→Chairman/chairwoman: new section |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) →Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson: oh do stop |
||
(54 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
::I agree with you. Keep it.--[[User:Kkm010|<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">'''♥ Kkm010 ♥'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kkm010|<font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪</font>]]</sup> ߷ <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Kkm010|<font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀</font>]]</sub> 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
::I agree with you. Keep it.--[[User:Kkm010|<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">'''♥ Kkm010 ♥'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kkm010|<font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪</font>]]</sup> ߷ <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Kkm010|<font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀</font>]]</sub> 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Chairman/chairwoman == |
== Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson == |
||
⚫ | Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{rfc|bio}} |
|||
⚫ | Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
[special invitations for this party go to {{U|HiLo48}}, {{U|Moondyne}}, {{U|GroveGuy}}, {{U|AlanS}}, {{U|Mr. Stradivarius}}--and of course their opponent, {{ip|180.216.119.251}}] |
[special invitations for this party go to {{U|HiLo48}}, {{U|Moondyne}}, {{U|GroveGuy}}, {{U|AlanS}}, {{U|Mr. Stradivarius}}--and of course their opponent, {{ip|180.216.119.251}}] |
||
*Chairperson. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 03:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:*Darn it. Good point. I think I can add that without disrupting the process. Thanks! [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::*How about just ''Chair''? Although you can consider my official position to be "not really bothered". — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 04:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Chairman. [[User:GroveGuy|GroveGuy]] ([[User talk:GroveGuy|talk]]) 05:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::(1) The people pushing for "Chairwoman" use political correctness as their reason. I think this is wrong. Otherwise, to take it to the extreme, we should change all the corporations in Wikipedia to the gender neutral "Chair". |
|||
::(2) I believe everything should be supported by citations. The website of her Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited states she is the "Chairman". I feel this is an overridingly strong argument for "Chairman". |
|||
::(3) Look at this article: [[Hancock Prospecting]]. It says "Chairman". Why aren't we changing this article? |
|||
::(4) It should be noted that the newspapers aren't helpful. They use Chairwoman, Chairman, and Chair with no clear preference that I can see. None use Chairperson. |
|||
:::This is one of those topics which makes feminism look stupid, and I don't want it to look stupid. This lady is no shrinking violet. If she didn't like what her own company published, it wouldn't be published. They say ''chairman'', so she approves of it. And Australian society went through all this 30 years ago. The "''man''" in ''chairman'' does not mean a male. It means someone who '''man'''ages. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Chairman. if she wanted to call herself Grand Poohbah and that was published in the company's annual reports then we would and should call her that. Not some made up term by the PC police. [[User:Moondyne|Moondyne]] ([[User talk:Moondyne|talk]]) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Chairman. Sources provided state "Chairman"- the feminism argument is not valid here and no source states her as a "Chairwoman". [[User:Meatsgains|Meatsgains]] ([[User talk:Meatsgains|talk]]) 04:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* While the discussion is pending, can an admin at least fix the infobox so it does not say '''Excecutive''' Chairwoman? [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
**{{done}} I await the claims of admin tools misuse. [[User:Moondyne|Moondyne]] ([[User talk:Moondyne|talk]]) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Chairperson''' or '''Executive Chairperson''' - It is irrelevant that she refers to herself as Chairman or Executive Chairman. Chairman, Chairwoman and Chairperson are all potentially correct. If I were notable enough to have an article about myself and if I were to insist in the minutes of meetings of the board of directors for which I was chair that my position be noted as Chief Hobgoblin , would it even be relevant to anything at all? Chairperson can't be argued against from a gender perspective, that is what matters for me. [[User:AlanS|AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 03:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::"''Chairperson''" doesn't need to be argued against from a gender perspective. It's simply wrong, becasue it the word has nothing to do with gender. The "''man''" in "''chairman''" does not mean a male person. It means a person of any gender who '''''man'''''ages the chair. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 05:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::"''Chairperson''" is a word according to Wiktionary as is Chairman and Chairwoman. All can be used. [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chairperson]. I suggest you acquaint yourself with a dictionary in future before making statements about the meanings of words. [[User:AlanS|AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 05:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm well aware of how that word is used by some who are ignorant of what correct usage was 50 years ago. "Chairperson" is a faulty, politically correct neologism based on a misunderstanding of "chairman". We should not be part of such nonsense. We should use the best language we can. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::While I agree that "chairperson" is ugly PC and all that, I believe that the etymology for "chairman" you mention is completely bogus. The OED dates "chairman" to 1654, in the sense we understand. Yet by 1682 the word was used for sedan-chair carriers, and this is not "man" short for "manager". And in 1699, the word "chairwoman" is documented. So obviously the "man" is "chairman" was understood as gendered from almost the beginning. |
|||
:::::On top of that, words don't ''mean'' their etymology. Something can have a totally harmless origin, but once perception sets in, too bad. Complaining about it as part of a WP discussion isn't relevant or helpful whatsoever. [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Is that directed at those complaining about "Chairman"? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 12:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::My complaint is directed at anybody who mentions details regarding the etymology of a word hundreds of years ago as if that matters to what we are supposed to make of a word today. Someone who says that because William Shakestoor in 1654 combined "chair" with "manager", we have to ''man'' up and ignore how people in 2014 actually understand "chairman" is not contributing anything useful to this discussion. This is true even if the etymology were true, all the more so if the etymology is completely made up. [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Chairperson''' No gender discrimination as well as it will settle the edit-war. — '''[[User:Cutest Penguin|<font color="#D60047">C</font><font color="#F0A000">ute</font><font color="#00A300">st</font><font color="#0A47FF">Penguin</font>]]'''<sup><small>[[User talk:Cutest Penguin|Hangout ]]</small></sup> 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::And what about accuracy and reporting per RS? Chairperson settles nothing. [[User:Moondyne|Moondyne]] ([[User talk:Moondyne|talk]]) 00:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Summoned here by bot, and refreshing to be presented with a simple question. I think '''chairperson''' nowadays is most commonly utilized in such situations. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Worldwide? In company reports? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Chairman''' What a waste of bytes, her own company's website says "[http://www.hancockprospecting.com.au/go/about-hancock-prospecting Gina Rinehart the current chairman of HPPL]" so please, just use chairman and move along. We use RS, not PC. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, when the lady herself is obviously perfectly happy with "''chairman''", I cannot see why anyone wants to argue that it should be something else. That's really a quite irrational position to take. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::And if her own companies website referred to her position in the company as "Chief Gimp", that is what you'd argue should be used because it is a RS? [[User:AlanS|AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 01:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's a pointless, near impossible hypothetical. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hypothetical yes. Pointless no. The point is very obviously that Gina Rinehart's preferences in how she is referred to as far as title goes should have little bearing on what this article shows to be her title. The accepted usage of words should be the main determinant. Argue "PC rubbish" all you like but titles such as Chairman are falling out of usage in favour of titles such as Chairperson. [[User:AlanS|AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Not in Gina Rinehart's companies. And I say again, it was a stupid hypothetical. Many people are called chairmen in company reports. Nobody is called a Chief Gimp. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::More than just a stupid hypothetical, it is a massively irrelevant hypothetical. We have a ''particular'' question, we deal with ''that'' question. Policy is hammered out based on actual issues that come up. It is well-understood that there will always be extreme cases that no one thought up before, and that applying policy as written leads to unacceptable absurdities, and that is what [[WP:IAR]] is for. Pointing out that somewhere there might be an extreme case and the argument would clearly be different in that case isn't adding one iota to the discussion. It's simply an annoying distraction. [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Chairman''': This debate should not exist. Quoting from the top of [[WP:GENDER]], (an essay explaining [[WP:GNL]] in detail, which is policy), specifies WP articles should, in general, favor gender-neutral language, but there is a list of exceptions: |
|||
{{quote|The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Situations this does not apply to include: [...] when the subject prefers a gendered term. This includes a woman preferring a masculine term, for example: "From 1998 to 2000, she <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Esther Dyson#Philanthropy|Esther Dyson]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> was the founding ''chairman (not chairwoman or chairperson)'' of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.".}} |
|||
and from [[MOS:IDENTITY]], a guideline: |
|||
{{quote|An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.}} |
|||
Since reliable sources tell us that Rinehart prefers "she" but also prefers "chairman", we rely on that. We almost always respect self-designation at all times. It's not our job to tell people what they ought to be calling themselves, no matter how brilliant or cogent your argument is. |
|||
Yes, at the very top of [[MOS:]] there is the all-purpose reference to [[WP:IAR]]. But unless you anti-Chairman people explain why this particular situation is so incredibly different, you're not contributing anything to this discussion. Running the generic run-of-the-mill arguments about gender and language isn't grounds for ignoring the rules we already have. [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 12:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Does that policy you've quoted state that we should prefer self-designation over common usage? Chairperson is not only gender neutral, I'd argue it's also increasing being used more and more as against chairman. [[User:AlanS|AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::The quoted statements most clearly, emphatically, unambiguously do state that we should prefer self-designation over common usage. Why are you even bothering to ask? As it is, your statement about how chairman/chairperson are used elsewhere seems to be nothing but a personal opinion. Worse, your statement could not possibly be relevant, since it is an assertion about a trend (no part of policy whatsoever). It is not an assertion about which term is used most commonly (which is a consideration in policy). [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Off-topic material moved to [[User talk:AlanS]], per [[WP:TALKO]] guidelines. In brief: this can only be a discussion about existing policy and how it applies to this page, not for your opinion of existing policy, or showing off the well-known fact that policy is not going to be 100% perfect in all possible situations. Stray comments are one thing, but upon being reminded to stick to the permitted topics, you point-blank have refused to do so. Another editor has also pointed out that your hypotheticals are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Further deliberate misuse of this page will be responded to with reversion. You are welcome to continue to discuss the application of existing policy/guidelines/etc to the actual question before us. |
|||
*As I stated above, I do not see why this discussion exists, since the quoted guidelines are completely explicit on this issue. By your choice of responding with irrelevant and ludicrous hypotheticals, I conclude that you completely agree. [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::If you are going to remove material on the basis that you deem it to be off-topic and move it to another talk page, I'd suggest that you make yourself fully aware of the policy you claim to be doing it under before using it as justification. Specifically: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." Now to be straight forward, you have no grounds to presume I agree with anything. [[User:AlanS|AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fortunately, I did not err whatsoever. Not even close. I left in your pointless "Chief Gimp" hypothetical above, because it was still marginally on-topic, concerning a matter governed by [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:CONS]], [[WP:BLP]], [[MOS:]], and so on. The material moved to your talk page concerned how editors interact with editors, and as such is governed by an entirely different set of rules, like [[WP:CIV]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:NPA]], and so on, and therefore no amount of discussion could ever bear on the present question. This is 100% obvious. Thus, it was absolutely off-topic. Consult [[WP:CIR]]. |
|||
:::And I most certainly have grounds for my conclusions, and I explicitly stated them. [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
'''Chairman'''. Per AlanS. No brainer. --[[User:Shabidoo|Shabidoo]] | [[User talk:Shabidoo|Talk]] 02:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:That is certainly not my position. I would argue for what is increasingly becoming common usage and that would be '''Chair''' or '''Chairperson''' I would argue. I would not rely on self ascription at all. [[User:AlanS|AlanS'']]<sup>[[User talk:AlanS|talk]]</sup> 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::What is "increasingly becoming common usage" is irrelevant. The actual common usage, not the trend, is what is relevant. Similarly, we usually rely on self-ascriptions in matters of gender. You've had both of these points clearly explained to you. You have absolutely made no response other than further irrelevancies, some ludicrously off-topic. In short, you are being [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|pointlessly disruptive]]. [[User:Choor monster|Choor monster]] ([[User talk:Choor monster|talk]]) 16:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
'''Chairman'''. Let's stick with reality. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:IgnorantArmies|<font color="crimson">IgnorantArmies</font>]]'''</small> 10:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
'''Chairman''' as being the most common word for the position. "-man" is similar here in usage to the German usage of "man" which simply means "a person." The German word for "Chairman" is ... "Chairman" (or "Vorsitzender" which has the masculine "r" at the end). [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Chairman''', per sources and common use. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Chairman''' per sources and common use. The organization gets to decide what the position is called. If they say it's Chief Hobgoblin, then we'd say that. See, for example [[Guido van Rossum]] who is [[Benevolent Dictator For Life]]. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I counted about 4 people in favour of chairperson. There may be a majority but nobody could conclusively argue why one term was better than the other. Therefore, chairperson or chair is the most neutral, and is more in keeping with gender neutral language. She may refer to herself as chairman (actually her official title is executive chairman), perhaps you would like to change it to that, but that doesn't mean we should use that term. We should endeavour to use terms that are relevant, and the use of gendered roles in positions of business is increasingly becoming not de riguer. Since nobody can seemingly agree, the best option is to use chairperson instead of chairman and chairwoman. This alternative pleases everyone. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/180.216.85.183|180.216.85.183]] ([[User talk:180.216.85.183|talk]]) 16:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I've read some nonsense in my time here, but this is biscuit worthy. There are at least '''ten''' in favour of "chairman". This is very simple. Time to stop arguing against the majority consensus. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 16:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:54, 18 October 2014
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hayward
"a surname considered more compatible with Hancock" (paraphrased from Leser, p150) What does that mean anyway? How is Milton less compatible with Hancock than Hayward? –Moondyne 13:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Charity or donations?
It's interesting that there's no mention of charities or non-profit organizations that Mrs Rinehart contributes to. Surely there must be something somewhere or is her PR mob hopeless? Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good pick up. Section on wealth and philanthropy added. Thanks Jherschel (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- But the Philanthropy section still contains not a single charity that has received funding from Rinehart. Visiting orphanages isn't philanthropy, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.162.103 (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- According to the Australian peak body, Philanthropy Australia, philanthropy is The planned and structured giving of, time, information, goods and services, voice and influence, as well as money, to improve the wellbeing of humanity and the community. Visiting orphanages is giving of time and potentially voice and influence. Some individuals are also private and Rinehart may have given money, but chosen to do it without drawing attention to herself. In other words, I believe that the naming of this section is appropriate and in line with similar sections for other Australian ultra high net worth individuals and their families. Rangasyd (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rinewhat private? Not wanting to draw attention to herself? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The only notable thing about her philanthropy is the lack of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.170.161 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better way of describing her philanthropy is the lack of publicity surrounding her personal giving of time, information, good, services, voice and influences, as well as money. Rangasyd (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad the only thing she has worth giving away she won't even give to her own children, let alone charity. Who the Hell needs advice from a wealthy heiress who's never had a hard day in her life? Maybe I'll ask Paris Hilton to do my taxes or Kim Kardashian to advise me on politics. Seems about as relevant as asking Gina Rinehart to spend time telling me how I should just work more if I want to be rich. Guess I should have inherited more money when I was born. Bad business on my behalf. 110.174.91.113 (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better way of describing her philanthropy is the lack of publicity surrounding her personal giving of time, information, good, services, voice and influences, as well as money. Rangasyd (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The only notable thing about her philanthropy is the lack of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.170.161 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rinewhat private? Not wanting to draw attention to herself? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- According to the Australian peak body, Philanthropy Australia, philanthropy is The planned and structured giving of, time, information, goods and services, voice and influence, as well as money, to improve the wellbeing of humanity and the community. Visiting orphanages is giving of time and potentially voice and influence. Some individuals are also private and Rinehart may have given money, but chosen to do it without drawing attention to herself. In other words, I believe that the naming of this section is appropriate and in line with similar sections for other Australian ultra high net worth individuals and their families. Rangasyd (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- But the Philanthropy section still contains not a single charity that has received funding from Rinehart. Visiting orphanages isn't philanthropy, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.162.103 (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Date of divorce
The current article says that Rinehart's first marriage ended in divorce in 2001; previous versions have said 1981. The current version is nonsensical, as later the article says her second husband died many years before they were supposedly married, and that Rinehart was 29 at her second marriage. Risker (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Divorced in 1981 per a couple of sources. I've tried to improve the citations but grateful for a sanity check. Moondyne (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Recent court action
Another editor wants to include this week's details in the lede, while dropping the Rose Porteous action which carried on for over ten years. I disagree, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" [my emphasis]. The reasons for the Supreme Court writ aren't even known at this stage—when they are, it might be worthy of mention there, but I think some water has to pass under the bridge to beat the long-term notability of the earlier actions. Moondyne (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well done. I agree entirely. Inclusion of Rinehart's legal battle with her step-mother was notable and is deserving of inclusion in the lead paragraph because of its cost, its length, the media column inches, the book(s) written, and the implications of foul play both in suspected murder, and the suspected bribing of witnesses - all cleared by the coronial inquiry. Porteous' public remonstrations also made the case memorable to most Australians. As to the current case, it may well be notable over time, but the simple lodging of a commercial writ in the NSW Supreme Court does not make it worthy of inclusion in the lead. If the writ was, say, placing a halt on Hancock Prospecting trading and having implications on the company's profit, a significant impact on Rinehart's wealth, etc, then may be including in the lead may be ok. But at this stage, we simply don't know and it's better to err on the side of caution and include in the body of the article. Well done on the layout of the table, too. I knew it wasn't quite right when I left it last. Jherschel (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Addition of the court order to the headline
After a threat by John in 2004 to take legal action against his mother over the trust and his role in the family business, Mrs Rinehart and her children entered into a deed which requires that all family disputes have to be settled in confidence. The existence of the agreement, signed in April 2007, was widely speculated at the time, but had not been confirmed until september 13.
In a judgment handed down in the NSW Supreme Court on september 14, Justice Paul Brereton said that no small part of the family's immense wealth resided in the trust. The dispute centres on the governance of the trust. The children, led by Mrs Rinehart's third daughter, Hope Rinehart Welker, took urgent legal action on September 5 seeking relief. But the nature of the relief is subject to a suppression order.
It seems to me that even if we wait we might not be able to see the outcome of the case given the supression order. It can be considered to be noteworthy given the previous history of legal dramas, the judge's admission of the size of the trust and the confirmation of the existence of the privacy agreement in 2004. I would welcome your comments given this explanation. Forgive me if you though i was previously editwarring, this is my first talk page entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.12.176 (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Last things first: Thnks for joining in the discussion - Wikipedia works much better as a collegiate effort when all points of view are explained rather than bickering. I just now read that latest news report, and given yr 2nd point in particular "the judge's admission of the size of the trust" as well as the likelihood that further detail is now unlikely, I swayed towards agreeing with you that the sparse info we have is leadworthy. Its interesting that Justice Brereton also said the case "is and always was a family dispute, about interests in and governance of a family trust. ... No questions of public significance or importance appear to arise." :) Moondyne (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome to the world of talk, User:180.216.12.176 :-) You will find us really friendly in here. I agree with you now, and with Moondyne. The matter is worthy of inclusion in the intro in light of the order made by Brereton J. I have now added a citation to his order and removed duplications of the references, as well as some of the wording from his order. Thanks for your contributions in this article and on this talk page. I hope that you create an account and see you contribute to other articles in Wikipedia. Thanks again. Jherschel (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Climate change denial
An editor keeps on sticking in skeptic instead of denial when a newspaper headline says denial and the article specifically says that one of the two brought out was a denier. That the newspaper called the other a skeptic doesn't change the force of the headline or the other persons description. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put too much weight on a newspaper headline. Perhaps you might be able to find an additional reference beyond a newspaper headline that describes their position on climate change. Rangasyd (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well a quick check turned up a number including talking about her funding Monckton and at the same time saying Monckton is a climate change denier, e.g. [1]. The interesting business though is I just saw Gina Reinhart has appointed Ian Plimer to the board of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments on January 25[ http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/local-business/rinehart-appoints-plimer-to-board-roles/story-e6frg2s3-1226259721980]. He was already on her Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision lobby group. Ian Plimer is yet another person who has been called a denier or a 'controversial sceptic' in mainstream press, Gina Rinehart does seem to go in for this sort of stuff in a big way.
- Anyway someone want to do something about Ian Plimer?, I see his article also doesn't cover this latest bit. I've moved off doing anything much about climate change and only had this article on my watchlist by accident. Just the idea that Monckton is a genuine sceptic in any ordinary meaning of the term just strikes me as ludicrous. Dmcq (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The references used are hardly newspaper headlines. One is an opinion piece published on an opinion website written by journalist who writes writes only on environmental and sustainability issues and clearly has a strong POV. The other is a transcript of a Radio National program, which says nothing about Monckton being a denier except in the reader commentary. There are other mainstream newspapers who refer to Monckton as a sceptic rather than as a denier, e.g. [2]. As I said in the edit summary, 'denier' seems a bit strong in the context of this biography. Maybe we could get better sources (i.e. news rather than opinion written by those fully engaged in the climate change debate) or we could just refer to Monckton by name and let the reader decide.--Landscape goats (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay I'll just replace what's there with the one above. Saying somebody is a sceptic doesn't stop them being deniers. He's only a sceptic by mangling the meaning of the word, he brough a court case against an academic and tried to get them thrown out of their job because they had the temerity to inspect his arguments and ask for his sources. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest the Crickey and the Independent Australia references that have been added are not relevant in the context of what is currently written. The Crikey reference refers to links between Rinehart and Monckton but doesn’t say that she sponsored his Australia trip. Similarly, the independentaustralia.net reference says nothing about Rinehart sponsoring Monckton, and would appear unsuitable in this context anyway as it is a contentious opinion piece on a site devoted to political activism.
- Okay I'll just replace what's there with the one above. Saying somebody is a sceptic doesn't stop them being deniers. He's only a sceptic by mangling the meaning of the word, he brough a court case against an academic and tried to get them thrown out of their job because they had the temerity to inspect his arguments and ask for his sources. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The references used are hardly newspaper headlines. One is an opinion piece published on an opinion website written by journalist who writes writes only on environmental and sustainability issues and clearly has a strong POV. The other is a transcript of a Radio National program, which says nothing about Monckton being a denier except in the reader commentary. There are other mainstream newspapers who refer to Monckton as a sceptic rather than as a denier, e.g. [2]. As I said in the edit summary, 'denier' seems a bit strong in the context of this biography. Maybe we could get better sources (i.e. news rather than opinion written by those fully engaged in the climate change debate) or we could just refer to Monckton by name and let the reader decide.--Landscape goats (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway someone want to do something about Ian Plimer?, I see his article also doesn't cover this latest bit. I've moved off doing anything much about climate change and only had this article on my watchlist by accident. Just the idea that Monckton is a genuine sceptic in any ordinary meaning of the term just strikes me as ludicrous. Dmcq (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Text of the Monthly article notwithstanding, labelling Monckton a denier in the context of this BLP seems inappropriately contentious. As I pointed out before, other mainstream media outlets refer to M as a sceptic; given this fact, a more conservative approach would seem prudent. As for Plimer, it could be argued that his appointment to boards of mining companies hardly counts as a political act. He is, after all, an experienced mining geologist who has served on boards of many other mining companies during his career. There is already text regarding ANDEV – I suggest therefore that mention of Plimer can be removed. --Landscape goats (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't up to us to judge the sources and the source put up top that Plimer was mainly known as a climate sceptic, I don't see why you are so keen to change what the newspapers say. I'll raise an RfC about this as we don't seem to be able to see eye to eye about what the sources say. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- One doesn't need either site - the SMH clearly states "THE mining mogul Gina Rinehart has sponsored a speech by the British climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton at a West Australian university" while The Australian says something similar. It appears from the context that she sponsored his appearance at Notre Dame, no less at a lecture in honour of her dead father which she possibly revived just to host Monckton, but is silent on whether she had anything to do with his appearance in Australia more broadly - the suggestion is that she did not. Graham Readfearn, a freelance journalist writing for the ABC, says she "offered a donation to cover [his] costs", while other articles suggest another organisation, AAME, paid for most of it. Only very recent stories (literally within the past week) that I can find suggest she bankrolled the whole thing. So the consensus of journalistic opinion appears to be that she funded the Perth leg of his 2011 tour, and donated or contributed to the costs of the remainder but not in a primary capacity. Orderinchaos 07:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
RfC do the sources say Monckton was a climate change denier?
This is about phrasing the 'Political activities' section of the article where there is a disagreement as detailed in the section just above this. Should describing Monckton as a climate change denier be changed to sceptic? Should we remove mention of Plimer? Dmcq (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There might be other references than the ones cited but Robert Manne is a university professor of politics so his blog would seem to come under the category of a blog by a professional. Per WP:NEWSBLOG: "These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the newspaper's normal fact checking process." Manne's piece definitely categorizes Monckton as a climate change "denier" and states that Rinehart was reported to have sponsored Monckton's Australia trip. But climate change "sceptic" makes the point as well so either seems appropriate here. At some point one is obliged to avert the ridiculous. Coaster92 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Sceptic" sounds more neutral than "denier" to me - I may be wrong, but the former to me simply suggests that one is sceptical of the scientific claims currently in vogue, while the latter suggests that one in denial of a self-evident truth, like a flat-earther. NPOV is a fairly fundamental policy around here. Additionally, Manne is considered a controversial writer in Australia, so his use of a particular word shouldn't really influence the usage here - he's hardly the Macquarie Dictionary. I think if this can be resolved quickly then the other content issues can be moved onto - they're more important. Orderinchaos 07:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've always been a spade is a spade person myself and would say a person is dead rather than gone to meet their maker. However if people really feel that skeptic is okay for someone like Monckton I suppose that's what consensus is. Personally I feel it is a grave slight to all the people who are interested in climate change and genuinely unsure about it to have skeptic take on this meaning and to all the scientists who like to be described as skeptics.
- Anyway as to Ian Plimer who she's just appointed to various boards, and all references to whom were also removed by [3] and the removal explained as in the previous discussion - how do people feel about that? Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems according to the Pentagon I should have referred to a 'combat emplacement evacuator'! ;-)Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I dislike the term too, but there's just about no other term used in the media (c.f. WP:SURPRISE) that we can readily use. "Opponent of climate change science" is wordy and probably has its own POV issues. Re Plimer - there are reliable sources - Australian PerthNow/Sunday Times - with both speaking specifically to the likely reasons why he was chosen, so it seems reasonable to put it in. Orderinchaos 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Orderinchaos does make a valid point, that "sceptic" sounds more neutral than "denier" and so would be more in line with WP:NPOV. It seems the mention of Plimer's appointment would be more appropriate under Business Activities, instead of Political Activities. Taking the article as a whole, readers will still get a picture of her beliefs.Coaster92 (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- He is noted under climate change scepticism and the sources make a big point of that though. After all the other members of her boards are not mentioned under business activities, there's no real notability so they'd only be in if Wikipedia became a directory of company hierarchies. Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good point Dmcq. It seems if Plimer is mentioned under Political Activities, then the connection to Political Activities needs to be made. Although I suppose if his mention is right after Monckton, the connection is there.Coaster92 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sceptic is preferred by NPOV. Nobody Ent 10:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Sceptic" is a more neutral terms. That's the problem: he isn't "neutral". He goes on tours to speak against the theory. To describe this as simply "scepticism" is a foolish euphemism. He DENIES climate change is caused by human activities. That's what "denier" is short for. It does not equate to the psychological term of "being in denial". Barsoomian (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think in colloquial parlance it evidently does, which is why advocates of this or that use the term to describe their opponents. Otherwise the term 'sceptic' could be used, as it is by those arguing from a neutral standpoint. To 'deny the devil and all his works' implies that it cannot be questioned that he exists. 81.101.139.189 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: If any connexion is doirectly made to "climate change" in this BLP, then the ArbCom rulings thereon clearly would apply. I suggest that adding that side issue therefore does not benefit this BLP, as it is subject to the following ruling:.
- Editors and administrators are reminded of the stringent requirements of the biography of living persons policy, particularly the importance of proper sourcing, disinterested and neutral tone, and ensuring that information added is specific to the subject of the article and given the correct weighting within the article
Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Sum total of wealth may be inaccurate
GR's wealth figure seems to be the total value of the companies she controls. It is not a given that she owns it all, because the old man had bequeathed some shares to his four grandchildchildren. We do not know what shares, and we do not need to know, really. What we do know is that some shares in that foundation belong to the four adult children, so GR does NOT own 100 %. She CONTROLS that assett, just like a CEO, but owns some of it. We should not parrot figures that can not be factual and accurate. This comment is about figures, no opinion piece on the events surrounding this Dynasty/Dallas saga. 144.136.192.14 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with the caution, but the bottom line is we should be relying on reliable sources as to what the estimates are. If we think the source is reliable, then we quote the number. We don't do original research to look behind the sources. Might be useful to have a check of what those sources say about how they arrive at the figures. May also wish to use words like "her wealth is estimated to be...". hamiltonstone (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's also worth pointing out the extreme disparity between the listed figures from BRW and Forbes and that the way the table displays them is very misleading. The AUD has been on, or near (above and below), parity with the USD for quite a while now. $AU29b is, for all intents and purposes, $US29b and nowehere near $US18b. Both figures should be quoted in the same currency for clarity and a note that the figures are estimates (and what those estimates are based on). Right now, that table seems to imply that the AUD is worth almost half what the USD is and that she really isn't "all that rich".220.233.71.222 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Having been the contributor that added the tables for the Top 10 wealthiest Australians, I can comment a little further about the two measures.
- Firstly, the indices are released at different times. Forbes early in the calendar year, BRW in late May. It would appear (but I am not certain) that both Forbes and BRW each draw a line at a point in time and then values the known assets held at that point in time. The timing of that date for each is different and is not known.
- Secondly, there is the disparity of the reporting currency. Forbes reports in US$; BRW in A$. Given that it is typical that people on these lists have assets, not just in Australia, but elsewhere, there is always a myriad of conversions at the point of time of valuing assets. And then there is movement in currencies from the time of valuation until publication; and then again following publication. For example, BRW may draw the line in June (2011), take eleven months to collate data from shareholdings, publish the following May (2012), and you look at it today (November 2012)...and that is not even taking taking into consideration movements in commodity prices!!
- Thirdly, the tables are not there for comparison between each other, but they are there to reflect movement in value over time, whether it be upwards or downwards, in each index.
- Whilst I acknowledge the caution, none of us (unless you're a member of the Rinehart family/sanctum), have seen a copy of the Trust Deed that reportedly provides for the family of the late Lang Hancock. What is known is that Gina Rinehart is the sole trustee of the trust; and hence controls the assets. I agree with hamiltonstone that it is not up to us to do original research. We should rely on solid sources; and both Forbes and BRW have the runs on the board with this kind of reporting. Rangasyd (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Having been the contributor that added the tables for the Top 10 wealthiest Australians, I can comment a little further about the two measures.
- It's also worth pointing out the extreme disparity between the listed figures from BRW and Forbes and that the way the table displays them is very misleading. The AUD has been on, or near (above and below), parity with the USD for quite a while now. $AU29b is, for all intents and purposes, $US29b and nowehere near $US18b. Both figures should be quoted in the same currency for clarity and a note that the figures are estimates (and what those estimates are based on). Right now, that table seems to imply that the AUD is worth almost half what the USD is and that she really isn't "all that rich".220.233.71.222 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Did she study at university?
According to the 2010 "newsmaker" article in SMH, "she tried economics at Sydney University". It does not say she graduated, and the impression os of a brief period of study. But unless someone has a reliable source saying she did not study at the university, i suggest the information be left in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Keep it.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson
Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson? Drmies (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
[special invitations for this party go to HiLo48, Moondyne, GroveGuy, AlanS, Mr. Stradivarius--and of course their opponent, 180.216.119.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)]
- Chairperson. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Darn it. Good point. I think I can add that without disrupting the process. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- How about just Chair? Although you can consider my official position to be "not really bothered". — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairman. GroveGuy (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- (1) The people pushing for "Chairwoman" use political correctness as their reason. I think this is wrong. Otherwise, to take it to the extreme, we should change all the corporations in Wikipedia to the gender neutral "Chair".
- (2) I believe everything should be supported by citations. The website of her Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited states she is the "Chairman". I feel this is an overridingly strong argument for "Chairman".
- (3) Look at this article: Hancock Prospecting. It says "Chairman". Why aren't we changing this article?
- (4) It should be noted that the newspapers aren't helpful. They use Chairwoman, Chairman, and Chair with no clear preference that I can see. None use Chairperson.
- This is one of those topics which makes feminism look stupid, and I don't want it to look stupid. This lady is no shrinking violet. If she didn't like what her own company published, it wouldn't be published. They say chairman, so she approves of it. And Australian society went through all this 30 years ago. The "man" in chairman does not mean a male. It means someone who manages. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairman. if she wanted to call herself Grand Poohbah and that was published in the company's annual reports then we would and should call her that. Not some made up term by the PC police. Moondyne (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairman. Sources provided state "Chairman"- the feminism argument is not valid here and no source states her as a "Chairwoman". Meatsgains (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- While the discussion is pending, can an admin at least fix the infobox so it does not say Excecutive Chairwoman? Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Done I await the claims of admin tools misuse. Moondyne (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairperson or Executive Chairperson - It is irrelevant that she refers to herself as Chairman or Executive Chairman. Chairman, Chairwoman and Chairperson are all potentially correct. If I were notable enough to have an article about myself and if I were to insist in the minutes of meetings of the board of directors for which I was chair that my position be noted as Chief Hobgoblin , would it even be relevant to anything at all? Chairperson can't be argued against from a gender perspective, that is what matters for me. AlanStalk 03:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Chairperson" doesn't need to be argued against from a gender perspective. It's simply wrong, becasue it the word has nothing to do with gender. The "man" in "chairman" does not mean a male person. It means a person of any gender who manages the chair. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Chairperson" is a word according to Wiktionary as is Chairman and Chairwoman. All can be used. [4]. I suggest you acquaint yourself with a dictionary in future before making statements about the meanings of words. AlanStalk 05:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Chairperson" doesn't need to be argued against from a gender perspective. It's simply wrong, becasue it the word has nothing to do with gender. The "man" in "chairman" does not mean a male person. It means a person of any gender who manages the chair. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of how that word is used by some who are ignorant of what correct usage was 50 years ago. "Chairperson" is a faulty, politically correct neologism based on a misunderstanding of "chairman". We should not be part of such nonsense. We should use the best language we can. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree that "chairperson" is ugly PC and all that, I believe that the etymology for "chairman" you mention is completely bogus. The OED dates "chairman" to 1654, in the sense we understand. Yet by 1682 the word was used for sedan-chair carriers, and this is not "man" short for "manager". And in 1699, the word "chairwoman" is documented. So obviously the "man" is "chairman" was understood as gendered from almost the beginning.
- On top of that, words don't mean their etymology. Something can have a totally harmless origin, but once perception sets in, too bad. Complaining about it as part of a WP discussion isn't relevant or helpful whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that directed at those complaining about "Chairman"? HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- My complaint is directed at anybody who mentions details regarding the etymology of a word hundreds of years ago as if that matters to what we are supposed to make of a word today. Someone who says that because William Shakestoor in 1654 combined "chair" with "manager", we have to man up and ignore how people in 2014 actually understand "chairman" is not contributing anything useful to this discussion. This is true even if the etymology were true, all the more so if the etymology is completely made up. Choor monster (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that directed at those complaining about "Chairman"? HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of how that word is used by some who are ignorant of what correct usage was 50 years ago. "Chairperson" is a faulty, politically correct neologism based on a misunderstanding of "chairman". We should not be part of such nonsense. We should use the best language we can. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairperson No gender discrimination as well as it will settle the edit-war. — CutestPenguinHangout 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- And what about accuracy and reporting per RS? Chairperson settles nothing. Moondyne (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Summoned here by bot, and refreshing to be presented with a simple question. I think chairperson nowadays is most commonly utilized in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Worldwide? In company reports? HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairman What a waste of bytes, her own company's website says "Gina Rinehart the current chairman of HPPL" so please, just use chairman and move along. We use RS, not PC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, when the lady herself is obviously perfectly happy with "chairman", I cannot see why anyone wants to argue that it should be something else. That's really a quite irrational position to take. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- And if her own companies website referred to her position in the company as "Chief Gimp", that is what you'd argue should be used because it is a RS? AlanStalk 01:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's a pointless, near impossible hypothetical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hypothetical yes. Pointless no. The point is very obviously that Gina Rinehart's preferences in how she is referred to as far as title goes should have little bearing on what this article shows to be her title. The accepted usage of words should be the main determinant. Argue "PC rubbish" all you like but titles such as Chairman are falling out of usage in favour of titles such as Chairperson. AlanStalk 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not in Gina Rinehart's companies. And I say again, it was a stupid hypothetical. Many people are called chairmen in company reports. Nobody is called a Chief Gimp. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- More than just a stupid hypothetical, it is a massively irrelevant hypothetical. We have a particular question, we deal with that question. Policy is hammered out based on actual issues that come up. It is well-understood that there will always be extreme cases that no one thought up before, and that applying policy as written leads to unacceptable absurdities, and that is what WP:IAR is for. Pointing out that somewhere there might be an extreme case and the argument would clearly be different in that case isn't adding one iota to the discussion. It's simply an annoying distraction. Choor monster (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not in Gina Rinehart's companies. And I say again, it was a stupid hypothetical. Many people are called chairmen in company reports. Nobody is called a Chief Gimp. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hypothetical yes. Pointless no. The point is very obviously that Gina Rinehart's preferences in how she is referred to as far as title goes should have little bearing on what this article shows to be her title. The accepted usage of words should be the main determinant. Argue "PC rubbish" all you like but titles such as Chairman are falling out of usage in favour of titles such as Chairperson. AlanStalk 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's a pointless, near impossible hypothetical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- And if her own companies website referred to her position in the company as "Chief Gimp", that is what you'd argue should be used because it is a RS? AlanStalk 01:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, when the lady herself is obviously perfectly happy with "chairman", I cannot see why anyone wants to argue that it should be something else. That's really a quite irrational position to take. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairman: This debate should not exist. Quoting from the top of WP:GENDER, (an essay explaining WP:GNL in detail, which is policy), specifies WP articles should, in general, favor gender-neutral language, but there is a list of exceptions:
The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Situations this does not apply to include: [...] when the subject prefers a gendered term. This includes a woman preferring a masculine term, for example: "From 1998 to 2000, she [Esther Dyson] was the founding chairman (not chairwoman or chairperson) of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.".
and from MOS:IDENTITY, a guideline:
An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.
Since reliable sources tell us that Rinehart prefers "she" but also prefers "chairman", we rely on that. We almost always respect self-designation at all times. It's not our job to tell people what they ought to be calling themselves, no matter how brilliant or cogent your argument is. Yes, at the very top of MOS: there is the all-purpose reference to WP:IAR. But unless you anti-Chairman people explain why this particular situation is so incredibly different, you're not contributing anything to this discussion. Running the generic run-of-the-mill arguments about gender and language isn't grounds for ignoring the rules we already have. Choor monster (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Does that policy you've quoted state that we should prefer self-designation over common usage? Chairperson is not only gender neutral, I'd argue it's also increasing being used more and more as against chairman. AlanStalk 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- The quoted statements most clearly, emphatically, unambiguously do state that we should prefer self-designation over common usage. Why are you even bothering to ask? As it is, your statement about how chairman/chairperson are used elsewhere seems to be nothing but a personal opinion. Worse, your statement could not possibly be relevant, since it is an assertion about a trend (no part of policy whatsoever). It is not an assertion about which term is used most commonly (which is a consideration in policy). Choor monster (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Off-topic material moved to User talk:AlanS, per WP:TALKO guidelines. In brief: this can only be a discussion about existing policy and how it applies to this page, not for your opinion of existing policy, or showing off the well-known fact that policy is not going to be 100% perfect in all possible situations. Stray comments are one thing, but upon being reminded to stick to the permitted topics, you point-blank have refused to do so. Another editor has also pointed out that your hypotheticals are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Further deliberate misuse of this page will be responded to with reversion. You are welcome to continue to discuss the application of existing policy/guidelines/etc to the actual question before us.
- As I stated above, I do not see why this discussion exists, since the quoted guidelines are completely explicit on this issue. By your choice of responding with irrelevant and ludicrous hypotheticals, I conclude that you completely agree. Choor monster (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you are going to remove material on the basis that you deem it to be off-topic and move it to another talk page, I'd suggest that you make yourself fully aware of the policy you claim to be doing it under before using it as justification. Specifically: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." Now to be straight forward, you have no grounds to presume I agree with anything. AlanStalk 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I did not err whatsoever. Not even close. I left in your pointless "Chief Gimp" hypothetical above, because it was still marginally on-topic, concerning a matter governed by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CONS, WP:BLP, MOS:, and so on. The material moved to your talk page concerned how editors interact with editors, and as such is governed by an entirely different set of rules, like WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and so on, and therefore no amount of discussion could ever bear on the present question. This is 100% obvious. Thus, it was absolutely off-topic. Consult WP:CIR.
- And I most certainly have grounds for my conclusions, and I explicitly stated them. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you are going to remove material on the basis that you deem it to be off-topic and move it to another talk page, I'd suggest that you make yourself fully aware of the policy you claim to be doing it under before using it as justification. Specifically: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." Now to be straight forward, you have no grounds to presume I agree with anything. AlanStalk 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Chairman. Per AlanS. No brainer. --Shabidoo | Talk 02:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is certainly not my position. I would argue for what is increasingly becoming common usage and that would be Chair or Chairperson I would argue. I would not rely on self ascription at all. AlanStalk 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- What is "increasingly becoming common usage" is irrelevant. The actual common usage, not the trend, is what is relevant. Similarly, we usually rely on self-ascriptions in matters of gender. You've had both of these points clearly explained to you. You have absolutely made no response other than further irrelevancies, some ludicrously off-topic. In short, you are being pointlessly disruptive. Choor monster (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Chairman. Let's stick with reality. IgnorantArmies 10:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Chairman as being the most common word for the position. "-man" is similar here in usage to the German usage of "man" which simply means "a person." The German word for "Chairman" is ... "Chairman" (or "Vorsitzender" which has the masculine "r" at the end). Collect (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairman, per sources and common use. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chairman per sources and common use. The organization gets to decide what the position is called. If they say it's Chief Hobgoblin, then we'd say that. See, for example Guido van Rossum who is Benevolent Dictator For Life. --GRuban (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I counted about 4 people in favour of chairperson. There may be a majority but nobody could conclusively argue why one term was better than the other. Therefore, chairperson or chair is the most neutral, and is more in keeping with gender neutral language. She may refer to herself as chairman (actually her official title is executive chairman), perhaps you would like to change it to that, but that doesn't mean we should use that term. We should endeavour to use terms that are relevant, and the use of gendered roles in positions of business is increasingly becoming not de riguer. Since nobody can seemingly agree, the best option is to use chairperson instead of chairman and chairwoman. This alternative pleases everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.85.183 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've read some nonsense in my time here, but this is biscuit worthy. There are at least ten in favour of "chairman". This is very simple. Time to stop arguing against the majority consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)