise just change what you want to change.) EEng 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and now that I've started editing it I see you did make that clear already, sorry! —valereee (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Come to Jesus

For the last day or two, two different chunks of potential guideline text have been offered and massaged in parallel. I think we need a come-to-Jesus on which one to move forward with. Not surprisingly, I prefer the one that valereee and I have been working on. F&F's I just don't get. It starts by saying, "When discussing disability", but immediately narrows its scope to wheelchairs, and talks about nothing but wheelchairs after that. I see no reason for that. Furthermore, F&F's examples are text that has nothing to do with what we'd write in encyclopedia articles. EEng 06:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Would this be for an essay? Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Would what be for an essay? EEng 13:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
EEng By "When discussing disability" I had not meant, "When discussing disability in any context." I had meant, "In the context of disability ..." It is an orienting phrase. It is similar to, "In chemistry, an acid is ..." I'm happy to remove it; most likely, a sub-section title in MOS will eventually do the same. As for my examples, they will obviously not be used verbatim in a WP article, but they certify that newspapers of record use expressions such as "wheelchair-using," "uses a wheelchair," and "is a wheelchair user" all the time, thus giving the lie to the reasons offered by some editors earlier that "wheelchair-using" etc. is clunky, weird, not English, ... The point of the many examples is also to give the usage in enough contexts for an ordinary editor to be to apply it to their WP context. Your examples are your own, and vulnerable to objections. Besides, how is a reader helped by, "As the weakness progressed, it became difficult for her to walk unassisted, and by 1977 she always used a wheelchair outside of her home?" if they are looking to paraphrase: "X is a wheelchair-bound double amputee?" Your potential guideline is too general. In order to be practical value, it would need dozens of examples. The discussions both here and on the original page began with "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair." That is what we have a warrant for. If you are proposing a general guide to writing about disability on Wikipedia, you should start a new section, not a new subsection. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The discussions both here and on the original page began with "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair." That is what we have a warrant for. – Discussions aren't circumscribed by the how the original poster framed it. Someone's idea to address a specific problem often ends up as a guideline addressing a more general case. I and several other editors have been extending and modifying the text I proposed without being hung up on "warrants".
  • giving the lie to the reasons offered by some editors earlier that "wheelchair-using" etc. is clunky, weird, not English – I don't know who's saying that, and I haven't said that. I have said that "wheelchair-using" isn't a one-size-fits-all replacement for every situation involving wheelchairs. There's no need for the guideline to "certify" to editors the existence of "wheelchair-using" in the outside world. Guidelines suggest what to do, period; they don't browbeat editors by trying to prove something to them.
  • Your potential guideline is too general. – In what way?
  • it would need dozens of examples – Why?
  • Your examples are your own – DUH, everything on WP is someone's own, offered for common use.
  • and vulnerable to objections. – Then suggest better ones, or add others to illustrate additional points.
EEng 14:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
P.S. For those bewildered by the extent of the discussion to date, here's what we're talking about:
PROPOSAL A
Editors should feel free to make changes to Proposal A; the rest of us can see your changes in the diffs.
When discussing a person's disability or medical condition, strive to avoid broad or imprecise statements that may imply more limitation that is actually present.
  • For example, instead of The increasing weakness left her wheelchair-bound, sources may allow an article to explain that As the weakness progressed, it became difficult for her to walk unassisted, and by 1977 she always used a wheelchair outside of her home. (The AMA manual of style tells writers to avoid wheelchair-bound and confined to a wheelchair, preferring uses a wheelchair.)
  • Or, instead of A series of strokes resulted in progressive dementia, readers would be better informed by After a 1962 stroke he sometimes missed cues or faltered in delivering scripted lines, though his talent for ad libbing seemed unaffected.
But where sources do not elaborate, it may be necessary to repeat what they say while highlighting their potential imprecision:
  • A few months after Smith's 1943 accident, his wife wrote to friends that he was "practically wheelchair-bound".
In discussing works of fiction, editors must take care not to draw their own, unwarranted conclusions based on their reading of the work. If a disability is central to the work, there should be reliable sources characterizing discussing it; absent that, just describe what the reader or viewer is told or shown.
  • Instead of John is unable to walk, it may be more accurate to say Except in a flashback to his childhood, John is seen only in a wheelchair.
For guidance on writing articles specifically on medical topics, see WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles.
PROPOSAL B
Strive to avoid the expressions "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" because they may imply more disability than is actually present. Prefer instead "uses a wheelchair" or "is a wheelchair user," supplemented where needed with additional description for greater accuracy. Where sources do not elaborate, "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" may be repeated within quotes. Their usage in specific works of the imagination is best discussed on the talk pages of the respective Wikipedia articles. Both "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to the wheelchair" may be used in medicine-related articles if there is evidence that they are diagnostic terms or widely-used descriptive terms.

Examples of preferred usage:
Example 1: With “Run,” Kiera Allen was the first wheelchair-using actor to star in a major feature thriller since Susan Peters’ role in John Sturges’ “The Sign of the Ram” in 1948. San Francisco Chronicle, 2021
Example 2: A wheelchair-using elite athlete, who has won five gold medals for Britain, is facing deportation after being convicted of a driving offence. ... At the end of that sentence, he was arrested and taken to Dover Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), which would not admit him, because he does not have the use of his legs. Guardian, 2009
Example 3: “The most accessible feature on an airplane is the fact that the arm rest lifts up to get in and out of the seat, and that’s about it,” said Lee Page, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair full time and serves as the senior advocacy director for Paralyzed Veterans of America. ... An accessibility consultant, John Morris, a triple amputee based in Orlando, Fla., uses a motorized wheelchair. New York Times 2018
Example 4: A teacher was pregnant. Students built a device so her spouse, who uses a wheelchair, can stroll with the baby. After undergoing brain surgery in 2017, the 37-year-old Marylander was left with mobility and speech challenges. ... “Even going out on a walk is so incredibly difficult for me,” said King, adding that balance is his biggest struggle, and he often uses a wheelchair to get around. Washington Post, July 2021
Example 5: Bruckmann is a wheelchair user and part of at least 12 percent of D.C. adult residents with a mobility disability. Washington Post, July 2021
Example 6: I cannot walk into wilderness areas any more. I got hurt backcountry skiing in wilderness seven years ago and am now a paraplegic wilderness advocate. I still ski, only now on a cross-country sit-ski - as I did last winter across Yellowstone National Park. Where a trail allows, I will explore in my wheelchair ... The ADA provision affirmed that Congress did not bar mobility-impaired people dependent on wheelchairs. The Christian Science Monitor, 2005
Example 7: Anthony Rew, 44, from London, has cerebral palsy and is a wheelchair user.The Times, London, 2011
Example 8: She is a wheelchair user and, although she has few words of identifiable speech, she is very sociable and loves company. The Times, London, 2005
Example 9: Two men have been arrested in Sydney after police released CCTV footage which showed a wheelchair user being robbed at an ATM. Julian Stewart, 42, has cerebral palsy and was withdrawing his disability pension when the cash was allegedly snatched out of his hands by two men who were seen loitering behind him. Independent, 2020

  • For the purpose of ADA1990, disabilities include deafness, blindness, intellectual disability, partially or completely missing limbs or mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. An obvious objection would be: In a guideline for writing on disability, why are three out of four examples about wheelchairs? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    AMA is a primary source. I believe secondary sources are preferred, so I ignore AMA's opinion. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, GD, but I don't get what you're saying. ADA? AMA? Either way I don't get what your point is. EEng 16:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    I ignore what the American Medical Association tells us what to do or not do, concerning wording. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Because we've been talking so much about wheelchairs, so I have wheelchairs on the brain. It could certainly stand a few more examples, so great if you can add some. EEng 16:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    :) Well at least you are honest. But the problem is that I don't know much about other forms of disability. The wheelchair usage alone took time to ramp up on and to mull over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The question then is: If you, EEng, had to write a guideline on whether or not to use "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair," what would you write? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not the question. The question is, what's the best thing we can do now to improve MOS in this area? But answering your question anyway, the answer is: I'd write PROPOSAL A and let editors use their good judgment in applying it to each article. EEng 19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we add "wheelchair-bound" to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch?
If we are also to have a MOS section on disability, the BBC News style guide's "disability/illnesses" section may be helpful. It includes advice that may now seem old hat but has changed drastically in living memory (eg ""Spastic" is a term that is not acceptable") as well as a brief look at current debates. On wheelchairs, it has "Do not refer to someone being "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair", since wheelchairs provide mobility - not confinement. Instead, write about a person who uses a wheelchair or who is in a wheelchair or a wheelchair user." NebY (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
We really do not need to reinvent the wheel(chair) here. WikiProject Disability has already started the process of creating style advice (based on a broad sampling of various authorotative style guides) which ought to be used as the starting point for any addition to the MOS. See the paragraph about assistive devices. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The RFC above is asking straightforward question about whether certain terms should be deprecated. It doesn't go into how that deprecation should be implemented. It seems to me the easiest way is to do as NebY suggests above and add the terms to WP:WTW.
That aside, there has also been some helpful discussion above about a guideline to guide editors in writing about disability in general. I wholeheartedly support that, as it would be useful. However, it's really hard to tease that out of the general discussion above. I understand there are competing draft language proposals (some here, some at WP:DISAB?), but I'm not sure what the most-recent or most-agreed-upon versions are. May I suggest that the guideline discussion be "rebooted" as it were, with a new thread, and something more actionable from the peanut gallery (like, "which of these two do you prefer?", or "anybody have any revisions to this before it's proposed?" or something like that. Something easy to follow for us stupidlazy editors.). Levivich 17:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I look into adding something to WTW, but I couldn't see in what section it would belong, nor could I think of a heading for a new section that didn't seem overly narrow. EEng 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The two proposals (PROPOSAL A and PROPOSAL B) are above. GENTLEMEN! CHOOSE YOUR GUIDELINES! EEng 18:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, we have an ongoing RFC, in which at 17:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) there were 21 yes or support votes and 14 opposes, i.e. 3/5ths supported whereas 2/5ths opposed. The pros, therefore, have a plurality, even a majority, but not enough for the RFC to pass. My proposal B is a less restrictive version of the RFC statement. It is a compromise. I hope that some of the RFC opposers might now reconsider their position. That together with the silent majority (which is likely to vote yes) appearing here as it gradually becomes aware of the RFC, might be enough to tip the scales into the realm of a MOS guideline. That is my hope. Otherwise, we are headed toward spending much time and energy duking it out but eventually walking away empty-handed. I have not added the many respected style guides already mentioned in the RFC. Also, I am not proposing that my examples go into MOS; I'm merely attempting to demonstrate that the style guides are actually followed by the newspapers of record. Based on them, some MOS examples can be easily constructed. If my proposal B passes, I very much hope that users such as @Persicifolia: might help improve the language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Also, @Grapple X:, the original proposer, @Colin, BD2412, and GoodDay: and others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I remain mystified by your focus on just wheelchairs. EEng 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the focus is fine for the specfic issue. My starting point would be to make this language initially expressly applicable to real people and real situations, and leave more flexibility with respect to works of fiction. It may be unrealistic to describe an actual person as "wheelchair-bound" but fictional characters may lead unrealistic lives. BD2412 T 19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Proposal A is rambling and seems to be trying to make a general case out of a specific issue. There are too many examples. Proposal B's first two sentences are a reasonable rewording of the original RFC imo. The sentences afterwards are confused and confusing. Despite fiction being what started this particular dispute, fiction is so so irrelevant to the general issue as to be a fringe case. We should generally avoid MOS sentences that say MOS isn't going to help you, argue among yourselves. That's the default. If fiction is using language we'd normally strive to avoid, that's no different to when fiction is expressing views or opinions that we couldn't adopt in Wikipedia's voice, and it seems to me should be handled in the same way. So that advice is not specific to wheelchair bound vs other idioms and wordings. Wrt medical articles, there is a MOS for that, and the argument above that the medical profession use these words as a "diagnosis" or "widely" is laughably inadequate. When you guys have figured out how to get Google/PubMed to search for terms that don't exist in articles or their titles then perhaps we can consider that a reasonable way of judging if people use or don't use some language. Above, a Nature paper from 1980 was considered "evidence". Hmm. The first two sentences were fine and are enough. -- Colin°Talk 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's trying to make a general case; it's a general problem. What -- only wheelchair users get their feelings protected? EEng 21:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I think proposal B's opening paragraph is the stronger of the two, offering a more direct refutation of the terms as we see in the sources it's derived from. However, proposal A uses examples more befitting the kind of writing we are likely to see in an encyclopaedia so a hybrid of the two is perhaps ideal. I agree with Colin regarding how we treat fiction; there should be no exception given to how we write about fiction versus real life in these terms. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never gone against an RFC's ruling, so I will be respecting this RFC's ruling, whatever it is. Not interested in getting blocked for 'replacing' or undoing 'replacing' of phrases or words, throughout hundreds of articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
BD2412, how would you tweak the language of proposal B? Or more practically, what is the least amount of tweaking in the language of proposal B that would be acceptable to you, and what what would it be? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I would have a similar line following that provided for medical usage, e.g., "Wheelchair-bound" and "confined to the wheelchair" may also be used in articles on fictional characters and media where the characters are clearly depicted or defined in such terms. Perhaps some comment can be made on whether additional discussion of the subject's condition would be disproportionate to the context. BD2412 T 21:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable with the end of Proposal A B: If a disability is central to the work, there should be reliable sources characterizing it; absent that, just describe what the reader or viewer is told or shown. We shouldn't be calling a character "wheelchair-bound" if a secondary source describes a character that way. Our style choices are not based on the word choices of secondary sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've changed characterizing to discussing, thus separating out the question of how to express the disability from the point that there should be few cases where our article brings up a disability even though secondary sources don't mention it. In other words, there might be a character who happens to use a wheelchair; maybe that's just a fact about the character, but no more significant to the plot than the fact that another character is black, and we wouldn't say, "His friend, who is black, helped him find a job" unless that actually mattered; same for the wheelchair. This is the reason I want this language in -- to help limit gratuitous mentions of apparent disability where it's not actually relevant. You see my point? EEng 20:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned that that language still leaves room to wikilawyer an interpretation that would allow inappropriate use of "wheelchair-bound", when it really should never be used outside of quotes, and only when necessary, per WP:Offensive material. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
As for Proposal B, I disagree with the first sentence: Strive to avoid the expressions "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" because they may imply more disability than is actually present. This implies those terms are appropriate at certain levels of disability. They are never accurate and always offensive. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the way to handle that is (as previously suggested) to add "wheelchair-bound" to WP:WTW, and do that in addition to a new guideline, as proposed here, on how to approach disabilities in general. (And if it helps: in my experience WTW, because of its succinct to-the-pointness, has more traction with editors than does the overgrown MOS.) EEng 02:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with any attempts to soften words or phrases. But, it's not entirely up to me. Damn it. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay, I too believe we should not soften language -- that is, resort to euphemisms to fuzzy-up some perceived hurtfulness of the truth. I'm hoping you can maybe turn this around and look at it from the other direction: these long-idiomatic phrases ('wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair') are actually inaccurate. These aren't accurate phrases that we are arguing against because people think they're "too hard" and need to be "softened". We're arguing against them because, in general, they are misleading. No one is "confined" to a wheelchair. No one is "bound" to one. People use wheelchairs, in a variety of ways. So that is the accurate phrasing, no matter what the idiom has been for many decades. This argument is for improved accuracy of our language, not simply some attempt at political correctness. The fact this inaccuracy was pointed out to the world by advocates for people with disabilities does not mean their argument is not correct. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Like I acknowledged. It's not entirely up to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. I was trying to find some area of agreement, as that's always a helpful step in achieving consensus. —valereee (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee, GoodDay, EEng, Kolya Butternut, Colin, Grapple X, and BD2412: Setting aside, for now, the question of whether more needs to be said and at what level of generality, would the following version of the first two sentences of Proposal B be acceptable to you: Strive to avoid the expressions "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" because they may imply more disability or less purposefulness than is actually present. Prefer instead "uses a wheelchair" or "is a wheelchair user," supplemented where needed with additional description for greater accuracy.? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I feel like we are making this too complicated. Why not just say to avoid the terms and cite the NCDJ[35] or other style guide whose entry is consistent with our consensus? More broadly, can we adopt an existing disability language style guide instead of reinventing the wheel? Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you guys may end up in knots trying to succinctly describe rationale for the avoid/prefer situation here. Many of the cited guides do not give a rationale, so that's one option we could follow. I think we should avoid "because they" as that implies the following reason(s) are the reasons to avoid it. I don't think you've managed to capture the only or even the most important reasons for avoiding that language. Others noted that those terms were simply inaccurate, or they emphasised the limitation/disability rather than the empowerment/ability, or suggested the person was a powerless victim of their handicap rather than neutrally a person who happens to get around in a wheelchair. Or "used pictorial metaphors or negativistic terms that imply restriction". Etc. etc. One solution (and here, you guys are the grammar experts) could be to replace "because" with a semicolon. That, it seems to me, allows the following clause to offer a short but incomplete rationale. Wordsmithing that rationale could occur later.
The proposal A begins with a rationale "strive to avoid broad or imprecise statements that may imply more limitation that is actually present". I don't see that rationale in any of the linked style guides but I didn't read them all. So I'm not sure this is really the main driver of change for this particular term, or for the other terms the guides recommend for/against. Neither am I convinced about the wording of the rationals offered in Proposal B and amended by F&F above. They all sound a bit like things which might be valid at times, but not always so. But having said that, this is a wiki, and so some impefect rationale preceded by a semicolon may do for now, and folk can tune it later.
I do strongly suggest we separate any discussion about fiction and medical terminology. The latter, I think is just a brain fart, and likely to go nowhere. Fiction started this, but guys, there is nothing about "wheelchair bound" and "fiction" that suggests we need MOS to explicitly link those and offer explicit advice or exceptions to general advice. How is this different to when fiction uses metaphors, pejorative terms and old-fashioned language to describe physical traits, mental health matters, and the morals of their characters. We don't talk about cripples, nutcases and sluts in Wikipedia's voice. So please start a new section to think about how and when we repeat the language used in fiction or the metaphors implied by fiction, when describing those works. It really is nothing to do with wheelchairs. -- Colin°Talk 10:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler, yes, that initial wording works for me. (And I have to agree with EEng that your examples aren't on point, as they're all from news writing. I'd rather go with zero examples than use ones that aren't really relevant.) —valereee (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm desperately trying to find some middle ground here to avoid making the effort all for naught. In various other posts, I have already listed "offensive," "helpless objects of disability," "inaccurate," among the reasons for avoiding "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair." But we have people here who are implacably opposed to using "offensive." There are also people who are implacably opposed to not supplying a reason. Why are "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" considered offensive? Well in great part because they imply a lack of purposefulness, intentionality, determination, and even sentience. These latter terms are in some ways are the antitheses of helplessness. I like Colin's idea of replacing "because" (my original preference was "as") with a semi-colon. Among other things it allows us to list some more reasons. I also agree broadly that fictional characters and medicine are outliers, i.e. not of central importance here. I'm leaning toward this version of Proposal B: Strive to avoid the expressions "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair;" they may imply more disability and helplessness and less independence and purposefulness than is actually present. Prefer instead "uses a wheelchair" or "is a wheelchair user," supplemented where needed with additional description for greater accuracy. If there is broad enough support for it to pass, EEng, Valereee, and others more experienced at MOS may construct the examples. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler, I'm thinking "inaccurate", which is true in 99.999% of cases, is the best argument. There are too many people who think this is all just political correctness, so "offensive" etc., while also true, just doesn't work for those folks as a strong argument.
But whatever the outcome, I don't think this is effort wasted, by any means. Clearly we've got a lot of consensus around not using the terms "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" when they're inaccurate, which again is 99.999% of cases. While it would be nice to have an actual bit of agreed-upon language to point to, worst case scenario is we can just point people at this discussion. There is really only one editor in this discussion who is in favor of continuing to use these phrases even when they're inaccurate. —valereee (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
At least to me, I think what the balance here is making sure that whenever we can, we shouldn't be taking "wheelchair-bound" when it is used in context on the basis of PRESENTISM. That doesn't mean every old use of the word can't be replaced, just that context of how it was used needs to be considered. And I would agree that it would be exceptions rather than the rule for retaining "wheelchair-bound" in such cases; I don't think anyone here is argument "It was fine in 1921 so its fine in 2021", and that there is broad agreement that the term has become one to avoid when possible; this is more a matter along the lines of avoiding placing today's social constructs on relevant discussions of historical cases or fictional works when "wheelchair-bound" has a necessary context there, in the few examples defined above. The best approach for codifying this is a short and simple rule "Avoid using 'wheelchair-bound' in wikivoice", and then mention the small exceptional area that may require talk-page consensus if there is an issue. That's basically the spirit of IAR for all purposes but I can see if we don't mention possible exceptions, some will take that to remove the term wholesale including where those exceptions were deemed appropriate. --Masem (t) 14:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Masem, see the multiple mentions of the George Carlin bit about how 'shell shock' evolved into PTSD if you don't believe anyone is making the 'it was fine in 1921' argument. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
On this page? I've seen two mentions of Carlin but not specific to that, nor anyone saying we have to keep to as what Carlin said. In broad terms, language does change, there is a trend to avoid terms once common now deemed harmful, but WP cannot be progressive on switching, we need to follow what other media sources do (which in this case, we appear to be looking to follow in step wrt to "wheelchair bound"). But that doesn't mean the term is suddenly a bad word, which is where some of this discussion has seemed to push towards. It's a term to avoid because it is now considered insensitive, but there are proper context when that word should be used and we should not have editors getting all up in arms because some still want to use the term when it applies appropriately, which in this case, may have been fine for a topic in 1921. But all that is context dependent. If its clear that the term "wheelchair-bound" is not necessary to use for such an historical case even if that's the term used by sources then, then absolutely lets switch to a better wording. But I don't think that's a statement that we can say applies 100% of the time, hence the need for the exceptions here. --Masem (t) 14:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This diff and several subsequent mentions are referring to this clip. And I have no objection to using the term in quotes when necessary for context, and while I think it is highly unlikely to ever actually be accurate about a real-life person, I'm willing to stipulate that if someone wants to use it in such a case, we can just discuss that case when it happens. —valereee (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
"Inaccurate" is useful shorthand if you understand why it's inaccurate. I do like the BBC's "wheelchairs provide mobility - not confinement". It's not about whether or not someone's strapped in, but if we only say "inaccurate", will we see article talk pages and edit summaries going round and around on whether "bound" or "confined" are accurate there? NebY (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@NebY yes, probably. But I am struggling to think of an example off the top of my head where bound or confined would be accurate. Christopher Reeve used a standing frame and slept in a bed. Even people who used iron lungs for decades generally could get out of them for periods. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought I'd seen someone make that argument above, but I don't remember it clearly enough for a simple search. Sorry. NebY (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned before. I oppose applying any instructions, that calls for us to 'avoid' the words "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". That those terminologies 'may' offend any readers, is irrelevant to me. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay Yes, we know. You've made your point. You can stop now; we're hearing you loud and clear, no one is confused about what you're saying. You do not need to repeat it again. —valereee (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay: that is as may be, but the fact that these terms are often misleading, and that the best, most recent style guides generally recommend against using them, is relevant to building an encyclopedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You aren't going to convince them. They've made up their mind this is all just political correctness, and by gum they're agin' it! —valereee (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, no, I'm not. But when someone argues against a change because they think the change might be motivated by not giving offense, when "not offending anyone" isn't the actual rationale for making the change, is offensive to me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm actually having a hard time with that, too. The fact the phrase is offensive seems to be the problem, here. If the phrase was simply imprecise, I suspect there wouldn't be this level of umbrage taken. —valereee (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal D

Here's my thinking on the latest proposal, word by word:

Strive to avoid Avoid – I think strive came from me originally, but I realize that striving to avoid is really no different than just plain avoiding.
the expressions writing "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair";,
they which may imply more disability and helplessness and less independence and purposefulness than is actually present. – It's enough to give one good reason to be careful in what we write. Overstating the helplessness and so on flows from overstating the disability.
Prefer instead "uses a wheelchair" or "is a wheelchair user" supplemented where needed with additional description for greater accuracy. – I suggest instead simply showing editors the sort of thing wanted via examples:
Prefer instead (for example) as "is a wheelchair user" or "walks with braces or uses a wheelchair".

So how about we start by adding the following to WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_that_lack_precision:

Illness and disability

Words to watch: wheelchair-bound, AIDS victim, afflicted, retarded ...

When writing about illness or disability, avoid expressions which may imply more disability limitation than is actually present, or which cast people as helpless or as victims. For example, avoid writing wheelchair-bound or confined to a wheelchair; prefer instead is a wheelchair user or (for example) walks with braces and sometimes uses a wheelchair.

If we're all OK with doing that first, then we can all take a rest and continue the battle on everything else in a day or two. EEng 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Good. Whatever else is written anywhere else, this is immediately clear and useful. I could suggest other phrasing or other words to mention, but I'd rather see this implemented first. Thanks. NebY (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe:

When writing about illness or disability, avoid expressions which may be inaccurate, or which cast people as helpless or as victims. For example, avoid writing "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". Prefer instead (for example) s "is a wheelchair user" or "walks with braces and sometimes uses a wheelchair".

The other proposal does absolutely nothing to discourage the problematic use of the term. It's essentially saying: "Only use 'wheelchair-bound' when someone cannot get up from their wheelchair." Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The difference is may be inaccurate (your proposal) vs. may imply more disability than is actually present (mine). Are you really claiming that the latter "does nothing to discourage problematic use" while the former is way more effective? Anyway, it's meaningless to say "Don't use something that may be inaccurate", since we're never supposed to use something that's generically inaccurate -- everyone knows that. My text, by calling out that wheelchair-bound may overstate the situation, alerts the editor to what to be on guard against. EEng 21:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I oppose EEng's new proposal. The phrasing is open to Kolya Butternut's objection: "This implies those terms are appropriate at certain levels of disability." That is why I had changed "may imply more disability than is actually present" to "may imply more disability and less purposefulness than is actually present." Also, although I had stumbled into this topic accidentally, I have the sense that getting it right is important to many participants, especially those to whom these descriptors must apply. Reducing an RfC to "words to watch" is in some ways trivializes the purpose of the RfC. The RfC will not have a consensus; that is clear. But as Valereee and S. McClandish have said, that may not be so bad. I will be watching what the closer writes in their summary note. That, if written with an appreciation for the feelings of the disabled will be the best outcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. —valereee (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That does happen a lot around here. EEng 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Just before my proposed addition (above) to WTW, I explained why I struck the extra verbiage. And I don't know in what way you think WTW "trivializes the purpose of the RfC"; ​as I said before: in my experience WTW, because of its succinct to-the-pointness, has more traction with editors than does the overgrown MOS.
No one disagrees that it's a good thing to get editors to stop using wheelchair-bound (etc.) where it's inappropriate. Some editors think it's always inappropriate, and should be essentially banned outside of scare quotes, but that point of view doesn't look like it's going to carry the day. My text above does leave room for discussion on article talk pages, and in time more may come out of those discussions: it may turn out that editors always do adopt alternatives to wheelchair-bound, in which case the experience can be fed back into a stonger statement than what I've proposed. Other discussions may come up with effective ways of dealing with the fiction issue, and that experience can be fed back to the guideline as well. I think we were trying to cover too many points (my fault, in part) and be too definite. EEng 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this is the best iteration so far, and echo the sentiment about not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. "It's a wiki," after all. Levivich 22:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal C

"Wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" should not be used if they are inaccurate/imprecise, which is in almost all cases; no changes to MOS are needed because this is already covered under WP:(I'm sure someone knows where we talk about using precise language) —valereee (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've no intentions of going around installing the terms "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair", nor do I have any intentions of going around replacing "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
And no one is asking you to do either of those things. Please stop bludgeoning this discussion. —valereee (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not bludgeoning anything. Of all of us involved, I'm one of those who's posting the least. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
But you're posting the exact same thing over and over and over and over again. You aren't contributing to discussion or to trying to find consensus. You're just stating your own stance over and over and over. We hear you. You can stop. —valereee (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Well then, don't ask or ping me about 'how' to write up the MOS or whatever. As one of you (accurately) mentioned earlier in this whole discussion, there's only one editor who's not interested in compromising on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I actually would be interested in hearing your reasoning on why that's so, but maybe at your talk since this already overlong discussion doesn't need any additional sidebars. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Of the last 500 edits, you made 55. Far from being "one of those who's posting the least", you were the third most frequent out of 52 contributors. NebY (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
56 & likely the last. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This proposal implies that there are times when the terms are accurate. Have we determined that there is a time when they are accurate? Would we write that a newborn baby on a chair is "chair-bound"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
But we do write that babies are breast-fed even though they don't eat breasts, that students are college-bound even though they're not literally tied to a college (and that medications are protein-bound despite the absence of actual ropes or strings), and that Switzerland is land-locked even though no locks are involved. Expressions need not be literally true to nevertheless be useful. If you want to argue that wheelchair-bound is frequently, or even usually, inaccurate that's fine. But fussing about the literal reading isn't fruitful. EEng 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
But there's no confusion among the general public about what breast-fed means. And, um, Mr. Language Person, that's a different meaning of bound. And not every idiomatic phrase is problematic. These particular idiomatic phrases are inaccurate and cause confusion. There are multiple people in this thread who seem to think there actually are people who never leave their wheelchair. I can't provide statistics, but my guess is that 99.999% of wheelchair users do actually get out of it at some point most days. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
It worked! You fell into my trap! I love it when it all clicks!
  • But there's no confusion among the general public about what breast-fed means. – Right, and that's exactly the point (one of them, anyway)! A term is misleading only to the extent that a typical reader is misled, not just because there's a potential literal reading that's incorrect and which -- maybe -- someone might accidentally take for what's meant. We have a lot of people here saying that wheelchair-bound implies this or that, is inaccurate because of so on and so forth, but since it has an actual definition (unable to walk through injury, illness, etc and relying on a wheelchair to move around) what I need to hear, before I buy into this idea that the term is misleading, is that research shows people are actually misled.
  • that's a different meaning of bound – And that's exactly the other point! I'm so pleased with myself I'm giddy. Wheelchair-bound has a different meaning of bound too -- not the ropes-and-chains bound but rather the definition I gave in the previous bullet. Note: Figurative bullet, not actual bullet. Since you're telling me that college-bound is OK because its bound isn't the ropes-and-chains bound, then why doesn't the same logic apply to wheelchair-bound -- especially in the absence of evidence that anyone actually thinks people are literally tied into their wheelchairs, never leave them, etc.
EEng 20:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
oookay...so excuse my difficulty following. Of course it isn't the word 'bound' and the fact it has multiple meanings that is the problem. It's that the average reader misunderstands what the idiomatic term 'wheelchair-bound' means and thinks it means 'never gets out of the wheelchair and in fact cannot do so'. We've seen that anecdotally here in this discussion. I know I must be misunderstanding your point here, again apologies. And college-bound means bound for college. Wheelchair-bound does not mean headed for a wheelchair. Or at least not commonly. I suppose the 'hold my beer, I want to try something' crowd might be headed for a wheelchair and so wheelchair-bound. —valereee (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'd need to see some actual research indicting that people actually think that wheelchair-bound means you truly never ever get out of the chair. EEng 04:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
EEng, you stated that "wheelchair-bound" has a different meaning of bound too - the Collins Dictionary definition you gave. Well, "redskins" is defined as Native Americans, but "red" is still inaccurate (and offensive). Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Equating wheelchair-bound to the n-word -- and now to redskins -- is (I believe) where you really start to lose people. EEng 03:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
That's not at all what I'm doing. An analogy is not meant to equate anything. You're avoiding addressing the fact that "bound" is inaccurate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
EEng, "bound" in college-bound, or northbound, or outward bound, etc. is a different adjective with the same spelling, unrelated to the verb bind, and much older. See my post of long ago Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut, nope. I doubt they're ever accurate. Which is why I'm happy to stipulate that if one of them ever is, we can simply discuss that particular case rather than needing a rule about it. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

EEng, why is it so important to you to preserve this language which hurts people? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, why is it so important to you to misrepresent others' positions and impugn their motives? EEng 00:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I mean, the reader is expected to be familiar with the concept of idioms, and even to know a few, and be generally able to puzzle out many of the ones she doesn't know. If not, what can I say? She's going to have trouble reading all of our material and should possibly look to her own language's wiki. See English-language idioms for many examples. (Many of those are overly informal for our use, but "wheelchair bound" isn't and no argument to that effect has been made.)

OP and others appear to believe that this phrase "wheelchair bound" is offensive, annoying, archaic, unwoke, no longer common, swimming against the tide of history and so forth. And fine! Those are reasonable things to think, and some of them are good arguments, and may be true.

However, arguing that the phrase is imprecise and subject to misinterpretation is a red herring (by which I do not mean a literal crimson fish). Common sense tell me that it is leveraging a different argument in the service of the real argument. That's reasonable politics, we all do it, and I've done it myself. However, in this case, it falls flat and has been convincingly rebutted, so OP should let it go. .

It may be that OP has convinced themselves that it's a reasonable argument. It's not uncommon for people to start to believe that an effective argument they're using is also true. This has to do with cognitive dissonance and not wanting to consider oneself to be engaging in clever politics. Again, I've done it myself, no reprimand here, humans being humans, just presenting the point.

In which case, no amount of argument will convince OP. It is useful for convincing other people who are watching, but I think User:EEng has swept the field here and there's little point in belaboring the point. Herostratus (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So ... why is it so important to preserve this language which hurts people (language which sources say is "imprecise and subject to misinterpretation")? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand you feel strongly about this, but you have to accept that not everyone shares your views in all their particulars, intensity, and sense of urgency. EEng 00:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you feel I'm misrepresenting you; I don't mean to do that. I'm genuinely asking you why you want to use this language. Maybe I've lost track of your reasons, but your !vote doesn't make it clear to me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not that I want to use it; it's that I can't conclude that there's no legitimate place for it, ever. I know you think it's obvious that there isn't, but we're just going to have to disagree on that (on whether it's obvious, I mean). I'll say again that MOS works best when it distills the experience of actual editors hashing out actual editing issue on actual article -- not imposing from on high. Give it time. We may end up where you want after all -- eventually. EEng 03:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know ... We have style guides saying avoid the terms, RS saying they're inaccurate, and a marginalized community saying that they're hurtful. I can't see anything else to wait for. According to the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation: What is the most important thing to remember when describing wheelchairs? ... never describe a person as being “confined to a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound."[36] Christopher Reeve was about as immobile as one can get. I feel like what makes it so offensive is that it's such a small ask from a marginalized community which we're not respecting. I can imagine that when someone who uses a wheelchair reads these terms they're going to feel like they don't matter. We have the choice to be nice to people. All we have to do is give up a couple words. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
There's complete support for "avoid"; but you want a complete ban, and for you it's the urgent, unanimous desire of all wheelchair users. But as I mentioned way, way back, there are at least some people using wheelchairs who find this campaign a diversion from real issues that really affect their lives. We went through this on person-first language, which we were told disabled people all want -- until it turned out that the blind (a lot of them, at least) and the autistic (a lot of them, at least) don't want it, that people claiming to represent everyone in these groups really don't represent everyone in these groups after all.
For you it's urgent. It's not. It's not the n-word. EEng 07:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
NCDJ covers when person-first language is not universal. If there is complete support for "avoid", can we add to PAG simply: Avoid wheelchair-bound and confined to a wheelchair and then give alternatives? I haven't heard you support that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? I wrote exactly that in #Proposal D and you opposed it. As for person-first, you miss the point, which is that the style guides you keep pointing to turned out to be dead wrong on person-first, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't rush to accept them unquestioningly as what "the community" wants on other points. Now I've put a lot of energy into trying to find something workable, and I have other things to do now. EEng 15:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Come on now, please don't leave just as we're discussing where we agree. I agree with "avoid"; that doesn't mean I agree with the rest of Proposal D. Where did the NCDJ get it wrong? They acknowledge that some people with autism don't prefer person first language, but I haven't seen where blind people refer to themselves as "the blind". Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not leaving but I'm sorry, but I've far exceeded my OSHA-mandated limit for meta-meta-discussions of what some blind people want to be called, thereby reflecting on style guides that apparently said something different, which in turn tells us whether those guides are reliable for informing us that .... I've crafted some text (#Proposal D) that several other editors have endorsed, and I've now boldly installed it in WTW, because it clearly helps and doesn't -- even if it doesn't give you everything you want -- and I'm pretty sure no one will find it objectionable.
Otherwise, I fear, you're going to end up with nothing. I hope you saw valereee's exhortation not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Unilateral, well-I'm-going-to-force-the-issue RfCs, with no attempt to even frame the terms of the discussion (e.g. asking whether we should "deprecate for use in article prose", with no indication of what's meant by deprecate) always end in a mess like this. You can see the frustration expressed above, most participants having given up from sheer exhaustion, and as it stands the whole thing is going nowhere. At least I'm doing something. EEng 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You boldly added Proposal D without commenting on Proposal E ...? Yes, as I said, nothing would be better than Proposal D. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
E wasn't there when I started drafting my post just above, and I was unaware of it. D points up a specific desideratum that can be realistically addressed: take care that the words we use are accurate. There is some hope, at least, that that can be rationally addressed. Your E warns against "offensive" and "nonneutral" terms, which is vague and will lead to endless debate. Plus you're now trying to bring "person-first" language into it, which will without doubt sink the whole endeavor -- we've had that discussion and it was clear the community will not get behind person-first given the evidence that those who advocate it turn out to not be speaking for disabled people as a whole.
Now, if you really think D is worse than nothing, then go ahead and remove it and you'll end up with the same thing GoodDay wants, which is nothing. EEng 21:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if "inaccurate" applies to words like "afflicted" or "retarded". Can we agree on some other characterization? Perhaps "biased"? But yes, I suppose what which words we decide are biased, offensive, etc., will be subject to debate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, @Kolya Butternut, you think nothing -- that is, continuing with the status quo and ~1500 articles using either "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" -- would be better than some compromise that isn't perfect? That makes me want to walk away, too. That is not how anything ever gets done anywhere, and especially not here. —valereee (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
No, that is not what I think. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Strange, since you reverted the addition to WTW with the edit summary, Sorry, but nothing is better than this. [37]. Looks like you're the last one out, so turn the heat off and the lights out when you're done, and lock the door behind you. EEng 23:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been working on a compromise #Proposal E and editing it with your feedback. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You literally wrote nothing would be better than Proposal D. —valereee (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Obviously I said that. What I did not say is that nothing would be better than some compromise that isn't perfect. As I said, I am working on compromising, but I am getting little cooperation. I'm seeing a lot of effort being put into arguing about process rather than working on compromise. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
For all English words, those words should be avoided when they are inaccurate or insufficiently precise. Why does this particular word need such a decision made for it separately? For how many words could the MOS be estimated to require warnings like this? Does such a warning imply that other words, for which such a specific warning is not given in the MOS, are allowed to be used even when they are inaccurate or imprecise? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
C'mon, WTW simply points out langauge that editors sometimes use inadvisedly without thinking; no one thinks that gives the OK to use other language badly (and besides, that would be an argument for junking WTW entitery). But your concern about "this particular word" (wheelchair, I guess) is the reason I made it a general provision addressing all medical conditions and disability, not just wheelchairs (though for the moment that's the only example it gives, because I'm pooped). EEng 21:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
+1. We're talking idiomatic language, which by definition is language people don't really think about critically. Yes, we sometimes need to make it clear that certain phrases need to be considered. —valereee (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

TLDR primer: Deprecate, avoid, ban

Just looking in after several days and trying to get some idea of the above seemingly endless on and on. For anyone who want's a key, there seems to be a talking past among participants about what each means by deprecate, or avoid, or ban and whether those words mean the same thing or not (they don't to me). Perhaps in future discussions on this page we can figure out some way to avoid such lenghthy miscommunication). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It started with "deprecate." It was considered too restrictive by enough opposers for a consensus to prove elusive. I weakened it to "avoid" in my first version, and later to "generally avoid." Those did not receive much of a response in part because I did not advertise them as proposals. Later, taking the cue from something at EEng had written, I weakened it further to "strive to avoid." Is it enough. I have no idea. Everyone has staked out a viewpoint and making them budge is proving difficult. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean, many-choice RfCs are sometimes step 1 of 2. From this RfC, pick or craft what seems to be the most popular, most likely to "pass" option. Then present a 2-choice RfC: Do nothing, or do X. Herostratus (talk)
Multiple choice RFCs tend to end in no consensus. RFC's with binary choices are more likely to have a consensus. BTW, you did't sign your post properly. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal E

WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Insensitive language

Medical conditions and disability

Words to watch: wheelchair-bound, AIDS victim, afflicted, retarded ...

When writing about medical conditions or disability, avoid terms which are offensive, suggest pity, or are nonneutral cast people as helpless or as victims. Prefer instead (for example) "uses a wheelchair", "person with AIDS", "living with", "intellectually disabled". Consider using people-first language.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Might fly if we weren't here at WP. Try again in 10 years or if we have a #MeToo moment before then. —valereee (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, could you be specific? I need something to work with to edit my proposal. I've removed the line about "people-first language". Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Struck opposed words. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I realize "wheelchair-bound" fits with "cast people as helpless". Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, many other editors are going to dig in their heels at any suggestion that a certain phrase they've heard and used all their lives in complete ignorance that anyone finds it offensive is in fact offensive. Once their kids start saying to them, "Dad! That's offensive!", some of them will get on board. Others never will. So if you're going to argue on "it's offensive", it needs to be something that a majority of editors already are finding offensive. You aren't going to convince anyone of new territory for offensiveness. This is new territory for many editors. If that's your argument, you're going to need to wait until its offensiveness has become mainstream. —valereee (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I already crossed out the word offensive. What do you think of the current proposal? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
'Cast people as helpless or victims' is the same. That's not how the people using those terms think, and telling them that's what they're doing just pisses them off. —valereee (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. I thought you supported this exact language in #Proposal D? Kolya Butternut (talk)
I do support it, and I've stated my support of that and other proposals. I'm fine with that language, but I don't think it's working here to gain overall support. The fact it works for me doesn't mean much about whether or not it works for others. Totally sucks, as obvs everyone should just defer, but there it is. —valereee (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, is this proposal as good as Proposal D? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Kolya Butternut: Let it go. It is better to have a permanent and unambiguous record of the views that sank the RFC. The more you engage the opposers, the more they will muddy the waters of their biases. They should not be given that luxury. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
PS I don't mean Levivich or Valereee. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course not. Nor is the problem that your righteous certainty in your moral superiority is unpersuasive. The problem is the goddam unreconstructed tech-oriented Libertarian young white males of the Angledspear [38][39]. EEng 05:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Cross-grained and puffed out prose is another reason that women stay away from Wikipedia in droves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Look in the mirror, cross-grained wokescold. You trot out this excuse whenever you don't get your way. I happen to think women can do everything men can do and vice versa (except where raw physical strength or specialized anatomy are required, of course). But not you. To you women are delicate flowers unable to keep up when the going gets tough. You're a sexist feminist hypocrite. EEng 15:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well? Have ya'll come to a decision on what yas are gonna add to the MoS (if the RFC chooses to adopt any amendment on this topic)? or is there going to be a Proposal F. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the offensiveness of certain language: when these discussions are had here, it is entirely unconstructive (to put it in the mildest possible terms) for one side to accuse their fellow editors of callousness, cruelty, &c, for no other reason than that they are expressing their opinions, honestly. If we start shaming everyone who doesn't hold the correct position on every single issue, what shall become of us?

Now. As for when "these editors" will "accept that [such-and-such] is offensive": if common mainstream usage has not deemed it so, how is it remotely reasonable to expect that all editors here be on top of the bleeding edge of advocacy jargon and be on board using the encyclopaedia to socially engineer the way English is used by English speakers by flooding the prose with novel phrases and usages of words?

"Because it offends some people", you say. As to that: unless you can convince a significant enough proportion of the people that your offence is reasonable and warranted, and that said language should be abandoned for those reasons, it is unlikely to be accepted by society at large. Consider what it took in order for enough people to understand the hurtful associations with words like "N-word" or "F-word" [gay, not fuck]. Had it been nothing more than black and gay people standing up and saying that those words offended them, nobody would have blinked. Those words were accepted as exceedingly hurtful (and hateful) because of the countless stories, and images, of blacks and gays being beaten to a bloody pulp by a mob and left to die in a field, or other forms of extreme torture, while being called "fucking N-word/F-word" by the mob. I can say with near surety that had those words not those histories, their status in our society would not be as it is.

I understand that post was very tangential...however, due to the way this entire discussion has been conducted, I feel it is all relevant and material to the matter at hand. May you all be of good cheer 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A83C:C5D3:22C0:A90F (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

IP, there is absolutely zero reason for you to use slurs for gays/Black people in this discussion. Please do not do that again. —valereee (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate editing of another editor's comments. Primergrey (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This repeated editing of the IP's post, a violation of talk page guidelines, really makes the IP's point for them. Some words are offensive to some, though not nearly all, while some words are so universally offensive that they cause some people to step way out of line just to not see them. Primergrey (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, it's fixed now. No need to spell out these epithets for no apparent reason, unless there's an encyclopedic reason to do so (an example that comes to mind). El_C 19:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"[Gay, not fuck]", I'm sure that's exactly how horrendous the author wanted it to look. Primergrey (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, so long as someone's offended, my work here is done. El_C 19:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
We can only hope. Primergrey (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Weeeeee! El_C 19:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
IP's moved on anyways, after making 'two' posts (each in a different discussion) which added nothing to either. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd "move on" too if some hallway monitor swooped in and mangled my post. Primergrey (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Would you, though? Really? El_C 20:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Probably not. Primergrey (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
We can only hope. ;D —valereee (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's looking like the RFC is heading towards 'no consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ya think? EEng 04:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You know what?

So here's some information. So, Wikipedia exists as a subset of the real world, so if I may step out onto the broad sunlit plains of the real world for a moment, I can explain part of my -- and others -- exasperation with this sort of thing. I'm an (American) Social Democrat, and what we're concerned with is, like, stopping the accelerating immiseration of American workers, destruction of the trade unions, the further retrograde direction of minority rights, the Earth burning up, and the decline of America into fascism (which is ~50% likely IMO, and will render a lot of this stuff moot, won't it). This woke stuff is killing us in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin etc and that matters a lot. A lot.

Ivory-tower bigdomes with "Latinx" are killing our Latino support (people in the Latino community mostly that Latinex is silly limousine-liberal stuff). And so on. We argue whether to refer to a person as "nonbinary" or "post-cis" or "genderqueer", while a whole lot of people are hard jonesing to solve that by using the all-inclusive reference "without the right of correspondence". Sure the wheelchair thing is a minor point, but it's part of this whole irritating thing. "Wheelchair user", "wheelchair bound" or "disappeared", pick what you want. I know of what I speak, read Evans before you contradict me.

Maybe I'm a poltroon, but wrongheaded as I may be, this is where I'm coming from. Stop this first-world-problem stuff, we've got a real fight on our hands. And I'm not alone. That is a fact on the ground. Unless you prefer to ignore unpleasing facts, you might want to be aware of that, I'm just saying. Herostratus (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day. It's the corporate-owned mainstream news media, dividing up people on behalf of their corporations. How do you stop the middle-class from rising up against the upper crust? You divide the middle-class amongst itself. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Deck chairs on the Titanic. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
You have mentioned real issues, but wiki is not the place to deal with them. Organizations have limited resources and, of necessity, limited scope. Would you expect the Humane Society to deal with Antisemitism, the ADL to deal with worker safety or the UAW to deal with Human trafficking? Individual members can, should and do involve themselves in dealing with many social issues, but they do so in the contezxt of organizations with focus onr and expertise in those issues. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but the common shared earth is where everything happens. You're always really in meatspace. Being "in" a website is subsidiary to that.
Yes we have to stay in our lane, but we're not talking about allocating resources. We're talking about (essentially) resource-neutral procedures.
Suppose a reporter saw this long thread and decided to write a short piece "Look what Wikipedia people spill gallons of ink over". (Not likely, but thought experiment.) Well your swing voter in suburban Minneapolis is going to roll her eyes. "I'm concerned about serious issues. Liberals are concerned about bufu virtue signaling like 'differently abled' and gruntling professors and people in Wellesley Massachusetts." OK wheelchairs whatever, not itself important, but it's just part of the woke stuff which is just irritating. You're rowing upstream trying to get people like me to sympathetic to this stuff. Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't pander to the idiosyncrasies of the US political system here (not least because WP is an international project, and because to pander in such a way would likely cause serious problems with WP:NPOV) and let's be real, most active WP editors do not much care about these internal internecine MOS conflicts, much less John and Jane Q Public, of any nationality. I seriously doubt any mainstream media outfit would see fit to report on internal WP politics, because a) they are reflective, at best, of real-world politics, not a driver of it; b) they are irrelevant even on most of the non-obsessive-over-marginalia parts of Wikipedia; and c) you do not seem to allow adequately for the sheer incomprehensible energy barrier any mainstream journalist would need to penetrate in order to explain the minutiae of such WP MOS disputes (which, even to me, as someone who's been "active" on WP in some sense for ~13 years, resemble an especially strange extract from the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge) to a layperson. If you want examples that aren't tied to current political trends, take the perennial WT:MOSNUM debates over IEC binary units and UK units as cases in point. Even the overwhelming majority of educated liberal/leftist/whatever folk could not possibly give less of a shit what overly performative "woke" virtue-signalling nostrums and pieties get uttered in the e-cloisters of WP's internal pages, much less some quasi-literate mouth-breathing Trumpet. Anyhoo, suggest abandoning this train of thought per WP:NOTFORUM. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Anybody who knows me (been on the 'pedia for over 16 years) by now, are aware that -"It might offend someone"- is irrelevant to me & how I approach Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotation marks

Latest comment: 2 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

Is it ok to use Quotation marks in phrases? Is quotation mark for quotations only? Thanks. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 10:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If I understand your question properly, I think italics are generally preferred over quotation marks, but single-quotation marks may also be an acceptable alternative. I'm not entirely sure I know what you're asking, though. Can you give an example of the type of situation you're referring to? Thanks :) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C2:BB5:D65F:F72A (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know which question you are answering. I do not agree with you, per mos: Do not use italics for quotations. Instead, use quotation marks for short quotations and block quoting for long ones. My main question is, should I use quotation marks in phrases? Because quotation mark is for quotes, right? —Ctrlwiki • talk • 23:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
You really need to provide a textual example. We can't tell what you mean by "in phrases". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
If you're asking if it's ok to use quotation marks for phrases (i.e. around them, not in phrases), as often seen in print for a term of art that we think might be unfamiliar to the readers and needs highlighting as a phrase to avoid ambiguity, well, WP:MOS#Typographic conformity is clear on this; we use italics. Of course, excessive use can give the wrong impression. If the readers are familiar with the term of art; the writer can look condescending or even out of touch, like a fuddy-duddy putting emphasis on Top Ten or platinum album. NebY (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
And we certainly don't want to look like "fuddy-duddies" when discussing a "term of art". EEng 01:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
My example is the catchphrases of Youtubers, because there is a parameter called Cathphrases in the Infobox YouTube personality. Should I use quotation marks for catchphrases? —Ctrlwiki • talk • 02:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Single quotation marks may be used for "Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms...", per MOS:SINGLE. I myself reserve italics for foreign terms, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC; but see also Use–mention distinction. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
If what you're really asking is how to enter parameters for an infobox template, my answer would be, "just as plain text". Any template worth its existence should format its parameterized values appropriately. When and if consensus changes about what the appropriate output is, the template can then be changed (centrally) to reflect that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I repeat. I'm not asking on how to enter the catchphrase parameter in infobox template, I know how to do that. My question is simple. If I add phrases in the catchphrase section of the Infobox YouTube personality template, should I use quotation marks or not? Because the parameter description says Unique phrases said by the YouTube personality, if applicable.—Ctrlwiki • talk • 03:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
If I add phrases in the catchphrase section of the Infobox YouTube personality template, should I use quotation marks or not?
I repeat: NO! Let the template do the work.
Just. Enter. The. Catchphrase. As. Plain. Text.
I hope it was clearer this time. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
So that would be a No, would it? EEng 04:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
So you mean, the quotation marks for this catchphrase "How's it going, bros? My name is PewDiePie!" on the article of PewDiePie should be remove also? Thanks. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 05:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I would think so, yes. If you want quotation marks, get consensus at Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality so they can be added to the template's output. If you think italics would be better, get consensus at Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality so they can be added to the template's output. Personally, I'd lean toward having quotation marks added by the template, but then again, personally, I lean toward ignoring "YouTube personalities" as much as possible. It's because I'm a fuddy-duddy, though. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
No thanks. I just want to clarify. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 05:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Ugg, my vote would be to get rid of that parameter entirely. It's so rare for someone to have a catchphrase that is widely considered to be a defining trait that I can guarantee that 90% of the time that parameter is just going to be used for trivia that has no place in an infobox. Unfortunately, "there's a hole, I must fill it!" is such a common human character trait that having a blank space for that parameter is just inviting misuse. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't quite fully understand the question. But, I'm content to go along with whatever is decided. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Hi I want your second opinion, there is a catchphrase with quotation marks (") in the article of PewDiePie the phrase is: "How's it going, bros? My name is PewDiePie!", the phrase was placed in the infobox. My question is, is it right to add quotation marks in phrases like my example above? Or just plain like: How's it going, bros? My name is PewDiePie! —Ctrlwiki • talk • 05:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I've always assumed that we did use quotation marks, for quotes. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Now that I know what we're talking about, I think you want quotes [40]. Italics is certainly wrong. EEng 06:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
A catchphrase is a quotation. We wouldn't normally call it a phrase – in your example, it's a couple of sentences – and it's not a term of art. In running text, it takes quotation marks. In an infobox, as JohnFromPinckney says, enter the parameter without quotation marks and let the template handle it consistently across all such infoboxes, like a motto in {{infobox settlement}}. NebY (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The idea of letting the template add the quotes is bad design. The catchphrase parameter renders as Catchphrase(s), so apparently it's contemplated that you might have multiple catchphrases, maybe a bulletlist. Obviously it would make a mess for the template to stick quotes at the beginning and end. EEng 14:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I removed the italics and I added quotation marks (" ") on a phrase placed at the catchphrase section on this this article, is it right? —Ctrlwiki • talk • 15:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on alphabetization of extended-latin characters (eg "ä" etc)

Latest comment: 2 years ago57 comments24 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus on whether there should be specific guidance related to the alphabetisation of specific names. There is a clear consensus for 2B among that choice group, but the differing options of "no" and "use the French system" have functionally equal support in both head count and argument. For the purposes of determining the status quo I did explore Peter Guluzan's links under the bad RfC as well and note that Wikipedia does apparently use software which groups diacritics for category collation, at least as of 2016, and that specific guidance for the alphabetisation of words transliterated from Arabic exists. However, I'm convinced this RfC focuses only on the order of Latin letters, and at this time there is clearly no consensus for a specific rule to be added to the MOS. Unfortunately, this lack of consensus does not definitively solve the problem of Länsiviitta. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


Should the MoS give guidance on how to alphabetize foreign-language terms that include letters not in the basic Latin alphabet, such as "Ë" and "Å" and so forth?

1) No.
2) Yes, and:

2A) Yes, and we should use each language's system (for instance, some languages treat "Ö" as a distinct letter that comes after "Z"). This is described at the article Alphabetical order.
2B Yes, and we should use the French system always (that is, "Ô" and "Ö" etc are treated exactly like "O" and so on).
2C) Yes, and we should use Unicode order, as described at Wikipedia:Alphabetical order.

3) Other [describe]. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • 1 - IMHO, we should do away with diacritics on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    You are well aware by now that there is overwhelming consensus against your position. Continued tendentiousness and activism against diacritics on Wikipedia is good grounds for a topic-ban from the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    I have not & continue to not remove them from articles, where they're considered to belong. I also add them to articles where they're considered to belong. I haven't for years gotten into edit-wars over the topic. Now please, let's not have this conversation. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Then stop WP:FORUM-abusing WP as an anti-diacritics activism platform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, if I've upset you. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B makes the most intuitive sense to me but if someone more familiar with the Unicode order makes a case for it, it may sway me. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 It is not the function of our MoS to avoid every conceivable disagreement that ever may arise with preemptive measures that themselves amount to nothing more than instruction creep. Regarding new instructions in the MoS, it says: "New content added to [the MoS] should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." I am not aware that this is such a recurring style issue and the RfC does not indicate that it is. For now, it seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem--John Cline (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B, since there is already a clear consensus for it for 15+ years; it is how we alphabetize with sorting in WP:Categories.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1, with 2B as a fallback. Although 2B is commonly used here, it is not the only choice, and in some contexts other systems make sense; in particular, we frequently sort some surnames with lowercase parts (such as Dutch ones beginning with "van") by the first capitalized part. When we sort categories by the titles of articles within them, we omit articles from the start of the title, etc. For that matter, even for unaccented Anglo-American names we generally sort by surname first, even though 2B if interpreted literally would cause us to sort by given name first. I think the conventions we have adopted by consensus are working, and that trying to encode them by MoS text is likely to break things, so I prefer 1 over 2B. All that said, 2A and 2C are nonstarters. 2A is not a sorting system, it's a recipe for conflict, because what do you do when you are sorting items from multiple languages with incompatible conventions? And 2C's idea of sorting Unicodes numerically is never the right thing to do, in work aimed at human consumption. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • By the way, since this is not explicit in this proposal: I am going to assume that this ONLY covers the collation ordering of accented Roman letters, but would not guide how to choose which words to collate (e.g. the cases of lowercase particles and articles mentioned above, as well as e.g. the apostrophe in O'brien) or how to order other letters. This assumption would allay most of the concerns with 2B in my comment above. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      Yes, right, that's my understanding. Herostratus (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B or not 2B (1). We pretty much do 2B in DEFAUTSORT as far as I've seen, without explicit guidance. Has this come up as an issue some place? Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Alphabetisation of Länsiviitta, an editor was seeking guidance on how to alphabetize List of shopping malls in Finland, would the "ä" in Länsiviitta be treated as an "a" or as coming after z (as would be done in Finnish). FWIW List of Finnish municipalities for instance uses Finnish alphabet order. Herostratus (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 with 2B as fall back. I totally agree with David Eppstein (I also agree with GoodDay in that diacritics should only be used in English where they're actually used in English, eg Métis. But that's not up for debate today, 'nuff said). Masterhatch (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B, with 1 as the fallback. 2C is right out, and 2A isn't best IMO.
    I don't see why can't provide a guideline so that editors aren't lost at sea and scratching their heads if confronted with this question. Agreed that we don't want to micromanage, and it doesn't matter if ifs different in different articles, but really we're only talking about a sentence two or that comes down to "Well, since you have to use some rubric, use French system we suppose".
    It could just be stuck in some MoS page, but I can't figure out a good one, so I'm thinking that (if some variant of option 2 gains consensus), maybe a short new page in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting) titled "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Alphabetizing". That'd also provide room for pointing out how "O'Brian" etc are handled, and maybe discuss special cases (I mean if you did have a list in Greek -- can't think why, but if you did -- how would you alphabetize that? Etc.) Herostratus (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B Yes, this is the English Wikipedia but English includes many words stolen borrowed from other tongues where they do things different. Élite, for example. Not to mention surviving names from Old Ænglish. English as she is written doesn't fit neatly into any system of spelling, grammar, pronunciation or alphabetisication. If we have a solution that works and editors are comfortable with, then why change? Having a different order for specific uses - List of Finnish beers perhaps - where a different order might be expected by those deep in the subject, should be catered for. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Doesn't that last sentence indicate a kind of 2A approach? I don't know about beer, but List of Finnish municipalities does exist and it does use the Finnish method. Should it? Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    Our aim should be to present information in a useful fashion. For a specialised topic it makes more sense to my mind to allow for a local consensus if that's how those who know the subject best desire. Otherwise have the best possible default for most topics. We can't get away from words or names in regular English that have accents or obsolete letters so we need to have a rule for them, and when we extend this into lists of words in other languages there must be some boundary between what works for English and what works for potentially hundreds of other languages. I think it is more useful to have one default rule and use that until we hit the point where it begins to break down and be counterproductive and that point is going to be different for each situation and best determined by those at the coalface. --Pete (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 unless there is evidence that the question needs to be resolved centrally. As a side note, I think 2B probably is the practice I would adopt, but I'm curious what someone would do if two items differed only by the "diacritic" (for lack of a better word; I think umlauts aren't actually diacritcs). It's just a curiosity; I certainly don't propose that it be decided in the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 3. I feel we could adopt the same approach as MOS:RETAIN, and leave a hatnote or a sentence at the top stating that this list follows "x" order, where letters with diacritics are treated as if they didn't have any or distinctly for English readers who aren't aware of the different kinds of alphabetisation. I'm still not convinced this needs to be codified in the MOS, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1, because it depends. While I do think that the French system is probably most often the right choice, other systems can make sense, and whether they do is better decided on a per-article basis when it comes up. – Rummskartoffel 17:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B -- principle of least surprise for the English-speaking reader, who is our primary user. Even in an article on Finnish municipalities, most of our readers will not realize that there are letters that come after Z. (By the way, the French order doesn't actually ignore diacritics -- IBM French collation order, it just treats them as less significant than the base letters --but there are very very few cases where this matters.) --Macrakis (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 unless there is some reason to give guidance. If we give advice it should be 2B in most cases, because this is simpler for editors and aligns with what native English-speaking readers are likely to expect. I have no objection in principle to using the foreign language's convention where it is appropriate. But if we are using a foreign language alphabetical order we should use the foreign language alphabetical order in full. Which means that if we're using Lithuanian alphabetical order, Y comes between Į and J. If we're using Czech or Slovak alphabetical order, CH comes between H and I. And this can get hard. Is this instance of -nny- in Hungarian an underlying N-NY or NY-NY? Is this -rh- in Welsh an underlying R-H or RH? Better to avoid the whole issue in general. Kahastok talk 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: sorting by each language's system (2A), while superficially appealing and workable for language-specific lists, would cause issues in lists that contain items from different languages. For example, for a list of prominent members (people, cities, whatever) of an international organization to sort a Finnish person whose name starts with ä after z, but sort a German whose name starts with the same letter alongside a, is likely to confuse readers, frustrate searchers and not be maintained by other, uninitiated editors. (I see one other user has already pointed this out.) -sche (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B. Collating order is a endless rabbit hole of complexity, but this is the English language encyclopedia, so we should do what is most natural and useful for English. I would expect that other language projects would make decisions which make sense for that language. The key point is not, "What makes the most sense in the original source language?", but "What makes the most sense to the English-reading user?" As example of just how perverse this can get, how would you sort Ke$ha? Or NIИ? This isn't a made-up example; at a music web site I used to work for, we really did grapple with this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2A, or failing that 1.
    First, I reject arguments based on how the software operates - 2B might be what defaultsort does, and 2C would be relatively simple to implement, but readers do not care and hence we should not base policy off of it.
    "What makes most sense to an English reader" is a reasonable argument, but it is very subjective near the edge cases. I will post more in the extended discussion. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC.
    There's no mention of old prior discussions (e.g. this, there's no mention of what attention was paid to WP:RFCBEFORE, and the "choices" are defined very poorly:
    saying there's a "French system" that treats Ô "exactly" like O ignores the cote < côte < coté < côté controversy and just arm-waves at other letters by saying "and so on"; saying "Unicode order" means nothing until you say what kind of Unicode order (the cited page's example seems to be Unicode code point order); and the word "alphabetization" means all the points about non-alphabetic characters aren't covered. This "guidance" will only cause confusion.
    Speaking of that, I'm a confused guy myself but this is how I think Wikipedia does things now.
    IN ARTICLES: Judging by the definition that I think applies, page lookup is via a binary collation (which is like Unicode code point because the storage is UTF-8) after some simple transformations. However, if on my desktop's "Search Wikipedia" box I enter Fuhrer, I get Führer due to a redirect, I assume it is due to the category Redirects from titles without diacritics -- but that doesn't explain why, when I enter Lansiviitta, I get Länsiviitta.
    IN CATEGORY LISTS: the switch to UCA default took place in 2016 according to talk page. Some fiddling is possible with DEFAULTSORT. But I think it only works with categories inside article pages.
    IN LISTS: As noted earlier, it is possible to specify that a list is sortable and users can change the order to Finnish by clicking, if JavaScript is enabled and if their locale is Finnish.
    IN WT:MOS ALREADY: This Collation in alphabetical order subsection for Arabic seems to be the only place in the current MoS where something specific appears.
    IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: The idea of what to do has been studied and national-language committees have argued and a standard was made decades ago: Unicode Collation Algorithm DUCET, aka UCA default. I would have said "3. UCA" but it's too late because too many !votes have already been made, my only hope is that the closer will reject and say: start over. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    All three of the options presented have simple one-line explanations. "Collate as in the native language", "collate as in English and ignore diacritics" and "collate in Unicode code point order". Are we able to give a similarly brief explanation as to what UCA or DUCET actually means in practice?
    If not, I'd say it's unworkable from a practical perspective, because that we cannot reasonably assume that our editors are programmers or technical experts. Kahastok talk 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    Phrases you're putting inside quotes aren't the three options presented. And we can discuss UCA more if there's a new RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    They may not be the words used in the proposal, but they are what the proposal means. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B Some guidance seems suseful. In a list with names form various language groups 2A cannot work. Unicode 3C gives a rather random and unintuitive order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talk • contribs) 09:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'd put this down as a 1 opinion, -- no change -- as the editor thinks the RfC is bad (and therefore shouldn't be able to change anything I'd assume, and also that's it quite complicated and therefore no simple rule would be good. Herostratus (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • 2B - per the argument given by the unknown poster just before my comment. --Khajidha (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) PS: I assume that in cases where two terms differ only in presence or absence of a diacritic, that the "bare" form would come first. Not sure what to do about the hypothetical case of two words differing only by which diacritics they have, though. But that is probably too hypothetical to worry about. --Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    It was Woodstone, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 as existing guidance is sufficient. Per MOS:LISTORG: {{fontcolor|darkgreen|When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent. Just as a reader or editor could easily assume that the headings A, B, C would be followed by D (rather than 1903), more complex systems should be just as explicit." Local consensus can be trusted to pick a sensible sorting system, and if it is more complex than alphabetical, current guidance suggests making that explicitly clear. Diacritics are complicated enough to justify an explicit note. If others feel this is unclear, I'd not oppose a small note at LISTORG including complex diacritical sorting as an example. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 1: WP:CREEP; I fail to see why a central solution to this problem is required, and as such to generate additional rules will only further our WP:CREEP issue. BilledMammal (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • 2: Open as to what system is used, but we should not be using characters that are illegible to native English speakers. Articles like Əspərəsti are a prime example. FOARP (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously no consensus for any change I'd say, as it's about split between 1 and 2B. No change. I started it so I can't close it, but if anyone else wants to, do it, or just let it expire. Herostratus (talk)

Extended discussion

We're basically talking about things like lists within articles. I believe that the Wiki software handles alphabetizing list of article names (as for instance on Category pages) etc., and I think that the software uses the French system ("O" and "Ô" considered identical, etc).

Note that Wikipedia:Alphabetical order is not marked as any kind of rule. I guess it's sort of like an essay. Sticking with the Unicode system described there (option 2C) give a clear rigid rule where you don't have to figure anything out, but it would mean French (and maybe other languagues, don't know) would use a system foreign to it (alphabetical order would be be "role - rule - rôle" which you would not see in normal French writing).

Thinking that "no" could be a valid answer on grounds that it's maybe WP:MOSBLOAT, we've gone this far without it, it's rare and even then usually makes little difference, so just let the editor doing the writing deciding is OK, we don't need to micromanage everything.

"Yes, but (or 'No, but...') with these particular exceptions:..." would be a reasonable response also I think.

Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and we're not bound to follow the rules of any other language. We can if we think it best. As always, the key question is how to best serve the reader, and as always we have to make an educated guess. If the reader comes across a long list where "Arhus" is the first entry, and way down below "Årnheim" is the last, would this be the optimal alphabetization for a typical reader? Might be. Skeptical, personally. Also note that most of our readers have not been to college, as many of you editors have. Most readers will read "wäßrig" as "wabrig" and so forth for instance, I think, and similarly most readers will read "ö" and "ó" and "õ" etc as just "o". I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't have these headaches or potential headaches, if we would use only the english language. This isn't suppose to be the mult-language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We still have English-language entries for characters not commonly used in modern English, though; an entry for Æthelred the Unready or Újpest FC or Óglaigh na hÉireann is still going to be written in English. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately so. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how this is "unfortunate"? It's a testament to the breadth of our coverage and and increasingly global scope that we handle these subjects and more. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Best we not get into a debate about this & respect each others' position. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, if you hadn't proposed "English only" we wouldn't be debating it. I agree that the language of en.wp is English, but English has a rich history of loan words, and transcriptions of foreign names, and use of Latin-based letters with variations as needed for French, German, Icelandic, etc. names. Ruling those out would be harsh and pointless. In terms of ordering, Im pretty sure English readers have no knowledge of Unicode order; the "French" system of ignoring diacritics and using the nearest ordinary Latin letter equivalent is pretty familiar though. I'm not sure what that means for things like thorn (letter), but I'm pretty sure Unicode is not the answer. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia:Alphabetical order (the Unicode page) just be deleted? It's not marked as a guideline. It says it applies to article titles... many lists of things in articles use the article titles when there is one (sometimes redirects are used). Are people following Unicode order for these? Not that I've heard of (it would only rarely be an issue). The page also indicates the listings of article on category pages uses Unicode, which would only be true if the Wiki software does. Does it? If not, that page is probably just confusing the issue and should go, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
See WP:CATSORT. Supposedly, according to that page, the software sorts categories roughly like 2B, with accented letters grouped together with their unaccented versions. In practice, the keys used in DEFAULTSORT generally strip the accents from the letters to enforce this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
So then Wikipedia:Alphabetical order is just confusing and should be marked historical or something right? Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The description in WP:CATSORT aka WP:SORTKEY is poor and misleading; however, the footnote is clear: categories should be UCA default. Some kinds of lists, though, depend on client-side JavaScript according to Help:Sorting. It says about strings: "order: uses locale specific (so in this case English) ordering if your browser supports it." which makes me wonder: maybe such tables would automatically have a different order if my locale was Finnish? In which case, it's not a MoS matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

As someone mentioned earlier, 2B appears to be the current standard operating procedure (which I dislike). IF this is so? Why was this RFC opened? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Alphabetisation of Länsiviitta, an editor was seeking guidance on how to alphabetize List of shopping malls in Finland, wondering if the "ä" in Länsiviitta should be treated as an "a" or as coming after z (as would be done in Finnish). 2A is found sometimes, List of Finnish municipalities for instance uses Finnish alphabet order. It doesn't bother me if different editors use different rubrics, but the question is if we should write something down. My opinion on these things is that we should, even if just to say "when alphabetizing lists with extended-Latin letters, do as you think best, but follow the scheme used in the article if there already is one".
FWIW, your post is unsigned. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Some test cases

If Finnish and French were the only languages, I would have no issue with option 2B: "ä" does look a lot like "a" for English readers so it makes sense to alphabetize both close together even for Finland-related articles. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the continuum between English (=ASCII letters) and Japanese leaves place to a lot of edge cases.

I urge supporters of option 2B to think about what they would do for the following cases (where 2A and 2C make the decision trivial):

  1. French "e" vs. "é"
  2. Finnish "a" vs. "ä" or Danish "ø" vs. "o"
  3. Greek: "φ/Φ" vs. "Ρ/ρ"
  4. Hangul: "ㄱ" vs. "ㄴ"
  5. Anything out of the Japanese writing system

I do not think anyone disputes that in case (1) the letters should be alphabetized closely ("é" is considered a modification of "e" in French and sorted just after it in dictionaries) and that in case (5) we should follow the local conventions (since they have nothing to do with what the average English reader knows, it is not even an alphabet). My question is where you draw the line in the other cases.

In case (2), the letters do look a lot like English, but they are alphabetized differently in the source language. In case (3), the letters look a bit like English; many readers that cannot speak Greek will nevertheless have some familiarity with the alphabet. "φ" will be romanized either as "f" or "ph" and "ρ" will be romanized as "r" or "rh", for instance Φaρoσ → Faros and Ροδοs → Rhodos, but the letter "φ" comes later than "ρ" in Greek even if f/p comes before "r" in English. Case (4) is basically case (3) but less familiar (I would guess that almost every native English speaker who knows the Korean alphabet has some knowledge of the language, and conversely I am not sure a majority of native English speakers knows that Korean uses an alphabet). "ㄱ" comes before "ㄴ" in Hangul but the romanizations are g/k and n.

TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that cases 3 through 5 are in any way affected by going with 2B; alphabetising the Latin alphabet is its own beast compared to the order of non-Latin scripts; Hangul or kana or Greek letters, etc, will have their own order, and in fact since they are generally unique to a language (perhaps Cyrillic script has different orders in different languages? I don't know), there should be no cases where, for example, Hangul is ordered differently across pages, surely? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. This has nothign to do with characters in writing systems other than Latin-based.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
When would this even happen? We mention non-Roman script spellings, but don't really use them. Under what circumstances would we be mixing scripts like this? We would be alphabetizing the romanizations, not the native script forms.--Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Closure

I've requested closure for this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Native names of subjects of 'biographies of historical persons' (made up terminology, but you all know what it means so go with it :P )

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

(NOTE: this inquiry/discussion initiation is ONLY with regard to subjects whose native historical names are NON-CONTROVERSIAL; i.e., it's not meant to provide new battlegrounds in topic areas that are subjects of nationalist contentions, i.e., let's exclude any articles that are under Arbcom sanctions.)

This particular thing has been bugging me for a while, and I've not been able to find any discussion that addresses it, beyond a few isolated postings on specific article talk pages which were never addressed. So here goes: As you all know, for non-Anglo bio article subjects, standard practice is to list their common name in English, followed by their native name, in whatever their native language happens to be.

And this makes sense for people that lived at any time during the last ~500 years or so. But for people from farther back in history, the current practice is to list their name in the modern language of, generally, whatever country whose modern borders they happened to live in. (There are a few exceptions, namely, ancient Greeks we give both their Ancient and Modern Greek names, and I'm sure there are a few others). So I guess this is mainly with various Germanic and/or Romance peoples.

Also, I'm somewhat unsure whether or not this is a result of what is in the various sources of these articles (in which case there is no MOS issue), or if it is a defacto editing practice that has formed amongst editors. So, to put it as simply as I can: if their native name as it was during their lifetime is provided in the sources, should our articles also list them, or is it established that we only list their native name, the currently common variant in the language of their country?

Thanks, 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F1ED:C01C:3051:CF8B (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Might help, if you give us examples. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree that some examples would be helpful. That said, and speaking in very generalized terms, if sources mention an alternative name (whether “native” or “historical” or something else), then I see no issue with WP mentioning that alternative name as well. However, we then get to the question of where and how to do so. There are lots of options for this… ranging from prominently highlighting the alternative in the opening sentence… to mentioning it (in passing) somewhere later in the article. Then there is the question of whether to include the alternative name in an infobox. There is no single “right answer” for all of this. A LOT depends on how frequently and extensively the alternative is used by the sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Mostly clueless without examples of what you're talking about. Do you mean something like Confucius? Or what? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Who's what? EEng 17:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
No, Who's on first. What's on second. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Acronyms and capitals

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As a rule should an acronym be capitals?

For instance here they are lower case: Printer (computing)#Printing speed

"characters per minute (cpm) for character printers, or lines per minute (lpm) for line printers. Modern printers are measured in pages per minute (ppm)."

But here they are upper case: Standard litre per minute

"The standard liter per minute (SLM or SLPM) is a unit of volumetric flow rate of a gas at standard conditions for temperature and pressure (STP),"

AVandewerdt (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no such simple rule, even for initialisms for units of measurement, the examples you provide. Broadly speaking, metric units are governed by SI rules but there's no such authority setting rules for imperial and US customary units, or other units such as cpm, lpm, dpi and so on. We normally use lower case for those (in, ft, mph, psi) even though some sources (especially sales literature) might use upper case. Frequent industry practice is to capitalise SCFM, ACFH etc and by extension some of their metric equivalents, avoiding ambiguous non-SI creations such as Nm3/h for normal cubic metres per hour, and in describing what the standard litre a minute is, we rightly show the common initialisms. That does not mean we should use them ourselves – there are so many definitions of what "standard" conditions are that it is best avoided – but there are mercifully few occasions for it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units does identify a few cases where we do use upper-case, such as KCAS, but that is not an exhaustive list; it only covers cases where there's been a particular need for clarification. The examples you give don't seem to need that. NebY (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any rule, but I have noticed that some acronyms are typically lower case while others are typically upper case. I'd look to see how high quality reliable sources are capitalizing and follow them. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As a result of being an author on several IBM Redbooks, the ITSO style guide sometimes misleads me. The ITSO were very keen on capitals. My interest here is for printers where it seems lower case is generally used. I will take a look around for some good academic sources. AVandewerdt (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spaces around en dashes in a range

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

@Dugan Murphy: I'm not clear about the spaces around en dashes in a range. The MoS says "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash", but gives as examples of good use "1–17 September" and "February–October 2009".

Don't the examples contradict the preceding sentence? "17 September" is an element in the range, and it includes a space. Same with "October 2009". Is that a contradiction or am I misunderstanding? SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that September applies to both elements of the range: it's the 1st–17th days of September. On the other hand, 31 August – 17 September would need spaces. pburka (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
My understanding of MOS:RANGE reflects what pburka said. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I wrote MOSRANGE, including the crafty examples meant to illustrate exactly this question, so I can say without qualification that what Dugan Murphy is saying about what Pburka said about it is 100% correct. EEng 06:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
My understanding of MOS:RANGE reflects what EEng said. Firefangledfeathers 06:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks all above. I wonder how many times I've done it wrong now over all these years. Thanks EEng for the clarification in the text. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
You'll get my bill. EEng 15:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
FWIW "1–17 September", would be preferred over "1st–17th September". GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
No one was suggesting writing "1st–17th September", which would never be done in an article. Pburka was emphasizing how to interpret the example. EEng 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"MOS:GROCER" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:GROCER and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#MOS:GROCER until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Punctuation at end of song title at end of sentence?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a bit unclear about this and couldn't find anything in the talk page archive. If I have a song title at the end of a sentence, and the title has terminal punctuation, do I add a period? This is from Ronnie Spector:

The group had two top 100 hits in 1965 with "Born to Be Together" and "Is This What I Get for Loving You?".

Do I want that final period or not? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The way I read the first set of examples given in MOS:LQ, it implies that the period isn't necessary. On the other hand, the copyeditor in me says, when in doubt, reword your way out of the dilemma. Ibadibam (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What defines a "rainbow flag"?

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
WRONG VENUE
This seems like an issue best solved on the talkpage of the article in question. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 19:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 
rainbow flag?

The article rainbow flag contains a list examples said to be rainbow flags. I am writing to request further opinions on whether the examples are actually rainbow, actually flags, and actually sourced by appropriate references.

Comments requested on two issues:

and

Bluerasberry (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry I'm not sure the MOS is the best place to solve this question. The article's talkpage, WP:3O, or an RfC seem the best choices. Is there an underlying MOS question I'm missing? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where did the MoS rules come from?

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

I was just asked this question, and rather than guess I thought I would ask the experts:
"Who decides these customs on WP? The first person to write the rules up? Or just one person did it that way and others followed?"
And connected to that I suppose, how do the rules get updated?--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Our MOS guidance is a community effort, that has evolved over time. The “rules” are formed by discussion and community consensus. In most cases we form this consensus after examining what other (standard) style guides say, and looking at source usage. One can “update” (change) the “rules” through the same process. Start a discussion, state what you think needs to change and why, point to other style guides that agree with your position… and then listen to the arguments of those who may disagree, and be willing to compromise. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  Thanks - that is how I thought it works, but you expressed it better than I could. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
They evolve, but candidly yes, there's a strong element of someone getting their retaliation in first, then people favouring that position arguing that the status quo must continue for its own sake. "Too soon to be discussing this again!" "No clear consensus to change!" Etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of which gender pronouns have been decided on for usage or non-usage. But yeah, it's the community that decide all MoS matters. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 

Family name clarification

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Page watchers may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Method of surname clarification. Izno (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Plain English?"

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

In the lede we find: "Since using plain English makes the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to read, editors should avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." I object, that it is not plain English to say that anything "makes the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to read." What I suppose is meant is that the reader will understand what is expressed more easily, and with more immediate insight, if the expression avoids ambiguity, jargon and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. A Manual of Style offering this guidance ought not to contain such vagueness within the very sentence in which such guidance is given. No encyclopedia, being a non-sentient artefact, can of itself be "intuitive", because the intuition ("seeing into") is an attribute of the reader or of the writer and not of what is being read. "easier... to read" is probably alright, but the introduction of "and more intuitive" into this clause creates ambiguity between what is the subject, and what the object, of this clause. Furthermore, the intuition, although it may follow from the reading, refers not to the action of reading itself, but to the understanding which it is hoped may arise from reading. "...intuitive to read" is therefore a clumsy and flawed construction. I leave aside the problem of opening a sentence with "Since" (which is no better than opening with "Because"), and also the ambiguity of meaning of the term "plain English", given the context of that sentence in which it appears. The whole statement looks like a parody of itself, because the writer, in seeking to avoid "unnecessarily complex wording", demonstrates how the taking of a shortcut may obscure, rather than elucidate, the meaning, and may actually promote corrupt style. Eebahgum (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks ok to me, but I'm not that sophisticated. Feel free to propose something better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
It's been my experience on Wikipedia, that non-english tends to get pushed into articles & article titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I would chop it thusly: "Use simple English. Don't use jargon or complex wording." I don't think we have to explain WHY we should write simply. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the current wording does not, to some extent, take its own advice (despite, of course, the current wording not being a sentient artifact -- or even artefact). However, let's not go overboard by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's Simple Wikipedia for simple language, and there certainly are places where jargon and complex wording are not only unavoidable even desirable. So for starters I'd modify the proposal to Plain English is often best, and jargon or complex wording should be avoided wherever possible. I am absolutely against anything that allow some moron to run around recasting everything into BBC English. EEng 21:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I sought to compose a clear, concise, and comprehensible sentence:
Wikipedia's house style encourages volunteer editors to write using plain language[1] and to structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting.
"Use simple English when possible. Try to avoid jargon or complex wording." Simple English is best in most cases. But in some cases you just have to use more complication forms - like in many of the physics articles.  Stepho  talk  09:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Options: "instructs" instead of "encourages"; "Wikipedians" instead of "volunteer editors"; "The Manual of Style" instead of "Wikipedia's house style"; and the citation to the OED is probably not appropriate but I thought it might help until our plain language article improves beyond Start-class.
What do you think? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 06:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Variety is good, and a good written style (and "tone") reflects the nature of the content which is being written about. An article on The Stone Roses will not be written in the same voice as the article on Neo-Platonism (to take two subjects at random), but good principles of written style can apply to both. I think that Edwin's edits to this page, of last night (12 Feb 2022), as explained in his edit summaries, have removed what was troubling me about the sentence. Whatever MoS says will be used by some editors as authority in attempting to enforce a preference (which is specifically disallowed), so MoS ought not to be too prescriptive. Eebahgum (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
"Article text should be written in complete sentences, taking care over grammar and vocabulary, and avoiding unduly fanciful expressions. Editors are encouraged to write using straightforward, easily understood language and to structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting." These seem to me to be useful principles, and they avoid the difficulties in the words "jargon" and "simple". Eebahgum (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. "plain, adj.2 ... compounds 3. ... "plain language", (Oxford University Press, 2006, rev. 2021) ("speech or writing that is direct, straightforward, unostentatious, or easily understood").

Clearer?

Wouldn't it be clearer and succinct to simply say --

Wikipedia's house style encourages volunteer editors to write clearly and to structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting.

? Bolded to show the result. Moriori (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the currently langauge (write using straightforward, easily understood language) is better than write clearly -- quite complicated, jargon-laden language can still be clear. I think we're trying for something beyond just clear, where possible.
But I'm changing Wikipedia's house style encourages volunteer editors to ... to simply Editors should ... because (a) paid editors should also do this and (b) the link to style guide doesn't help here. EEng 23:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh

Lord Alfred Douglas#Plain English. EEng 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Charming, I don't think. Let's not have any of that.... Eebahgum (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Plural acronym example

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Regarding the explanatory hidden text added some years ago by EEng, recently removed by me and subsequently reverted by EEng:

  1. I doubt very much anyone is going to change the guideline's example to a fragment. The hidden text's contained rationale for changing to a complete sentence would have been adequate as an edit summary when the original edit was made.
  2. The counterexample "Three CD-ROM's and two BIOS's release dates were affected." is incorrect: the correct punctuation would be "Three CD-ROMs' and two BIOSes' release dates were affected."

I can't contrive an example of a fragment that could be correct with the punctuation this guideline is meant to proscribe. It's safe to remove the hidden text, as the hypothetical edit it purports to guard against is as unlikely as it would be unharmful. Ibadibam (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh. I think you may be right. If so then SMcCandlish missed this too [41] so let's blame him. EEng 08:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, when in doubt, always blame the editor with the higher edit count. Ibadibam (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm always up for blaming SMcCandlish for most anything, up to and including the Franco-Prussian War. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
[Shaking fist at Otto von Bismarck.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So are we agreed that I was wrong and the OP is right? EEng 05:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! Hello! EEng 04:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Terminology: "slaves" vs. "enslaved people"

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I have started a Request for Comment about whether the "Confederate States of America" article should use the terms "slaves" / "African slaves" or should use the terms "enslaved people" / "enslaved Africans". This question also applies to other articles. I could be missing it, but I couldn't find where this is addressed in the Manual of Style. Interested editors are encouraged to comment at Talk:Confederate States of America#Request for comment: "slaves" vs. "enslaved people" (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What if they're wheelchair-bound? EEng 00:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Then they're 'wheelchair-enbounded persons'. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A036:88B7:C36F:4744 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thereof, thereto, hither and yon, and yonder

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I am inspired to comment on meanings thereof, which was reverted from a paragraph which discourages such usage. It is humorous to use these words, nowadays. It would be sad to sanction their usage. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Thereof" still has limited usefulness, in certain situations (I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I have come upon situations when I've used it). The possessive form of the neuter sinular pronoun, 'its', at one time did not exist in English, and so instead was used a clunky workaround construction that contained the word "thereof"; this is no longer necessary for the vast, vast majority of cases, wherefore "thereof" sees little contemporary use - there is seldom any need for it (it is still common in legal/legislative language, however). "Thereto" I'm not sure about. "Hither" and "yonder" would never be applicable words in an encyclopaedia under any circumstances, their general usage (or lack thereof ;P ) notwithstanding. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A036:88B7:C36F:4744 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Humorous, perhaps. I pray thou dost hold me in thine hate were I to speak falsely to thee, but needs must we call to mind wherefore we write, and for whom, withal. Forsooth, not for the gentlefolk of the starry-named and long-bygone epoch of Elizabeth, nay I tell thee truly, nor less so for the king and his court, but methinks 'tis solely for the populace of the day in which we find ourselves that we partake of writing. Prithee, think thee well on these matters. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Punctuation of translations of titles

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I asked about the capitalization of translations on the help desk over a year ago and received no comments, so I am trying here instead (and also asking about quotation marks this time).

How should an unofficial, direct English translation of the title of an work be capitalized, and should it be enclosed in quotation marks?

I ask this because different pages in the Manual of Style contradict each other.

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Translations, they should be enclosed only in parentheses in body text and square brackets in references, and should be capitalized like a normal English sentence, with capital letters only for the first word and proper nouns. It gives the examples Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing) and Il Giornale dell'Architettura [The journal of architecture].

However, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Examples 2 gives the examples "37.2 °C in the Morning", which is outside of parentheses, enclosed in quotation marks, and capitalized like an English title (the Morning in the title is not the first word, nor a proper noun), and Ran (Japanese: 乱, Japanese for "chaos"), which is in parentheses and quotation marks and has no capital letter at all.

Most of the articles with literal translations not written nor formatted by me that I can remember seeing don't use any of those combinations; they all format translations with parentheses and quotation marks and English-title-style capitalization. For a few examples (though, given the nature of a Wiki, these may or may not have been changed by the time you read this), see the articles Jujutsu Kaisen 0 (film), Tales from Earthsea (film), Spirited Away.

Some others put the translation in parentheses, in italics, and in bold (even though it is not an official English title), and with English-title-style capitalization, such as at The_Legend_of_Zelda:_A_Link_to_the_Past#cite_note-2. Or in parentheses, in italics, and not bold, but still with English-title-style capitalization, such as Amélie and at Ace_Attorney_Investigations:_Miles_Edgeworth#cite_note-1.

In other words, there's no consistency to articles (what's new?). But, regarding this matter, even the Manual of Style is not consistent, so I can't really blame the article writers. Tempjrds (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tempjrds, you'll generally be much more likely to get responses if you can condense your request to under 100 words. You have a ton of explanation above that isn't needed. Here's what you could boil it down to:
Our MOS gives inconsistent advice re: how to present unofficial, direct English translations of titles of works. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Translations says they should be enclosed in parentheses and capitalized like a normal English sentence. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Examples 2 says (very brief explanation of conflicting advice).
Then if you really think you need examples, start new para with them, but probably not necessary since a quick click to those sections will show what you mean.
You don't need to provide much more than that. Make it easy on others to understand your concern. 8 one-sentence paragraphs in any talk page section just looks daunting. People think you're making 8 separate points, for one thing. People skip over it. valereee (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@valereee, so should I edit down my post above? If I do that, then your comment on it won't make sense. Tempjrds (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tempjrds, well, there are a couple of ways you could handle it. If you do want to encourage a discussion here, I think I'd just close this discussion (LMK if you'd like me to do that) and open a new section using the revised language. Hopefully someone will be familiar enough with the question to help (which I unfortunately am not.) If a question like this doesn't even get answered, you should feel free to boldly make the two sets of instructions consistent in whichever way you believe is correct.
If you still get no input here but still want to see if there's anywhere someone would like to discuss, you could open the discussion at one of the talk pages (whichever has more watchers, though it doesn't look like there's much of a difference in how many visited recent edits), then also open a section at the other one pointing people to the discussion.
If no one answers in either place, you probably are just going to have to fix it however you think is best. :) Sometimes that's actually the best thing to do in the first place, as making a change is likely to get any objectors to speak up! valereee (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Glosses versus translations: an OR style policy?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

TLDR: Wikipedia is misusing the term "gloss" to mean translation. Wikipedia's style guidelines that call for using single quotation marks for translations in an otherwise double-quotation-mark environment is a Wikipedia creation not seen in the real world.

Previous discussions of this topic are here, here, here and more recently here.

Both the relevant MOS section (MOS:SINGLE) and the related pages (e.g. Template:Literal translation, MOS:WAW, MOS:SMALLCAPS) use the term gloss to describe words that follow the word "literally" in Wikipedia. The term gloss (or in this case should I write "gloss"?) in the sense of an interlinear gloss is highly specialised (used primarily in linguistics), but is being applied by Wikipedia to mean simply "literal translation".

To clarify, the infobox in the Iceland article shows Anthem: "Lofsöngur" (lit. ''Hymn''). But a gloss of lofsöngur would be 'praise song', not 'hymn'. "Hymn" is rather a literal translation of lofsöngur; "song of praise" would be another translation. Likewise, a literal translation of "Aegukga" is "patriotic song" (aeguk+ga), while a gloss is 'love country song' (ae+guk+ga).

In most cases, actual glosses are useless O.R. calques. Outside of linguistics articles, a general work like Wikipedia will almost always give translations of terms and not glosses.

Very few style manuals address the term gloss at all (as it is not widely used in general works), and recommendations for dealing with translations vary. Most style guides simply use "normal" quotation marks (UK single, US double) with no special exemption for translations, or they use round brackets. Is there any source that calls for the use for single quotation marks for translations, while simultaneously recommending double quotation marks elsewhere or vice versa?

(BTW, the style of Wikipedia re quotation marks is a lot like that of The Economist (p. 146) with American-style single inside of double quotation marks, but the British-style "logical" approach to punctuating quotations. The Economist simply uses round brackets for translations though, so no help there.)

So,

  1. Should Wikipedia guidelines continue to call translations "glosses"?
  2. Should Wikipedia guidelines continue to recommend a special exception to the normal quotation mark rules just for translations?

What say ye? —  AjaxSmack  01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This question seems to misunderstand the difference between a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss versus a lexemic gloss (e.g., German Flusspferd, literally 'river horse' vs. German Flusspferd 'hippopotamus'), or a lexeme-by-lexeme gloss versus a phrasal gloss (e.g., German zu Pferde, literally 'to horse' vs. German zu Pferde 'on horseback'). These simple glosses are substantially different from a translation; for example: "Noch in das 9. Jahrhundert gehört eine wichtige Darstellung des Heiligen Merkurios zu Pferde, der Julian Apostata mit seiner Lanze durchbohrt" (As late as the 9th century, there is an important depiction of Saint Mercurius on horseback, piercing Julian the Apostate with his spear). These glosses are linguistic commentary (even if the text is not about linguistics), and it is both common and useful for them to appear in single quotes. An interlinear gloss is only one form of gloss (which is why it is specified as interlinear); a gloss may follow material in line, or in older styles (or annotated literature) glosses may appear in the margin or at the bottom of the printed page. Doremo (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
However, I also agree with AjaxSmack that translations of titles of works—the examples "Lofsöngur" (Hymn) and "Aegukga" (Patriotic Song) above—are not glosses in the linguistic sense, although the words can certainly be glossed: lofsöngur 'hymn', literally 'praise song' or aegukga 'patriotic song', literally 'love country song'. Doremo (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a bunch of hyper-technical over-thinking. KISS. We use single quotes for short translations and linguistic glosses. Editors in the main are never going to be clear on the difference. The system works. Nothing is broken, so don't "fix" it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Gloss (annotation), a translation is a gloss but not all glosses are translations. An explanation of context is also a gloss. Surely apostrophes are not appropriate for glosses that go beyond translation. Also, there is a wikilink of simple gloss to Gloss (annotation)#In linguistics, but no definition, and that section has a {{main|Interlinear gloss}}, although the glosses in question are not interlinear. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes and line wrapping issue

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T125480

MOS:CITEPUNCT says to put ref tags (<ref>...</ref>) after punctuation. However, this may make the footnote wrap to the next line, e.g. with Firefox. An example: Unit in the last place, where a line break may occur between "upper-bounded." and "[3][4]". Shouldn't {{nowrap}} be used to prevent wrapping before footnote, like what is recommended for math and punctuation? (Or shouldn't this be done automatically by MediaWiki?) — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, this is unnecessary complication. It's also impossible to determine accurately: I use Firefox too, and for me the wrap is somewhat earlier in the same sentence - it's before the word "and" in the parenthesis (i.e., those with   and  ). Every user has a different setup: there are many variables which can affect just where a wrap point will occur, and we must not attempt to cover all possibilities. These include (but are not limited to): browser and version; operating system and version; screen width; fonts installed; zoom level. A small change to one of these can alter line length, and so move a wrapping point.
We have enough trouble getting people to put refs in at all, let alone make them format refs in fancy ways just in case a particular user setup happens to put a wrap in a certain place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Wrapping between two words (or between a word and a math formula) is fine. The point would be to forbid wrapping only when it shouldn't occur. Then the browser will wrap automatically where allowed. There is no need to attempt to cover all possibilities. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
What you're asking for is that 
upper-bounded.<ref>{{cite web|last=Harrison|first=John|title=A Machine-Checked Theory of Floating Point Arithmetic|url=http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/papers/fparith.html|access-date=2013-07-17}}</ref><ref>Muller, Jean-Michel (2005–11). "On the definition of ulp(x)". INRIA Technical Report 5504. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. V, No. N, November 2005. Retrieved in 2012-03 from http://ljk.imag.fr/membres/Carine.Lucas/TPScilab/JMMuller/ulp-toms.pdf.</ref>
should be altered to 
<span class=nowrap>upper-bounded.<ref>{{cite web|last=Harrison|first=John|title=A Machine-Checked Theory of Floating Point Arithmetic|url=http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/papers/fparith.html|access-date=2013-07-17}}</ref><ref>Muller, Jean-Michel (2005–11). "On the definition of ulp(x)". INRIA Technical Report 5504. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. V, No. N, November 2005. Retrieved in 2012-03 from http://ljk.imag.fr/membres/Carine.Lucas/TPScilab/JMMuller/ulp-toms.pdf.</ref></span>
and something similar should be done on every reference in every article. There are ten refs in that article (one of them used twice), which is by no means a large number, and more than 6.4 million articles. This is simply not going to happen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Why not? — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I've left a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Footnotes and line wrapping issue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree this is not ideal and I sometimes change the window width to verify there isn't an errant space. But unless there is a solution that can be implemented without editing any article, it's just too trivial. There are a lot of other more important things to improve. MB 19:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
It might be possible to do this at the MediaWiki level, and the OP is welcome to find or create a phabricator task to suggest it. It is simply absurd to contemplate enforcing this via wikitext added to every affected page, however. [Edited to add: T125480 is a task that is tracking this request.]– Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Nowrap is the devil. The web is designed for dynamic lay-outing on any size of device. That is the whole function of the web, it is not a typesetting language. This specific proposal breaks wrapping of the url when you print the page and probably even showing it properly on mobile. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requested at MOS/Hidden text

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your feedback at WT:Manual of Style/Hidden text#Inappropriate uses would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Grammar issue: indefinite article and initial letter vs. initial sound

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

I'm no grammarian, and the title I've given this section may or may not make sense. I'm sure this must have come up before, but I can't find it addressed anywhere. The specific question which caused me to ask here was "a euphemism" vs. "an euphemism" in the Comfort women article; see [42] and [43]. There's a number of other cases where this comes up. One of those cases is a[n] history, and I'm thinking that WP:ENGVAR might be involved there. I honestly don't know the answer, and I'm probably not alone in that. Am I missing finding guidance in the MOS, or is the MOS missing guidance which ought to be available? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: The rules are nicely explained in our sister project Wiktionary:
All modern standard English varieties go by sound for the choice between a and an, not by letter. "Euphemism" phonetically begins with a yod-sound, thus with a consonant. –Austronesier (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The user in question [not Wtmitchell Meters (talk)] was clearly using a faulty "rule", believing that "an" must be used with any singular noun starting with a vowel letter. Some vowels can be sounded as consonants, and some consonants can be sounded as vowels. Thus "an hour" not "a hour", but "a house" not "an house", and "an unusual" not "a unusual", but "a usual" not "an usual". The "history" case is an oddball because it can take either an "a" or a "an" depending on which pronunciation one uses. This is standard English, not a stylistic issue, but it is undoubtedly confusing to some non-native English speakers (and to some native speakers too) so maybe it needs to be addressed. Meters (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, maybe, but see WP:MOSBLOAT first. EEng 03:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't find "a" vs "an" in the MOS either, but I seem to remember that the issue "a": vs "an" with "h" words such as "historical" is covered somewhere. Meters (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In Australia, it is a little simpler. Much of the English speaking world says "a 'istory" (silent "h"). But Australians pronounce the leading "h", so we say "a history".  Stepho  talk  21:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "much of the English-speaking world". Pronouncing the "h" is usual now in England in RP, although in the 1960s I worked with older academic historians who dropped the "h".
A live issue occurs regularly in plant articles over "herb" and "herbaceous". In most of the US, the "h" isn't pronounced, so it's "an herbaceous plant", but in most of Britain, it's "a herbaceous plant", hence the advice at WP:WikiProject Plants#"A" or "an" with "herb...". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

suggesting new exception to "put ref tags after punctuation" in "punctuation and footnotes"

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

For example, in article "Parliamentary Procedure", I placed a footnote before the period in "... rules of order, or robert's rules of order." because the footnote related to just that last phrase "robert's rules of order", not to the whole sentence. User:WikiCleanerBot auto moved the reference to after the period, making the reference less precise as to what it relates to. Maybe we should allow reference before punctuation when that makes for more clarity on what the reference applies to. Natefin (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't go after the period in such a case. I doubt that carving out such an exception would gain consensus (my opinion is such a rule about refs and footnotes having to go after the period shouldn't exist in the first place). What if you were to place the footnote after "Robert's"? Would that work? I'm certain there's no rule that says a footnote can't be placed directly after a word in the middle of a phrase...and if there is, that really SHOULD be axed, because this is done all the time, and there's good reason for it. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:1449:4A9E:866:5F64 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The real problem is that citations only get put at the end of what is cited, but the beginning is unclear. It just happens that in this case putting the citation before the punctuation may help to clarify this for the very observant reader, but I don't think that it is a general solution to the problem. I have vague memories of something being introduced many years ago to indicate the exact scope of a citation, but it failed because it (as far as I recall) put text inside a template and made the editable Wikitext almost unreadable, especially when citations were provided for overlapping content, such as if citation 1 supported points A and B and if citation 2 supported B and C. Maybe someone with a better memory than I have can link to some relevant discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
This keeps coming up, and no one's ever been able to explain what the difficulty is. The days of articles with just a blanket bibliography, and no inline citations, are pretty much long gone, so everything should be supported by an inline citation which follows the stuff supported. What, exactly, does a given inline cite support? All the way back to the prior inline cite. Duh. What's hard about that?
Putting superscript citation callouts after punctuation is strictly aesthetic -- over at frwiki the order is reversed and it looks absolutely moronic -- see [44]. (And before anyone asks, I'm aware that Nature, or one of those big rags, does it that way as well, and there it also looks absolutely moronic. No idea how they could have talked themselves into that.) EEng 20:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing hard about it, but it's very often untrue in practice, especially when someone has added some intervening uncited text since the citation was added, which happens a lot. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Well let's suppose we had some way (perhaps visible only in the source, or on hovering over the superscript cite "callout") of showing the scope of a citation -- how far back in the text it covers. Someone adding uncited stuff could just as easily stick it inside this scope as they stick it in now when there's no scoping machinery, so there's no verifiability gain from the scoping machinery. Unfortunately there's no substitute for watchers. EEng 05:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this proposed exception is a good idea. It presupposes that references can only cover either a single sentence or the final unpunctuated clause of a sentence, an invalid assumption. It is too subtle a variation to clearly indicate the scope of a reference and is more likely to be interpreted as a mistake than as a deliberate scoping choice. If we want to introduce some convention to more clearly indicate what part of an article a reference covers, we need a clearer convention and probably technical support (so that e.g. hovering over a footnote could highlight what it covers). Without such support, we should stick to a consistent style, which we already have in the rule that footnotes go after punctuation, not before. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this would be a bad idea. Imho, it looks terrible seeing a reference sitting in front of a comma or full stop. JG66 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with David Eppstein that it is too subtle an exception. Further, while it might make sense to us, it probably won't make sense to our readers. It would just look out of place. In this case (and similar) there are other options which serve as well or better. The citation may include a note or a note might be made that includes the reference. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
No, this would just look funny and non-standard. If you need to clarify which bit of a sentence is supported by which source, you can either rewrite the sentence so that it is presented in a slightly different order, or you just put the refs in the order they occur, and are naturally understood, i.e. refs support the content immediately before them. Even if there's a bit of a possible misunderstanding about that, interested readers can likely find the ref and figure out which one is the relevant one anyways without too much difficulty. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
For readability and aesthetic reason (to say nothing of grammar and syntax) punctuation should be closely tied to its object (the phrase preceding it). Otherwise what does it punctuate? Text continuity is more important than markup, in this case the footer notation. If wikitext is properly written, and the footnote has sufficient text/source integrity, it should be clear to the reader what part of the proximate text the citation is referring to. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_224&oldid=1104401889"