Miscellaneous desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 10

Sam Brinton

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.

In the article about Sam Brinton, the pronoun "they" is used to refer to him because he likes using it to talk about himself. I think that's fair enough to mention it but should Wikipedia really use "they" instead of "him"? Politics and ideology apart, this individual is a man and Wikipedia should follow facts, not what people feel like. Otherwise we should write that Pharaohs were actually kings and that Jesus was actually a deity. I couldn't care less about politics, it's just a matter of reality VS feelings. What do other users think? Please keep it civil and do not mention anything about politics, this would be irrelevant here. 2402:9D80:250:20FE:D9CE:7A14:109B:D38C (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: Brinton refers to themself using the pronouns I / me / my, not they / them / their as you incorrectly assert. --Lambiam 16:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned politics twice, so it's hypocritical of you to insist that nobody else does. Policing language is inherently political. DuncanHill (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use the pronoun that the person themselves wants you to use. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity. --Viennese Waltz 08:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Pharaoh and also Singular they. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many aspects that can be used to describe individuals are not easily defined, such as their ethnicity and religion. There are no hard and fast criteria; such concepts may be convenient for the purpose of categorizing but are inherently fluid. Gender is another fluid aspect that does not lend itself to an easy definition, let alone determination. I recommend reading the article. The insistence on "race" as an objective fact is either based on ignorance or bigotry. The same holds for insisting that gender is necessarily binary and can be determined by inspecting a person's genitals. --Lambiam 15:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the most "civil" way to tell a drive-by that nearly all of their premise is hogwash? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling editors "drive-bys" is hardly civil. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"drive-by" is hardly uncivil as used by Baseball_Bugs, but "hogwash" probably is. I would count myself as a "drive by" for many edits I do, correcting spelling mistakes. A drive-by editor has no intention to return to that article again and will not put it on the watchlist. WP:DRIVEBY however just refers to drive-by tagging. Tagging is quite low value, when there is no effort at all to fix anything. Its easier to complain, than to fix the problem. I suppose we would have to look at the whole collection of edits done by an editor under question and see if it is a problem as a whole. Individual edits can be easily reverted. But if it turns out that there is POV pushing the article out of balance, then a message on their talk page is appropriate. Mr Bugs could explain that they disagree with the program of edits because ..... Unfortunately I could not see a WP:MOS section on this. WP:Pronouns says don't use first or second person writing in articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to continue this further Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I called them a "drive-by" because there's a strong probability they won't be back. And most of their premise is erroneous. Hence the term "hogwash". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's your evidence for this "strong probability"? And since when do we condemn people for things they might do? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Experience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God you'll never be a member of any jury deciding my guilt or innocence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Wha'd'ja do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all your "experience", you should already know everything about my crimes, sins, transgressions, failures, wrongdoings and imperfections. (Not that there are any, but hypothetically speaking.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've not observed any malfeasance on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have you on 2402:9D80:250:20FE:D9CE:7A14:109B:D38C's part. Gotcha. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I could not see a WP:MOS section on this.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here, the OP's original question or the tangent about "drive-by" editors, but the MOS section that addresses pronoun usage has already been cited by Viennese Waltz above: it's MOS:GENDERID. In short, a Wikipedia article should reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification (except that we don't use neopronouns, and use singular they if the person prefers neopronouns). CodeTalker (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, as there was a lot of discussion behind that section. There should be a link from the WP:Pronouns section to this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote "You have to use the pronoun that the person themselves wants you to use". This is quite disturbing to read that on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia based on facts, not feelings. We write something as close as possible to the truth. This person is a man, the truth is that he is a he. His feelings are irrelevant. His passport and IDs say "male". If we start writing about feelings, let's write that Trump won the election. Let's write that Kim Jong-Un is our beloved supreme leader. Let's write that there's only one god and his prophet is Zorg. Do you understand my point? Changing facts according to feelings can open the door to many other misuse of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.52.49.153 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your feelings on what Wikipedia ought to do, but I have to inform you that your feelings are irrelevant. --Lambiam 05:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources will have to support any use of pronoun. And since volunteers here are not forced to work, an article can be out of date. Feelings can be appropriate in discussions about the policy. There would have been extravagant expression in that regard already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reasoned argument might be relevant (but less so if it ignores prior contributions to the discussion). The claim that this is "just a matter of reality vs. feelings" does not make the cut, also not if it is repeated. --Lambiam 01:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say your name is Elizabeth, but I call you 'Betty'. If you tell me "Please don't call me that, my name is Elizabeth. I would prefer if you called me 'Liz' or 'Elizabeth', but please not 'Betty'.. ", if I insist on calling you "Betty", I am an asshole. It is not more complex than that. --Jayron 32 14:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that A) being a "man" is defined by a particular arrangement of chromosomes and anatomy and B) that the individual in question has the chromosomal and anatomical makeup that you are considering to define one as a "man". Leaving aside the first question, I must ask how you are so sure of this individual's chromosomal and anatomical makeup. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You want to use the facts? They use "they" as a pronoun. That's the only fact that matters. Your troglodyte opinions do not matter. Now can we close this bigoted trolling? Fgf10 (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't be rude to people here by calling it trolling. When writing Wikipedia we are probably not going to know chromosomes or anatomy of people, so we just have to rely on reliable sources. Unless a reliable source reports something we cannot use it in an article. But I do agree that original question is answered. And a lot of this other discussion should be in small font as it is off-topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Deliberately and consistently misgendering (for which chromosomes or anatomy are wholly irrelevant BTW) is bordering on hate crime. Trolling is a very mild term for it. I am most certainly not the rude one here. Fgf10 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to disagree with gender identity is not in any way a hate crime. It is not bordering on hate crime. It is merely an opinion and opinions are not crimes in any way whatsoever. Name calling is not going to help the situation. Exaggerating and calling it a hate crime to justify your name calling is not helpful. Try having empathy. Some people grew up and have lived for 60, 70, and 80 years knowing what "man" and "woman" meant. Now, a new generation shows up and takes away those meanings and replaces them. Calling everyone a hate crime troll because they only see that their world is changing and they don't like change is not helpful. Explaining that it isn't change, it is acceptance, is one way to try and help. It won't get you any social media likes, but it can help. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately misgendering isn't disagreeing with gender identity. Since you're American, here's your justice department showing gender identity is included in hate crime. The only hate and name calling here is from the OP. I'm merely stating facts. Now can we close this bigoted mess already? Fgf10 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) This is what happens when you encourage people to question or disagree with the identities of others. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crime is (as made clearly apparent on the page you linked) a crime + a motivation for the crime based on bias. It appears that I am clearly in the minority for thinking that it is better to be nice to people and help them understand why gender identity is important. I don't know when the accepted viewpoint is that everyone who disagrees with popular opinion is a troll and needs to be tossed in jail before they start grabbing genitals. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You think "deliberately and consistently misgendering" people amounts to "being nice to people"? DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.