User:Jluchen/sandbox

Trend to gender-neutral language from the 18th century

The earliest attempt to create gender-neutral pronouns dates back to 1792, when Scottish economist James Anderson advocated for an indeterminate pronoun "ou".

In 1808, poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote:

"whether we may not, nay ought not, to use a neutral pronoun, relative or representative, to the word "Person", where it hath been used in the sense of homo, mensch, or noun of the common gender, in order to avoid particularising man or woman, or in order to express either sex indifferently? If this be incorrect in syntax, the whole use of the word Person is lost in a number of instances, or only retained by some stiff and strange position of the words, as – "not letting the person be aware wherein offense has been given" – instead of – "wherein he or she has offended". In my [judgment] both the specific intention and general etymon of "Person" in such sentences fully authorise the use of it and which instead of he, she, him, her, who, whom."

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge, as written in Anima Poetæ: From the Unpublished Note-books of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, edited by Ernest Coleridge (1895), p. 190.

Wikipedia Inception; a Wiki Article about a Wiki Article

The Wikipedia article on the University of Michigan basketball scandal falls short due to the under representation of the viewpoints of players and the lack of more recent updates.  The article depicts the scandal in which Chris Webber, Maurice Taylor, Robert Traylor, and Louis Bullock accepted thousands of dollars from booster Ed Martin.  Michigan and the players were then punished by the NCAA and the federal government for wrongdoing.  Punishment included the vacation of multiple seasons, removal of championship banners (which then-Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said will never be hung back up in her time), probation, and a disassociation period between the players and the university.

The article is deficient in it’s representation of the motivations of the players to break the rules.  It never mentions why the players accepted money from Martin.  It doesn’t hesitate to demonize the players.  The inclusion of a quote Coleman calling the situation “wrong, plain and simple” casts the players in a negative light, and is one example of the disproportionate negativity towards the players.  This isn’t to say that the players weren’t at fault.  Nonetheless, the players deserve the courtesy of having their motivations displayed.  Motive is necessary to prove guilt and deserves to be shown.

In Mitch Albom’s book Fab Five, he describes a scene where Webber struggled to pay for food.  Webber then passed the MDen, where he saw his jersey and laments how it’s able to sell his jersey for seventy-five dollars yet he could barely afford a few pieces chicken. The players came from lower income families that couldn’t afford to provide them with the money they needed to live comfortably.  This was a big reason why they chose to accept the money from Martin.  This reason is the cause of many such scandals of improper benefits in college athletics.  While this is not a vindication of the players, their side of the story at least deserves to be mentioned.

The article could also use some refurbishments.  The most recent piece of information is the aforementioned quote from Coleman, who is no longer the President of UM.  The quote came from a Bleacher Report article dated May 8th of 2013.  Mark Schlissel has since become the President.  He, like Coleman, hasn’t mentioned a change in the policy of the removal of the championship banners.  Webber still hasn’t admitted to any wrongdoing or apologized for the debacle.  Although the disassociation between himself and Michigan has ended, he has still voluntarily remained estranged from the University.  More recently, there has also been a push against the NCAA for flawed amateurism policies.  Advocates like Jay Bilas have admonished the NCAA for perceived hypocritical policies that punish collegiate athletes for accepting gifts and money for their likenesses like the Michigan players were.  These updates should be included in the article, as this story is not solely rooted and relevant in the past.

While the Wikipedia article on the Michigan basketball scandal did an excellent job in describing the events, it still should publicize the motives for which the player chose to break the rules as well as add an update with new information.  These additions are necessary for adequate representation of a minority viewpoint and to modify outdated information.