Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Moved from article

Sexuality

Avoid homosexuality and thus heterosexuality, use alternatives such as gay/lesbian/bisexual/straight/same-sex/different-sex. Avoid the use of queer (or any term) as being most inclusive.

What is this about? homosexuality and heterosexuality are the proper medical/biological terms, the rest of the above are pop-culture/alt-culture jargon. I don't hear the word gay used any more often than fag, and both are POV. Homosexual and heterosexual are the precise, clinical terms, regardless of what is seen on "queer eye for the straight guy". Sam Spade 19:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they're medical/biological terms, and thus carry the implication of being a pathology instead of an identity. Snowspinner 19:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: By "medical/biological terms" did you mean the medicine and biology of the last or next to last centuries or of this one? Consult, for instance, the American Psychological Association: http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html. Hyacinth 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ruling of the APA is pretty much solid when talking about this issue - I've put the passage back in, with an added citation of the APA guide. Snowspinner 20:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read that link? "Because no universal agreement exists on terminology, and because language and culture continually change, the ideas in this article should be considered helpful suggestions rather than rigid rules." And even if it were describing "rigid rules", who says the APA dictates wikipedia content? I find the APA to be generally wrong, and I'm a psyche major ;) Sam Spade 20:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted MLA, Chicago, and APA guidance on this - APA guidance is cited by MLA in terms of unbiased language, whereas Chicago remains silent on the usage. Regardless, there is clear precedent for using external styleguides to determine the style guide for Wikipedia. Unless you can find a current style guide that argues for heterosexual and homosexual as the preferred words, I think APA pretty much stands, and a poll is unnecessary. Snowspinner 20:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the following quote from the article: "If you are faced with a fine point, please use other resources, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (from the University of Chicago Press) or Fowler's Modern English Usage (from the Oxford University Press)." The APA is one of the most-cited publication guides, with many disciplines requiring its usage. And the most recent APA Publication Manual does say not to use those terms. I think that's pretty much definitive. This is not an issue of disagreeing with the APA, but with accepted style for an academic discipline. If we don't use widely accepted style guides, what would we use? Snowspinner 20:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, straight is a disambiguation page that points to heterosexual. The problem with the neologisms goes beyond gay. Smerdis of Tlön 20:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be changed to straight (sexual orientation) or something along those lines. Snowspinner 21:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If one has a problem with the APA one could also consult the The Guardian style guide the Newswatch Diversity Style Guide and I imagine other sources, and they would all suggest one should not use homosexual. Hyacinth 21:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the quote referenced about guidelines, at least in the APA manual I have in front of me, applies to three guidelines earlier in the chapter than the section on sexual orientation. The sexual orientation section is part of the same larger section on biased language, but it is not one of the three guidelines marked - the APA is clear that the preferred usage is not homosexual or homosexuality. Based on Hyacinth's production of two further styleguides, I'm putting the section back in until some source indicating a reason for deletion is actually provided beyond one person's personal experience. Snowspinner 21:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

A physical act may certainly reasonably be described as "homosexual" (v. "gay") or "heterosexual" (v. "straight"). However, I'd really hesitate to use the word "homosexual" in terms of a person's identity. It's too strongly associated with a century or so of categorizing same-sex orientation as pathology. "Heterosexual" to describe a person seems less tinged, and "straight" too ambiguous -- drugs, honesty -- so I wouldn't hesitate to call a person "hetrosexual," so insofar as we need to use these words to refer to people, I'd actually opt for the (admittedly asymetric) "gay" and "heterosexual." -- Jmabel 01:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding historical figures before the word gay became common usage, although its appropriate to say "Elton John is gay", but Oscar Wilde was homosexual; its all about self-identification. 144.32.132.230 20:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree that it is probably more historically correct to call Wilde "homosexual" than "gay", but (1) self-identification is not exactly the issue: I don't think he ever used the term, and he was a married man with children and (2) what, then, do we call people from a period any earlier, when the term "homosexual" had not been invented, and where same-sex practices were not usually seen to constitute an identity? -- Jmabel 02:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think you refer to them as having had gay male experiences, as having preferred men, etc. i.e. you simply describe their behavior instead of ascribing an identity to them. Snowspinner 03:27, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

I suggest a poll on this matter, one which specifically outlines style guidelines for the wikipedia sexuality project. Sam Spade 20:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I find a poll unnecessary. I added the sexuality section April 6th (at the latest, I can't figure out revision histories) and there were no objections until you decided to cut. Thus you are the only one who disputes the guideline, and you have provided only one reason with no references, sources, or documentation. However, you are right to point out that &;quot;no universal agreement exists on terminology, and...language and culture continually change." I suggest the guideline indicates that pluralism is necessary and beneficial as being more neutral. Hyacinth 22:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a poll is necessary, but in the short term finding a better rewording will have to suffice. Something that makes it clear there is a diversity of opinion on the subject would do nicely. Sam Spade 23:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I'm not sure the style guide is the place for that... wouldn't that be something for an article on terminology? Snowspinner 23:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to making this a style manual matter. According to the article on gay, According to the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for school employees: "Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest.

Of course, "clinical and distancing" is the style many people think we should be aiming for. Moreover, the unspoken POV in all of this would appear to be that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, that to want to be "distanced" from it a sort of prejudice, and that moral distaste to homosexuality, or at least to the identity politics subtext of this passage and the general discussion, are "archaic." This is a POV that we should not endorse, at least not in a style manual. Smerdis of Tlön 01:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that sexual orientation is not currently a pathology - the term originated at a point when sexual orientation was something that was considered an illness. As sexual orientation is not considered a pathology by any reputable sources anymore, and is instead an identity, the term is rejected because it describes a condition - not an identity. Snowspinner 01:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that what you, Smerdis, are arguing for is terminology which does distance gay people, that does treat them clinically, and that anything which does not is POV. Hyacinth 03:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that sexuality is an identity rather than a condition is pitiful. I pity anyone so wretched, ensnared by the pleasures of the flesh that they find their self-identity in it. We are humans, not copulators. Homosexual describes an act, which is all I am intending to refer to when I use the term, not all this "cultural" business. Gay and Homosexual are separate articles, and rightly so. One is a term describing a phenomena, and the other a slang term for a sub-culture. Sam Spade 06:09, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection seems to be an ethical one with contemporary Western culture much more than a stylistic one, then. That said, I think you're wrong to assume that people have only one identity. That is to say, I know of no one who's sexual orientation, or even larger sexual identity makes up the whole of their being. But it is a part of people's identities. And when describing that part of people's identities, it is more than a little arrogant to declare what that identity is called. After all, it is their identity - our job is just to describe it. Not dictate it. Snowspinner 14:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks think homosexuality is an identity; others a sickness; others a sin. I don't think that we should crown any one of these positions as TRVTH and the others as error, especially through the somewhat underhanded method of adopting a terminology rooted in one particular POV and making it part of a style manual. Perhaps, instead, we could all just agree to refer to homosexual acts as the abominable and detestable crime against nature, and to homosexuals as sodomites. These terms with an implied agenda strike me as no less objectionable than the proposed terms with an implied agenda, and for the same reason. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, so long as we're adopting "niggers" instead of "African Americans", "wetbacks" instead of "Mexican Americans", and "towelheads" for "Arabs." Oh, and we should change all references to "left-wing" to "pinko." After all, to some all of these are accurate and appropriate descriptions of the groups.

My point being that it is an accepted guideline in scholarly writing that you avoid offending people, and that you call groups by the name which they desire to be called by. There are lots of terms for lots of things. When dealing with groups of people, the convention is to err on the side of not offending the group of people being described. And so we use the word "gay," even if it offends conservative Christians. However, we avoid using the word "bigoted asswipes" to describe them, for more or less the exact same reason. Snowspinner 14:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

A better analogy: Saying that respectful terms are unacceptably non-neutral is like arguing that "Canada" is a POV term for what really is the "Evil Northern State," because some people think that it is a as-of-yet-to-be-incorporated/conquered US state. Hyacinth 15:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are avoiding my point, which is that homosexual describes an act, wheras gay is ambiguous, and positive. As far as erring on the side least offensive to the group in question, that reasoniung didn't work very well for Racialism, which now redirects to racism, even tho most of those folks prefer to be called racialists, and see racist as offensive and POV. What I see is the typical Left-wing Politically Correct POV of academia creeping in, and attempting to uproot NPOV with what it see's as a higher purpose. Were the demographics here on the wiki more Representative, this wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, particularly in places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality, the wiki demographics are FAR from representitive of our fearless readers, and worse yet, fail them with violations of neutrality such as this, style guides or no. Sam Spade 17:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on Racialism, for what it's worth, and I'm happy to enter that fight and put the article back - I think it was a reasonable article, and a term that ought to be explained. That said, the standard for academic and professional writing is politically correct. I'm sorry that you dislike PC, but I think it does Wikipedia a great disservice to use something other than the accepted styles of academic and professional writing. It makes it look, well, amateurish. If we want to be treated as a real encyclopedia, we need to act like one. And that means PC language. Snowspinner 18:11, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well what can I say to that? Obviously the wikipedia is not the place to fight popular changes of usage or meaning, and apparantly I can't even chide you for inconsistancy ;) I will use "homosexual" to describe acts (as rarely as possible, I should hope!) and "gay" to describe the sub-cultural identity. Is that acceptable to you? Sam Spade 18:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Going left again because I'm on a 12" powerbook and it hurts my eyes to count the colons. That works. I'll wade into the racialist issue in a bit. I have to consult edit history, and see what's in Racism now that may need redirection. Snowspinner 18:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

One large concern with enforcing language based on 20th century identity politics is that it raises a serious problem with anachronism. Though many ancient Greeks and Romans had homosexual sex, it strikes me as a bit odd to refer to any of them as "gay." (Well, maybe Hadrian). I've recently written on Richard Burton's odd theory of the Sotadic zone; he said in essence that homosexuality --- specifically pederasty ---- was concentrated in a mostly tropical belt; not sure it works at all to say "gayness" was concentrated there. Smerdis of Tlön 20:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is something plenty of people are aware of - the identity "homosexual" is a 19th century creation. This objection has been raised several times on various lists of historical gay figures. Ultimately, it becomes a factual error to refer to historical figures as homosexual, gay, or as any other contemporary sexual identity, and should be avoided - regardless of terminology. Snowspinner 20:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When we review history or even just non-western sociology/anthropology, it doesn't take long to realize that contemporary PC terms regarding sexuality (and everything else ;) are intellectually offensive encumberances. That being said, snowspin made a pretty valid case for the wiki needing to conform to popular style guides. I would love to hear a clarion call of truth, and if you (or anyone, of course) has an alternate style guide, or a sound reasoning for ignoring all style guides, etc.. so much the better. As you point out above, in reality homosexuality has been far from a "identity" or subculture in most of history, and was mainly rather a severely unorthadox (by most of todays standards) way of educating boys in the ways of adulthood, or a form of promiscuity engaged in by some. There is very, very little evidence for organized or distict "gay" societies or organizations historically, altho there are some (the kama sutra mentions the role of male bath attendants, for example). Sam Spade 20:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic: The first recorded case of someone coming out is actually fairly recent (can't remember exactly, an Italian boxer declared himself a sodomite), though the existance of the various identies now called Two-Spirit, along with theories that society always treats minorities as lesser or greater than the majority would tend to prove you wrong on this one. Hyacinth 15:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that anyone could think gay is a positive term, obviously you all didn't grow up gay! For many people born since 1970 gay means stupid, at best. Hyacinth 15:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

APA gay?

Yikes Sam, did you call the APA gay? Hyacinth 22:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, he called them homosexual. Remember, there's a difference. ;) Snowspinner 22:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... you guys got a laugh out of me on that one, I will admit :) Sam Spade 23:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

from article

' Avoid the use of queer (or any term) as being most inclusive '

What is this supposed to mean? It needs reworded, or removed. Sam [Spade] 20:06, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the term "queer" should not be used as a term that encombasses gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. And furthermore, that no other term is an adequate substitution, that is, that there is no good way to encompass all of these things into one umbrella term. Snowspinner 20:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean: "Avoid homosexuality and thus heterosexuality," ...? How do I avoid heterosxuality, it's what I am!!! Perhaps you mean: "Avoid "homosexuality" and thus "heterosexuality"," -- the words. But even so, why? Whatr is wrong with the word "heterosexuality"? -- Tarquin

He justifies these by a number of style guides which he claims suggest against the use of the term "homosexual" as being distressing to some. I find it incredibly poor reasoning, and requested a poll before. Perhaps its time for one now. Sam [Spade] 20:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather more than "suggest." It's more "Clearly says these terms are not preferred." And, again, I hardly see how reference to a style guide is "incredibly poor reasoning." Particularly when it's the APA guide, which is the guide most applcable to this particular issue, being the leading style guide in the social sciences. Snowspinner 20:28, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" vs "Related topics", and Category Project

The Wikipedia Guide to Layout recommends that "Related topics" be a heading for a collection of internal links to related topics. Custom and practice in the Wikipedia appears to be to use "See also". Google:"See also" = 56,100 hits, Google:"Related topics" = 1,900 hits. Should we wait for a thunderbolt from on high before we change the recommendation in the Guide to Layout? --Tagishsimon

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections gives a better explanation. Ideally there should only be one place that explains a rule or policy so as to avoid problems like this. Bensaccount 01:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't go according to the MoS on this one. I think it's not useful to have "Related topics" and "See also", since they're basically the same thing... Dysprosia 01:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're not the same thing. I went back through the various see also/related topics discussions & I see more people with my dilemma--in certain cases, you want to include links in the "related articles" list that also appear in the body text. See Wedding, for example. It would be confusing, I believe, to leave off the 3 or 4 links that appear in the text. In this case, Related articles would be more correct, whereas the See also presumably would not include links already in the text. Elf | Talk 15:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then there needs to be a relaxation of the requirement forbidding inline links appearing in See alsos, because while they may not functionally be the same thing, they most definately read as the same thing (to me, that is ;) We should be striving for some sort of uniformity, however. But reading that categories are soon to be implemented, I hope this makes this matter moot, and we can all stick with "See also" Dysprosia 12:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

With categories this will no longer be a problem. Related articles will be in the same category, so there won't be a need for a section. There will always be a need for a See also section though, and that is what we have standardized on for a long while now. Dori | Talk 16:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've just this week heard about the famed mythical categories project--meanwhile, until it's finalized and someday implemented, I don't think we can say unequivocably that one can't put links into the list that also appear in the article. Elf | Talk 16:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mythical, you can try it out on http://test.wikipedia.org and I think it's redundant to link things more than once on each page. If readers were interested in the link, they would have followed it. If we go by this, then we could end up listing every link on the Related section becayse how could you decide? Dori | Talk 16:48, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Re: categories: Cool! Now that I've tried it, I want it *now*! And I will hold my breath and turn blue until I get it! Wahhhhh! Re: how could you decide? Same way we'll have to decide what categories things go into & same way we decide what to link already--roll a 10-sided die--er, I mean, common sense. I'll admit that mine isn't always in smooth running order, but I like to think that it mostly is and so are most folkses' who edit wp. Elf | Talk 18:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(ident from above)Yes, you do have a point that my "how could you decide?" concern would still stand. However, I still think that they're needlessly redundant. Dori | Talk 22:18, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Citing poetry style guide somewhere ?

I'm often looking for a style guide page when adding a sample poem in biography articles. I.e see Li Bai. I don't know how to emphazise the title, where to write infos (as date and translator). I saw in Jonathan Swift that the font used is fixed and wonder if its usefull (and beautifull) in this case. I'd like to have a page where common usage is described. gbog 07:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Angel a. 08:09, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. gbog 10:15, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway to remove underlining?

Is there a way to remove underlining from links? The reason I want to do this is because the underlining can be confused as part of a Chinese character if the character appears in a link. See Chinese family name. ☞spencer195 00:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Check your preferences Dysprosia 02:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

US or U.S.

I've removed the reference and any specific guidance. United States style guides (apparently) and English style guides [1] directly conflict over US and U.S. and the general guide to use the local convention in articles specific to the topic seems to cover this well enough. Since this article is not a United States-specific article, not enforcing United States English rules is the appropriate practice - but life's too short to argue about it when it can be dodged. Assuming that United States copy editors can agree to accept that their style guides differ and not go on crusades to have only their domestic style folowed in this international work, that is. Jamesday 02:19, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The motion to place those words into the article was put here for months without objection. Therefore, consensus is needed to remove them. I object.

The general guide is the follow the official spellings of proper names. "U.S. Deparatment of Defense", not "US Department of Defence". For the same reason, we should respect desire by the U.S. (meaning Americans) to insert the full stop into the abbreviation for their country. Likewise, it should always be "UK" since "U.K." is a bit jarring. The BBC calls Donald Rumsfeld "the US Defence Secretary". Now there's a conflict with our MoS... --Jia ng 06:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jiang. --mav 04:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

scientific references

style ain't really my thing - but just checked this page for the "correct" style for adding a scientific reference... eg Lancet 2004;363:1747,1757-1763. is there such a style recomendation? if so it should really be on this page shouldn't it? (i could link to the online version but you need to pay - so seems a bit pointless) Erich 03:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures, Categories, and so forth

I am crossposting this comment to Wikipedia:Village Pump and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

I have been advised that the manual of style says unambiguously that articles with single pictures must have the picture at the very top of the article, aligned to the right. I have no particular problem with this as a general guideline. At the moment, however, when this is done to article with categories, it results in an extremely ugly article. I have been advised that this will probably be corrected at some point in the near future (although have seen no evidence that this is the case, aside from Raul654's assertion that Mr. Starling will "doubtless" do this.) In many cases, it is perfectly easy to move the picture down so that it is even with the second paragraph of the article. In most of these cases, this looks perfectly fine. It also means that we don't have absolutely hideous articles until whenever it is that the problem with categories gets fixed. For moving the pictures in several articles down a few lines, I have been accused of doing "serious damage" to wikipedia, because now people will have to "fix" all these articles so that they don't contain the ultimate indignity of having pictures slightly lower in the article than the manual of style says they should be. My feeling is that this is insane pedantry, but what is the general feeling on this? john k 06:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For readers, the discussion can be found at User_talk:Raul654#Articles_with_pictures_in_categories. What John was doing was going through large numbers of articles and moving the picture down further into the article, breaking convention in order to fix (what appears to be) a transitory problem with the Wiki software. →Raul654 06:24, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

This is accurate, if slanted (my own comments were also slanted, of course). BTW, is there any discussion in the archives as to the particular convention under discussion? I couldn't find anything, but I only looked through pretty quickly, mostly looking at the TOCs. john k 06:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, just take it easey. You are over-dramatizing this whole thing, it’s a technical problem, and it’ll be resolved in a few days. Until then, just have patience, and instead of wasting your energy like this, you could work on making the articles better. This is really pointless, it's a tehnical problem, not a problem of standards. --GeneralPatton 06:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the issue itself is not especially important. Which is why it's upsetting to be accused of doing "major damage" to wikipedia. I'd like to have some explanation as to why this convention you two have been arguing for is so important that it warrants such expostulations. All I was doing was going through articles and adding categories, and trying to make sure that doing so did not result in the article looking like crap. You are the ones who decided to chew me out about it, and accuse me of doing serious damage to wikipedia. Who's "over-dramatizing" here? john k 07:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First, I should point out that he didn't say you were doing "major damage", he said what you were doing was "more damaging" than the technical issue you seek to correct. This is literally true- the effort to standarize a large number of articles once the issue is corrected is going to take higher than the effort to quash the bug itself. Second, it sets a *very* bad example when someone just decides to disregard the manual of style. Trying to get it changed is one thing, but disregarding it is entirely different. →Raul654 07:17, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)