Talk:Farhad Manjoo

Thank you for the explanation. For me to concur with such confusing and ungrammatical English (which other editors here have also rejected -- see history of edits), there would have to be reference to a Wikipedia directive mandating that the subject of a piece gets to dictate his or her own grammar. The cite you give is to an at times informative but in places I think tendentious and one-sided analysis, and at any rate not to a Wikipedia directive mandating non-standard grammar. In standard written English, the use of singular pronouns for individual persons is overwhelmingly expected, and the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person is incorrect (excepting royalty or divinity). That is why even the piece you cite notes that even in the latest edition of Strunk & White, the use of singular 'they' is "still proscribed against." It is not considered a matter of style or preference, but to be so contrary to the expectation of readers of standard written English, as to be proscribed, even today. The benefits for general education and enlightenment in having one set of language rules that change only gradually is I hope obvious enough not to require argument. I don't think the strongest and most widely accepted rules of standard English should be broken because of the demands of the subject of the article (any more than wikipedia gave up the English alphabet to refer to Prince with a glyph). Nor is there evidence of anything approaching a majority practice in favor of breaking the rule. The standard rule contributes to clarity and is also the convention. But if Wikipedia now has a directive requiring us to break with standard English here, let's see it! Whatever I think, it's Wikipedia's call to make. One compromise could be to use 'they' in quotes to refer to the subject of the article, but use singular verbs ("'they' has written" etc.). That would be giving the subject his preferred form of address without breaking English grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4080:8D01:A973:5ED:7A53:6226 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I await others' input on the Wikipedia "directive" (i.e policy) issue, but will respond to the last point on grammar. As I explained in my most recent edit comments, the pronoun they, whether plural or singular, takes verbs that are conjugated the same way as the pronoun you. "You are" can refer to either an individual or a group of people. "They are" works the same way. This is standard English grammar. Funcrunch (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On your last point, I am not referring to 'they' without quotes but to 'they' in quotation marks; in such a case, "they" would correctly take a singular--it is being used not as a plural (its unquoted meaning) but as the person's preferred form of address, its peculiar private meaning. For example, it is correct to say "'you' is a form of address," and it would be incorrect to say "'you' are a form of address." So I think the compromise I suggest is correct and viable: uglier than using the singular pronouns, but at least it is correct English grammar. I note that there is no consensus, and that in the absence of a wikipedia policy (or directive) mandating incorrect grammar at the request of the living subject of an article, we should go by the general wikipedia policy favoring correct grammar and vocabulary. Therefore I continue to vote for and will edit in accordance with standard English, absent consensus or the cite of a Wikipedia policy overriding standard written English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that in standard written English 'they' is *not* like 'you' in that it does not have the ability to refer equally to one or more persons.Therefore it makes sense to me that previous editors have tried 'they is' as a compromise through this mess, but I believe a better compromise is "'they' is" (with quotes around the 'they'). But the best solution if we could get consensus is simply to stick to standard written English ('he or she is').

In support of using standard written English here, I cite Wikipedia policy MOS:SINGULAR and MOS:PLURALS (i.e. standard written English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any replies to recent objections, and I note that the last version with consensus used standard English treatment of pronouns (singular when referring to one person). I therefore believe it is appropriate to keep that version, until a new consensus is achieved.2601:184:4080:8D01:60CF:7BD:4CA8:69E4 (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least three editors disagree with your change. You have to gain support on the talk page before reinserting your preference. You can try starting an

talk) 05:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

At least two editors disagree with your change (Wallyfromdilbert), even if I am the only one active the last two weeks. You also have to keep in mind that certain minor but very political pages would tend to attract people biased one way or the other (this is not a reflection on you, as I would make the same comment the other way about obscure hard right columnists). I don't see any further discussion by you of the recent points raised, including the Wikipedia policy in favor of standard grammar or the compromise version using 'they'. I don't see consensus on your preferred version (non-standard grammar, using plural pronouns for single person). The RFC is a good idea if you wish a new non-consensus version of the page to be accepted. I am simply restoring the last version that had consensus (singular pronouns for single persons), before the subject's request that others change to a special grammar. 2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is clear from the edit history, the OTHER editors (NOT me) who disagree with using “they are” to refer to an individual include: 65.96.171.160, 85.238.102.93, and 47.202.93.192. I say this here because someone implied (on a user talk page) that I had pretended to be other editors (using other ips). Edits from those three specific IPs I listed are NOT mine or of any one I know. I do have two ip’s on my edits, caused by switching between my cell phone and my laptop—-those are the edits in the last few weeks, and I hope obvious. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delightful to read this insanity, even if it is three years later. While I personally think it pointless to fight against this elitist grammar wave, it will still be amusing, some years from now, when some unintended consequence of this idiocy comes back to bite its acolytes in the arse. Unschool 22:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As no other wikipedia policy has so far been presented on this talk page that is directly relevant (other than those policies encouraging standard English grammar in the usage of singular and plural pronouns, including but not limited to MOS:SINGULAR and MOS:PLURALS), and as Funcrunch agrees that MOS:GENDERID "isn't directly relevant here" (as the subject of the page is a cisgender man), it seems to me that we should keep the status quo and side with the original state of the article (using standard written English). I will make the change to restore the original. But to avoid an edit war, I ask that people reply in the talk section with a contrary but directly relevant Wikipedia policy and discuss if they disagree, so that we can get WP:CONSENSUS. In the absence of consensus, I think we should defer to existing applicable Wikipedia policy (with the editors who want to keep standard written English). Otherwise, perhaps we could consider alternatives that keep standard written English? (--such as using "they" in quotation marks with singular verbs, as suggested earlier here). But if there is a better way to proceed, please speak up. Thanks!

I support allowing the article subject to choose their preferred pronoun. No Wikipedia policies prevent articles from using the preferred pronouns for an individual, and I do not see the term "standard English" used in the Manual of Style. No reason to not use the singular they if requested by an article subject.

talk) 18:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

We have a dispute then, as I clearly see MOS:SINGULAR and MOS:PLURALS guiding to standard grammar usage, and I see no policy against it. You also cite no policy to support plural pronoun and verb use with a single individual subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to wait for other editors to respond here (it's has not been long since you started this discussion) or take this to the BLP noticeboard or another relevant place. Two editors disagree with your changes, and you are now at 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, and so please stop edit warring and continue with the discussion on the talk page. The section of the MOS you cite is not relevant to pronouns. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ and indent your comments with colons (:).

talk) 18:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I will wait, but note that I am NOT at 3 reverts in 24 hours, that you have come close to violating 3RR with your repeated reversions, and that other editors on this page (if you check the history) have disagreed with the use of 'they' and plural verbs to refer to a single subject. You are taking advantage of your own edit warring to hold the page at your preferred result. The section of MOS I cite is relevant, as it refers to "English plurals" article on correct grammar and pronoun casing for number. In the absence of consensus, this will have to be resolved by dispute resolution, on whether the wikipedia style policy on correct grammar is controlling, or some other policy that I am not aware of and that no one has yet cited is. Thanks for the reminder on the colon and tildes.2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that one could equally well say that the plural pronoun side has made great changes not long after the topic was started, as I see the question as this: whether the original using singular pronouns and verbs to refer to the subject, in which there was once a consensus, should remain, consistent with standard written English -- or a radical change should be sustained, even though WP:CONSENSUS was not reached. I don't know which way Wikipedia will come down on that, ---but that's the way I see it, that you are edit warring against a prior consensus (the original form of the page), and without any directly relevant policy to support it.2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before engaging in repeated reversions, please engage here. Note that the version using singular pronouns was the most recent version that had consensus. Currently there is consensus for neither the singular or plural pronoun version. It is my view that the most recent version that had consensus (i.e. singular pronouns) should stand until the issue is resolved, especially given the policy in favor of standard English usage. I can see the other side, but respectfully submit that in these circumstances the burden is on those who wish to propose a change from a version with consensus to one that is controversial and uses non-standard grammar. 2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about "standard English" would be the same against the

talk) 00:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

we covered why MOS:GENDERID does not apply earlier here: the subject does not identify with another gender. Regarding Oxford, one can cite violently opposing recent reference works on this (as I did above). the issue has become a political football, but the 16th century use is not the use you are advocating here, nor are we in the 16th century. As far as current practice, we all read a great deal in English, and I don’t see how one can seriously claim “they are” in reference to private individuals is anything near a standard practice. As far as WP:CONSENSUS, I was not aware it was a matter of popularity, but I did cite three other editors who have disagreed with your changes (from their edits and comments in edit history). If you’re saying WP:CONSENSUS means we have to accept your disputed version under these circumstances, rather than stick to the version that had previously been accepted by everyone, that’s something, but I don’t see that in the policy. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on reasoned discussion. All three editors who have commented on the talk page about the use of

talk) 00:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree on the benefit of having the other editors who disagreed (with plural pronouns in reference to individuals) comment here. I think you’ll find particular pages tend to attract particular biases in editors, and so I think you’re not seeing or giving sufficient weight to how far away you are from consensus for your preferred edits. I agree the current version lacks consensus, and that the previous version would not have consensus now. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current version has the preference of 3 editors. You can call it "bias" all you want. Maybe that is why other editors are not engaging in a pointless discussion with you. I no longer will be either.

talk) 01:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The other versions (against “they are”) have the preference of four editors total (see edit history). I appreciate that the three other editors have not commented here, and that’s why I mentioned something I thought would not be controversial, that some pages draw and excite some editors and viewpoints more than others (by way of explanation for their not commenting on this page; a similar problem skews primary voters to ideological extremes). I was not accusing you of bias, nor do I regard bias as necessarily unhealthy: I have a point of view and bias myself, and I am sure that some other pages on wikipedia would end up with a consensus closer to my biases (and the same problem on the other side). I mentioned it only in what I thought was the true spirit of WP:CONSENSUS, which is not (I thought) to win a popularity contest, but to genuinely account for and represent different reasoned views that have some acceptance or weight. But if you seriously believe that the use of plural pronouns and verbs for private individuals is universally regarded as unobjectionable and non-controversial, it probably would be difficult to make headway in a discussion. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do. I usually only make minor edits to Wikipedia to fix grammatical errors, and I stumbled onto this. I believe it should be changed to standard usage. What is the policy? Quarkbuddha (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

When you have even a couple of editors united to revert opposing changes (and who initiate unfounded accusations of various wikipedia rules violations unless you back down), I don’t think there’s much you can do, at least not without learning and spending a lot of time on the wikipedia appeals process. I agree the article is not now in accord with the wikipedia policy on standard grammar (and it’s also just plain ugly to read!), but in my view, it wasn’t worth the effort to appeal.2601:184:4080:8D01:381C:9FBF:7B9A:71B9 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's perfectly alright to go with the desires of individual physically living folk in their preference for pronouns. That's just being polite to whomever is being addressed. Grammar changes over time anyway.

Wanted to put in a word here for capitalizing the pronouns for Holy Souls such as Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, and Others. That would just be polite to literally millions of Their followers and wouldn't we want to do that?

It doesn't matter Whom we would choose, would it? Being polite shouldn't be a matter of some relatively recent academic eccentricity, should it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.165.189 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]