Talk:River Butcher

Pronoun usage in article

We can honor Butcher's wishes for not using "she", "her", "hers" as pronoun referrals without going against standard English grammar which we should be using per our manual of style. It is less awkward and still mostly conformant to the MOS to avoid pronouns completely by rewriting then having awkward reading non-standard grammar in an encyclopedia article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

See also MOS:GENDERID "Avoid confusing constructions by rewriting". Non-standard grammar is confusing to read and if it can be rewritten to avoid it, it should. If the only issue is pronoun usage we can avoid the issue completely by rewording places where it is an issue. "They are" to refer to a single person is jarring and wrong no matter the reason. "They is" is also jarring and wrong so don't do either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the use of "they" for a known singular antecedent with a non-binary gender is grammatical in the idiolects of many already, and is quickly becoming more and more accepted.

"Avoid grammar issues such as "they is" vs "they are" for singular." What's the issue? In the prestige dialects of US English "they are" would be the unquestionably grammatical choice. (Though I will note that I believe "they is" would be grammatical in some dialects of English such as AAVE where present tense verbs do not conjugate.)

"They are" isn't jarring to me. I'd be curious to see how widespread this "jarring" feeling is among US English speakers. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"They are" is a plural construct in standard English and it has not reached any level of acceptance for singular use that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia written for general English language users. When I first read it referring to a single person I immediately perceived a grammar mistake and it stopped the easy flow of reading that good written prose should facilitate. "They is" is generally considered correct only in non-standard dialects.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style says "The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for users. Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." and "If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot." My rewrite was to make the issue moot. I honors the wishes of the subject and still conforms to English as generally used by our target readers. I noticed that there was instability in the article with editors changing pronouns back and forth and figured a bit of a rewrite would work to avoid the issue completely and would make the article easier to read for most readers without dishonoring the subjects choices. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed before many times because the same complaint has come up from a few users with regard to other articles: there is no consensus to for any systematic removal of pronouns. If a few individual sentences are genuinely unclear, they can be reworded (see e.g. the article on Emma Sulkowicz for a model), but singular they itself is perfectly clear, widespread and of long standing (indeed, singular they is older than singular use of the originally-plural pronoun you). (It is indeed so widely used and understood that I've yet to meet anyone who objected to it who didn't also use it themselves when they weren't thinking about it. My fav is when someone complains that "anyone who brings this kind of language into their writing is [rant, oblivious]".) -sche (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

i skimmed.

i agree with sche that they/them/their may be appropriate for referring to an individual in some circumstances.

i agree with G Perez that their usage (see what i did there?) is confusing in some circumstances.

i think they/them/their are less likely to be mistaken for poor grammar if Butcher's preference is mentioned before it is applied elsewhere in the article. Maybe even a hatnote? like the one on the Fann Wong article that says, "No, we aren't calling Fann by her given name left and right--we're using her family name, like it says in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use."

i think using them to mean one person is grammatically incorrect, but not necessarily incomprehensible, and may have connotations for the speaker/writer/situation. For comparison, consider phrases like "me and you" or "I don't never need no help!"

Sometimes what is grammatically correct or acceptable changes. i remember when, if the boss had a kid, they were the boss' kid, and English teachers would take points off your grade if you wrote "the boss's kid". i remember a time when the rule switched, and suddenly the boss's kid was right and writing "the boss' kid" cost you points. By the time i graduated, either was acceptable.

i like the "see if a rewrite can make the issue moot" strategy G Perez mentioned. sche, i think you think the article is easy to read and understand using the singular they/them/their, but do you think it's easier to understand than Perez's revised version? If both versions are equally easy for you to understand, i think you should allow the version that others (such as Perez and me) find easier to understand. The article can still mention Butcher's pronoun preferences, and use them where necessary, yet also permit editors (because anyone can edit) to seek and employ ways to make them unnecessary.

(little off-topic: "singular they is older than singular use of the originally-plural pronoun you"? Interesting! Citation needed please?)

--71.121.143.188 (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think avoiding pronouns makes the article awkward and stilted, and is bad. As for the last bit: singular they is attested since the 1300s, e.g. in the 1325 Cursor Mundi, within a hundred years of when English first borrowed plural they from Old Norse (displacing the native Old English third-person plural hie, ironically because it had become too similar to the singular he) — and no-one thought to object to it until the 1790s (see the [[Singular they]] article for references for all those dates). By contrast, you only became common as a generic singular in place of thou in the 1600s, in a shift which was immediately controversial. (However, use of ye as an honorific singular in imitation of the French tu-vous distinction began a bit earlier.) Language evolution is neat! :)