Collab: Removing "he/she"s

[ThePremiumYoshi]

We have another problem that is quite common on our articles, and it's starting to become even more common. The page MarioWiki:Manual of Style (MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#No_.22You.22s) states that, when referring to the player, it is improper to use terms such as "he/she", "s/he", "him/her", "him/herself", etc. However, a disturbing amount of pages consistently use these exact terms to refer to the player, when they could simply avoid these gender-specific terms by using the singular "they", for example, not to mention that such terms make the article look rather unprofessional. "He or she" can be used occasionally, but it is best just to avoid these and use the aforementioned singular "they". It should be noted that it is also incorrect to refer to the player by using only "him", or only "her" - let's not be sexists here.

If you happen to find a page with these horrendous terms, simply replace them with the singular "they" or "the player". If you search for "he/she" (or the other terms), including the quotation marks, you can find pages that need fixing.

 

[Shoko]

I'll help out if I come across any.

 

[Walkazo]

You know I'll help.

 

[Ray Trace]

I definitely will replace the "he or she" thing because of its incredibly awkward structure, but I will NOT follow what the wiki policy states, since the use of singular "they" is controversial at best, and some expert writers such as E.B. White, writer of the book, "The Elements of Style", very much frown upon. Due to its controversial nature, singular "they" should not be considered standard. Instead, I will use the less controversial manner of changing the sentences: either removing the possessive pronoun altogether or replacing the singular antecedent with a plural.

EDIT: By the way, "themself" is not a word. Stop using that.

 

[ThePremiumYoshi]

Except that I did not use "themself" at all.

 

[Shoko]

"The Elements of Style"

You mention this quite a bit. I should try to find myself a copy because it sounds quite useful

 

[Ray Trace]

Well I wasn't directing it at you specifically. I was just directing at people who seem to use "themself" as a replacement when it's not even a word in the first place.'

"The Elements of Style"

You mention this quite a bit. I should try to find myself a copy because it sounds quite useful

It is. My sister taught me quite a bunch from that book. It taught me about precision in writing, bad words such as utilize, and other stuff. And best of all, it's easy to understand and it's hand-book shaped so it's very convenient

Here's a link to it.
http://www.bartleby.com/141/

 

[Shoko]

Thanks for the link!

 

[Ray Trace]

The book I have is this particular one: http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-4th-William-Strunk/dp/0205313426

But my favorite section is the clear and concise writing. Eliminating useless words is something I like to do in articles in this wiki.

 

[Ray Trace]

Let me give you examples on how we should remove "he/she"s or "he or she"s.

"The player should drive his/her kart to victory."

Now that sounds awkward. No one likes that construction. Besides, it's nonstandard. The standard version is the following

"The player should drive his or her kart to victory."

Standard, but still horribly clunky and awkward, if not a little hard to read. Still no one likes that construction, even if it's considered correct.

"The player should drive their kart to victory."

This is the construction the wiki favors, but not all of us are ok with it. Singular "they" is highly controversial, and using it would lead to some confusion on whether it is appropriate or not.

These are the sentences I am proposing we do.

"Players should drive their kart to victory."

This still makes sense since this refers to players as all people who play the game. And it eliminates the controversy. There is no way this sentence is wrong, and there is little reason to change it.

"Players should drive the kart to victory."

This eliminates the possessive pronoun through a rewrite. This requires more thought than the previous one, but it works too, and if rewritten well, will look better than the previous result.

EDIT: However, we may have a problem using the plural pronoun if something affects only one player. I suggest we lay off the pronoun usage for that, or rewrite the sentence as the second option.

 

[Pyro]

Yeah, I try to completely avoid this and usually say "Mario" or "the player" and replace a possessive pronoun with "the". I'll remove any I catch.

 

[Time Turner]

Well I wasn't directing it at you specifically. I was just directing at people who seem to use "themself" as a replacement when it's not even a word in the first place.'

I'll just point out that the word "themself" is in the Oxford dictionary, and has usage dating back to the 1400's.

 

[Shoko]

Well I wasn't directing it at you specifically. I was just directing at people who seem to use "themself" as a replacement when it's not even a word in the first place.'

I'll just point out that the word "themself" is in the Oxford dictionary, and has usage dating back to the 1400's.

BLOF's bible of words does not lie

But on more serious terms, if there are conflicting sources for the "existence" of a word, then what should we go with?

 

[Lin Beifong]

It is. My sister taught me quite a bunch from that book. It taught me about precision in writing, bad words such as utilize, and other stuff. And best of all, it's easy to understand and it's hand-book shaped so it's very convenient

The fact that this book seems to advocate that there are "bad" words, and that it lists a very commonly used word like"utilize" as such makes it questionable literature. It shows insufficient understanding of linguistic mechanisms.

A language is a living medium. It rearranges itself, it changes, it evolves. Constantly. This is a perfectly natural trait, and it is desirable, because it keeps the language alive. Making lists of "bad" words or trying to outlaw the usage of certain terms or formulations is detrimental to our cultural evolution, as it throws an obstruction into the language's way and prevents it from growing. You cannot purify a language without killing it.

Language is a mirror of culture. Language bends to the people who use it, not the other way around. You may argue about how "controversial" the use of the singular "they" is, but the fact remains unchanged that there is a significant number of people who use it, and continue to do so unrelentingly. While it may be controversial now, give it a few years and singular "they" will have been assimilated and the apparent controversity will be all but forgotten. This is how languages work.

So it would be very nice if you could stop pushing for the elimination of the singular "they". You may choose not to use it if you don't like it yourself, but don't go around yelling at other people for using it. You do not have the right to make this choice for them.

Well I wasn't directing it at you specifically. I was just directing at people who seem to use "themself" as a replacement when it's not even a word in the first place.'

I'll just point out that the word "themself" is in the Oxford dictionary, and has usage dating back to the 1400's.

BLOF's bible of words does not lie

But on more serious terms, if there are conflicting sources for the "existence" of a word, then what should we go with?

I would say the Oxford Dictionary is a more credible source.

 

[RandomYoshi]

BLOF, since you're playing linguist again I am hereby justified to chainsaw your generally lacklustre grammar into pieces.

I definitely will

You don't want the adverb placed in-between the pronoun and the verb, because that looks stupid and unprofessional.

"The Elements of Style"

While I haven't read a single page of your "Writing Bible", I'm pretty sure that book would cover the subject of titles thoroughly; it would definitely state that titles are to be italicised. You can italicise text on this forum. Logic then says there was no reason for you to not italicise that title.

E. B. White, writer of the book, "The Elements of Style", very much [...]

But my favorite section is the clear and concise writing.

I propose you learn how to be more concise in your posts, then.

bad words such as utilize

How can words be bad? How do you define a word as bad? All I interpret that comment is a way for you to vent your apparent need to be a linguist. Let me tell you something here, BLOF. Linguists know their grammar. You obviously do not know your grammar. When you aren't told by somebody whose mother tongue isn't English that your grammar is bad, you can start being a linguist. But as it stands currently, it seems like you won't be able to learn that.

Well I wasn't directing it at you specifically. I was just directing at people who seem to use "themself" as a replacement when it's not even a word in the first place.'

I'll just point out that the word "themself" is in the Oxford dictionary, and has usage dating back to the 1400's.

BLOF's bible of words does not lie

You are being shown an objective source that invalidates an opinion, yet you aren't able to realise how much BLOF uses this book as a Bible.

Seriously BLOF, did you just read that book without stopping for a while and asking yourself this very question, What were the author's intentions behind writing this book? Or, more importantly, did he want to spread any opinions? If he wanted to, shut up about that book immediately because opinionated linguistics will never flourish with these circumstances.

 

[Ray Trace]

^I don't use perfect grammar in my posts. My posts are just a way of mere expression of my thoughts and is not a standard way to type. Please don't compare forum posts to what is written in the wiki or other places where standard writing is recommended. Your post is basically a large strawman. I did not say that anything I write is perfect, and I am a far better editor than writer. But I can answer your question on the author's purpose:

The author's intentions were clearly not to spread any opinion. Its purpose is a style manual for writers. I don't know why you can even assume things without even knowing or reading what it is in the first place.

The book lists "utilize" as a bad word because it isn't clear and concise, especially since the word "use" is readily available and gives a clearer meaning. The rule of thumb is that we should eliminate unnecessary words. An example is "during the events" can easily be shortened to simply "during".

"Themself" is not a word because apparently, spellcheck puts a red underline under this.

Language is a mirror of culture. Language bends to the people who use it, not the other way around. You may argue about how "controversial" the use of the singular "they" is, but the fact remains unchanged that there is a significant number of people who use it, and continue to do so unrelentingly. While it may be controversial now, give it a few years and singular "they" will have been assimilated and the apparent controversity will be all but forgotten. This is how languages work.

So it would be very nice if you could stop pushing for the elimination of the singular "they". You may choose not to use it if you don't like it yourself, but don't go around yelling at other people for using it. You do not have the right to make this choice for them.

There are also a significant people who think using singular "they" is nonstandard and is wrong because it still describes a plural antecedent. If it's controversial now, we shouldn't assume it will rearrange itself in the future and become standard. Written languages are less dynamic than the spoken language, and while it is true that both are dynamic, the evolution of language is gradual rather than noticeable.

 

[User4042]

I already change that to the player or Mario (or whoever the playable character(s) is/are)

And my dictionary lists themself as a word

 

[Ray Trace]

According to what I read online, the use of "themself" has garnered use over the years due the singular "they" use. However, I read that "themself" is not widely accepted into standard English, despite its growing use, just like singular "they".

 

[Nathan Fielder]

because what's written online somewhere is a better source than a dictionary

 

[Ray Trace]

That source of what I read online did come from a dictionary

 

[Lin Beifong]

The book lists "utilize" as a bad word because it isn't clear and concise, especially since the word "use" is readily available and gives a clearer meaning. The rule of thumb is that we should eliminate unnecessary words.

So synonyms are bad and should be eliminated? Is that seriously what you're proposing here? I sincerely hope not. Synonyms give a language variety and character. They allow an individual to express themselves the way they see it fit. Writers, poets, and other masters of artistic crafts use these "bad words" to great effect. To discredit them is to disregard a part of culture as meaningless nonsense.

"Themself" is not a word because apparently, spellcheck puts a red underline under this.

That is a bad argument. I work with things like Microsoft Word quite often, and had I gotten a cent for every time spellcheck doesn't know a word that is well-documented and proven to exist... well, you know how the saying goes.

Also, the fact that you stand here and continue to claim "themself" is not a word, despite the fact that your claim was disproven by an established and respected source such as the Oxford Dictionary, does wonders to illustrate the credibility of your argument.

There are also a significant people who think using singular "they" is nonstandard and is wrong because it still describes a plural antecedent. If it's controversial now, we shouldn't assume it will rearrange itself in the future and become standard. Written languages are less dynamic than the spoken language, and while it is true that both are dynamic, the evolution of language is gradual rather than noticeable.

You have not understood. It doesn't matter what people think. What matters is what people use, and people use the singular "they". Some people think it's great, some people think it's dumb. None of them matter, as long as the term is out there, in frequent use. As people who actually take the time to study languages in-depth can tell you, a term becoming commonplace enough for the general public will have a definite impact on a language. It may be gradual (which I never denied, btw), but in the long run, it is inevitable.

Then there is the controversity. This "controversity" only exists because a bunch of language-purists are out there, trying their best to strangle the english language by attempting to preserve it in the exact state it is in now. As I have already explained, this is highly detrimental. If this movement were to succeed, the english language would stop evolving and die. Luckily, this is unlikely to happen.

I'll say it again since it seems it hasn't gotten through yet: You may choose to use or not use words for yourself at your leisure. I for example hate the expression "could of" and will not use it period. But if you try to make other people talk the way you want, or forbid the usage of certain words because you think they are "bad", you will meet resistance. Language will not bend to your whim alone, so stop trying to make it that way.

 

[Ray Trace]

So synonyms are bad and should be eliminated? Is that seriously what you're proposing here? I sincerely hope not.

I am no way advocating the elimation of synonyms; however, "utilize" is pompous and ambiguous compared to simply using "use".

That is a bad argument. I work with things like Microsoft Word quite often, and had I gotten a cent for every time spellcheck doesn't know a word that is well-documented and proven to exist... well, you know how the saying goes.

Also, the fact that you stand here and continue to claim "themself" is not a word, despite the fact that your claim was disproven by an established and respected source such as the Oxford Dictionary, does wonders to illustrate the credibility of your argument.

I admitted that "themself" had some use posts ago, and that it is widely used.

You have not understood. It doesn't matter what people think. What matters is what people use, and people use the singular "they". Some people think it's great, some people think it's dumb. None of them matter, as long as the term is out there, in frequent use. As people who actually take the time to study languages in-depth can tell you, a term becoming commonplace enough for the general public will have a definite impact on a language. It may be gradual (which I never denied, btw), but in the long run, it is inevitable.

Just because it's in frequent use doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. I am fine of using singular "they" in spoken language; however, I was taught that singular "they" is incorrect in formal writing.

I have read that in Britain, the use of singular "they" is recommended and regarded as correct. In the US, however, most grammar books including the Chicago Style of Writing doesn't like the use of it.

I wouldn't say the changing of singular "they" into our writing is inevitable. There are also alternative ways of changing the writing to not include pronouns that cause this much debate and controversy, if not a little political correctness in the first place. Simply using an article or changing the antecedent to a plural eliminates the entire problem.

Then there is the controversity. This "controversity" only exists because a bunch of language-purists are out there, trying their best to strangle the english language by attempting to preserve it in the exact state it is in now. As I have already explained, this is highly detrimental. If this movement were to succeed, the english language would stop evolving and die. Luckily, this is unlikely to happen.

This is not a case of "language purists trying their best to strangle the English language to preserve it". This is a case of whether "they" violates a basic grammar rule about pronoun-antecedent agreement or its widespread usage that can be assimilated into the language.

I am no language purist. I'll actually advocate for a proper nongenderspecific singular pronoun to be used in English, but using "they" is both considered wrong and right, which is why it has a debate.

I'll say it again since it seems it hasn't gotten through yet: You may choose to use or not use words for yourself at your leisure. I for example hate the expression "could of" and will not use it period. But if you try to make other people talk the way you want, or forbid the usage of certain words because you think they are "bad", you will meet resistance. Language will not bend to your whim alone, so stop trying to make it that way.

I agree that "could of" is terrible in formal usage and it makes me cringe, but I don't care if it's used informally or in dialogue.

I have no intentions of making people trying to talk the way I want. All I am following is a simple, basic grammar rule about pronoun-antecedent agreement and I am not forbidding use of anything. I'm just trying to enhance the way this wiki is written, and eliminating unnecessary or pompous words is a start to basic, good writing.

There is a reason I offered a win-win alternative for the debate over the singular "they". I personally hate the usage of "he or she" myself, even if it's considered correct. I don't like "they" either since it's a plural pronoun describing a singular antecedent. I offered just trying to revise the sentence so a pronoun is not required, or changing the singular antecedent to a plural.

 

[Lin Beifong]

I admitted that "themself" had some use posts ago, and that it is widely used.

My statement was a response to a specific statement of yours. The post in which you admitted what you just elaborated on was posted after that statement, while I was writing my response. I cannot really anticipate that you change your mind over a span of ten minutes. That's why I kept the quote in, to specify which statement I am replying to.

Just because it's in frequent use doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. I am fine of using singular "they" in spoken language; however, I was taught that singular "they" is incorrect in formal writing.

The term being in frequent use does not necessarily make it a word, that is true. The term being listed in a generally acknowledged dictionary however, does make it a word.

I have read that in Britain, the use of singular "they" is recommended and regarded as correct. In the US, however, most grammar books including the Chicago Style of Writing doesn't like the use of it.

"Doesn't like the use of it" is not equal to "defines it as incorrect".



There is another thing I have noticed. You repeatedly point out how there is controversity surrounding this subject. Controversity that comes from ambiguity, ambiguity that comes from a lack of clear rules on the subject.

I'll actually advocate for a proper nongenderspecific singular pronoun to be used in English, but using "they" is both considered wrong and right, which is why it has a debate.

You admit that the usage of singular "they" cannot accurately be classified as either right or wrong, but you still seem to insist that it is definitely "wrong". If you can produce a rule that definitely and beyond the shadow of a doubt proves singular "they" as incorrect, you should present it. Otherwise you should cease the conjecture about grammatical correctness, for speculation doesn't really get us any further.

I have no intentions of making people trying to talk the way I want.

This is flat-out not true. Take a look at this:

Due to its controversial nature, singular "they" should not be considered standard.

(...)

EDIT: By the way, "themself" is not a word. Stop using that.

This is you, directly demanding from others not to use a formulation that you do not want to see used. Incidentally, this is also the main beef I have with your position in this thread.

There is a reason I offered a win-win alternative for the debate over the singular "they". I personally hate the usage of "he or she" myself, even if it's considered correct. I don't like "they" either since it's a plural pronoun describing a singular antecedent. I offered just trying to revise the sentence so a pronoun is not required, or changing the singular antecedent to a plural.

This is actually an acceptable alternative, and if you're just going to use it without getting demanding, I will shut up immediately. All I want is that things like this

EDIT: By the way, "themself" is not a word. Stop using that.

will stop. You use your alternative, and everyone else uses either the alternative, or the way the policy illustrates, and everyone will get along just fine. Just cut out the barking orders.

 

[Tyrell Badd]

I'm just going to say that just because a red line is put under a word, that doesn't mean it's not a real word.

Firefox puts a red line under the words "teleports", "teleportation", and pretty much anything with the word teleport, yet we all know that those are words.

Same thing applies to alright and all right. They both mean the same thing, but it boils down to a matter of personal preference, I guess.

 

[Ray Trace]

Fine, I'll stop with the demanding posts. I was ignorant of the usage of "themself" at the time and now I am educated that it can be used and that spellcheck isn't always reliable. Please forgive me at times when I am demanding, since I am unreasonable when I am in a bad mood.

The term being in frequent use does not necessarily make it a word, that is true. The term being listed in a generally acknowledged dictionary however, does make it a word.

I think I was referring to singular "they" being widely used that time, actually, but now I admit that "themself" is a word.

"Doesn't like the use of it" is not equal to "defines it as incorrect".

That's bad wording on my part. When I meant that, they said it's incorrect.

There is another thing I have noticed. You repeatedly point out how there is controversity surrounding this subject. Controversity that comes from ambiguity, ambiguity that comes from a lack of clear rules on the subject.

The controversy is simply is pronoun antecedent agreement vs. frequent usage. If you do some research, you'll find out that there are two sides of an argument both making reasonable assertions.

You admit that the usage of singular "they" cannot accurately be classified as either right or wrong, but you still seem to insist that it is definitely "wrong". If you can produce a rule that definitely and beyond the shadow of a doubt proves singular "they" as incorrect, you should present it. Otherwise you should cease the conjecture about grammatical correctness, for speculation doesn't really get us any further.

Well, here in the US, I am taught that singular "they" is incorrect and shouldn't be used in formal writing since "they" is a plural and breaks the basic grammar rule of pronoun-antecedent agreement. I noticed that other areas such as Britain teaches that the singular "they" is ok to use in formal writing and that "they" equals singular pronoun. I can't produce a rule that singular "they" is incorrect of course, but neither can the opposing side produce a rule that singular "they" is correct either. So that's why I'm proposing we alter the wiki policy a little so that we satisfy both sides of the argument and stop the confusion going on here.