Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:02, 18 February 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Parliamentary Procedure (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Chairman vs. Chair

There has been a long discussion about the proper and most suitable title of this article, particularly about the use of "chair" vs. "chairman." The result of the discussion repeatedly comes out in favor of "chairman." The history of this discussion is in the archived talk page, which probably should be reinstated here. It's not a good thing to archive the discussions, then to change all the "chairman" references to "chair." Lou Sander (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In academia, government and non-profits (but especially in academia), "chair" is used. In business, it is "chairman" even if the person is a woman. Hanxu9 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputed etymology

I restored properly cited material about "chair" and "man." If editors dispute it, the solution is not to remove it, but to cite different material and mention the difference between the two. This was also discussed in the newly-archived material from this page. The bottom line is that if you want to assert that chairman is somehow not gender-neutral, you need to cite some sources for your claim, and juxtapose them with the properly-cited sources that say that it is gender-neutral. Lou Sander (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed this again, because multiple dictionaries give the etymology as exactly what you would expect - i.e. that "man" derives from "man" meaning male person. In the face of these official etymologies I dispute that a book on rules of procedure is a reliable source for etymology. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policy on Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The material you removed is eminently verifiable. I understand (but disagree with) your strongly-held personal point of view that the cited material is "wrong," and that an authoritative book in the field somehow isn't a reliable source. Unfortunately, strongly-held personal points of view are disallowed from appearing in Misplaced Pages. If you want to include material on etymology, PLEASE provide some references, and PLEASE do not remove properly-sourced material just because you disagree with it. There is quite a bit of discussion on this in the Archive, right at the end. Lou Sander (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, it is not clear to me that a book on parliamentary procedure is a reliable source for etymology. Can you offer any evidence that it is, such as perhaps the etymology reference cited by the book?

Your edit gave the 'manus' etymology as if it were the 'correct' etymology, whereas in fact a large number of dictionaries (which unquestionably ARE reliable as etymology sources) give the etymology of chairman as being the same as the suffix "man". I would be happy with listing the 'manus' etymology as an alternative if it can be shown that it is a view held by etymologists and not merely a parliamentary procedure author. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I also looked at the archive, which completely backs up my view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, it may help if you actually cite these large number of dictionaries. Just as a start. -Andrew c  18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Try The American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, the online edition of the current Merriam-Webster dictionary, Word Origins by Anatoly Liberman (page 88), Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (page 235), and wordorigins.org. I've more if you need them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Andrew c might be suggesting that you provide some proper inline references to support your claims. I also think that all of us realize that from your point of view, the Riddick book isn't a reliable source. But it certainly IS a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages's content guidelines. IMHO it's not a good practice to substitute one's personal feelings for good, hard, references that conform to WP:RS. Lou Sander (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop telling me what my personal feelings are. They irrelevant to the discussion and to you.

My "point of view" is also not relevant to the reliability of Riddick. Riddick is outside his area of expertise when talking about etymology, and given the huge number of references that disagree with him from people with etymological expertise his opinion has to be considered a minority one. I have already added inline references. I assume that means you no longer have any objections to the content as it stands? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Riddick and Zimmerman are reliable sources, regardless of DJ's unsubstantiated personal opinions. DJ has removed the clear, informative, plainly stated material from them, and replaced it with a paraphrase that has the flavor of original research. This is not proper editing. He/she has added a Wikilink to the Riddick book. This is good editing and improves the article. The strength of the claim about "etymologists" is weak. The citation is an opinionated blog with a questionable reference to OED, and hardly a reliable source. I intend to restore the Riddick and Zimmerman material, leave the Wikilink to Riddick, and delete the poorly sourced stuff. I'll first leave some time for comment, of course. (I will disregard further opinions that Riddick and Zimmerman are not reliable sources. This stuff is discussed to death in the archive.) Good Cop (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which of the dictionaries I quoted do you consider to be an "unreliable source"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He might be talking about the wordorigins blog. Also, you very much need to stop removing well-cited material from this article. Also, your pronouncement about "the real etymology" is original research by you. Please stop. Cleome (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the blog, I think it is a WP:RS, due to Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. , as Dave Wilton is author of Oxford University Press publication Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends.-Andrew c  21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed nothing from the article. Riddick's view of the etymology is given at the bottom of the section. The real etymology is cited in the article, and is not original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Good Cop's proposal. Cleome (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well reasoned proposal. Lou Sander (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

" In his 1992 State of the Union address, then-U.S. President George W. Bush used chairman for men and chair for women. " - either the date or the name is incorrect, and the statement isn't cited so difficult to check, also citing either Bush as an authority on language is questionable, this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphilips (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

vice-chair

While I don't doubt the strict correctness of "A vice chairman is sometimes chosen to be subordinate to..." I don't believe it's as clear as it might be. All members of a board are in some sense "subordinate to" the chairman, and the vice-chairman is selected for a specific task. I entered "deputize for" as being more specific. Does the vice-chair have any function other than to execute the functions of a chairman when (s)he is absent? if so then maybe we could be specific about them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please. The reference says what it says. What you believe about it (a.k.a. your point of view about it) is something different. If you'd like, find a reference for it and put it in. Lou Sander (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm asking is "what does it mean?". Did you put this in as a direct quote without working out what it meant? DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DJClayworth: The meaning is perfectly clear, and a reference has been cited. The vice-chair is subordinate to the chair. This is an important point in parliamentary procedure, as are many other matters of precedence and authority. But you say that you don't get the meaning. Then you make edits that change the meaning. You are politely asked to provide a reference to support your changes, but you fail to provide one. When your unsupported, meaining-changing edits are removed, you re-insert them. They are original research, and when challenged, they cannot be allowed to stand. Persistence in making changes is no substitute for providing citations. Good Cop (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is a vice-chairman subordinate to a chairman. A janitor is also subordinate to a chairman, and so is a secretary, so just saying he/she is 'subordinate' tells us nothing. Now you and I actually know the answer - that the vice-chair assists the chairman and substitutes for him/her when absent. Since we know this to be true, why don't we write it? Or are you more concerned with getting a version that you wrote into the article than explaining what a vice-chairman does?

As for 'persistence in making changes' I find that it is often necessary when dealing with people whose approach is to ignore questions and refuse to discuss things. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Major changes to "Corporate governance" section

This section has been problematic for at least three years. In addition to often being poorly constructed, it has contained material only indirectly related to the subject of Chairman. As of yesterday several of the references didn't support the general claims made in the article, but applied only to specific corporations. Also, much of the material in this section has applied to corporate governance in general, and only peripherally to the role of Chairman.

I have been bold and removed all or most of this inappropriate material. The remaining material relates to the two basic types of Chairman in public corporations, and includes citations that directly support the claims made in the article. I've renamed the section "Public corporations" to reflect its current focus.

Most of the stuff that has been removed is valuable in its own right. It just doesn't apply to this article. --Lou Sander (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you deleted this. Being "bold" isn't deleting stuff. That's just lazy, especially if you've been watching it for 3 years. Being bold, I'd suggest, means writing something new. Wikidea 08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved

The reason I have moved this - and yes I know it won't save the history, but there's always backlogs, and perhaps an admin can help - is that Misplaced Pages should not reflect social stereotypes in common usage of language (unlike modern law, eg in the UK corporate governance code). I understand there may have been previous discussions and one proposal was "chair". I don't really care. Chairman is wrong. If anyone objects to this, I'm just going to write a chairperson page in its own right (and it'll be much better), and then this page can explain why the concept of a "chairman" is distinct from a "chairperson", and perhaps why our language might still be stuck in the 19th century. And that person can also write a "chairwoman" page, and explain why that's different too. Hopefully nobody's so dumb to object though! Cheers, Wikidea 07:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Move" reverted, because what you did was not a move, but a copy-and-paste; this is improper because it leaves the article without its history. You say you know this is wrong, but you did it anyway. If you think a move is needed, use the "move" function, and if you think the move is going to be controversial (as your comment above strongly implies you do), then you should put a {{requested move}} template on this talk page and see if there is a consensus in favor of the move. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Groan. Wikidea 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Public corporations

I moved this section to the end, since it provides specialized information, rather than the rest of the article's general information about the position and the various aspects of termiology, etymology, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Public corporations: Types of chairman

This section is confusing. Editors have struggled with it for years. Currently the citations are not well-presented at all. I suggest rewriting it along the following lines:

• Main Point. There are two types of chairman: Executive and Non-executive. The Executive type wields influence in the operation of the company, while the Non-executive avoids that. (This is the most important distinction between the types of Chairman). Americans tend to favor the Executive type, while Canadians and the British tend to favor the Non-executive type.
• Subordinate Point under Executive Chairman. Often, but not always, the Executive chairman wields his influence over operations by having the additional responsibility as CEO. The two functions are separate and distinct: the CEO runs the operation of the company, while the Chairman runs the Board. It sometimes makes sense for the same person to perform both functions and have both titles. Even if he/she is not the CEO, the Executive chairman still leads the Board and wields influence over company operations, even though he/she is not directly in charge of them.
• Examples. After those points have been made in the article, examples of all the cases can be presented: 1) the Executive Chairman who is also the CEO, 2) the Executive Chairman who is NOT also the CEO, and 3) the Non-executive Chairman.

I can do the rewriting, but I'd prefer to do so after getting some consensus that it would make sense. Lou Sander (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Would like to note that "Executive chairman" entry contains an in-depth example of HSBC. This may or may not be appropriate in this article, I don't know. What I can say is that it's inconsistent with the others, which have no such detailed examples. Ligart (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't much like that extended example. Lou Sander (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2015

It has been proposed in this section that Chair (officer) be renamed and moved to Chair (position). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Chairman → Chair (position) – (add: please also see nominator comment below.) This is a simple NPOV request. Within government committees and NGOs the typical designation used is chair. I business the name chairman is often used sometimes even when the person is a woman although "chairwoman" (which currently redirects to chairman) is also used. I appreciate that the words like "position" or "role" are not greatly specific in regard to disambiguation but I think that this is preferabe to what I regard to be this current gender preference within Misplaced Pages. The present tense of the verb involved relates to the chairing of meetings. GregKaye 09:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nominator comment PLEASE consider this as an RM to Chairperson as per Dohn joe and EvergreenFir below. GregKaye 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi please consider also the proposed designation as suggested/supported below. Thanks. GregKaye 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose also chairperson, while more common than fisherperson and fireperson still not the common term. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest Chairperson per WP:NATURAL and WP:GNL. Dohn joe (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Chairperson per WP:NATURAL and WP:GNL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – per WP:NATURAL and WP:NATURALNESS, and also because many sources flat-out prohibit the word "chair" or "chairperson" as standing in for "chairman" (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC). "Chairman" is the most natural designation for this position, is used by the vast majority of RS, and "chairperson" is expressly prohibited by many RS. There are no grounds for switching to "chair person", which is non-existent. Please also note that the "man" in "chairman" is gender neutral, and is considered as such by Robert's Rules of Order, thereby satisfying WP:GNL. Please note that many chairmen are women, and that these women are often addressed as "chairman". This is a form of advocacy on the part of the supporters, in that they wish to change English to suit their own political ends. Sadly, we use the English of the people, here. We do not use forms explicitly prohibited by the style guide of the most prestigious American newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You confuse the editing standards of RS with the RS saying something. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, perhaps I could say that you confuse "man" with "male"? We do not use foreign constructions (neologisms) created to express a political point. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a neologism. See this nineteenth-century usage, for example. Dohn joe (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cherrypicking as well. MLA, APA, ASA, AMA, Chicago Style Guide, even Wiley-Blackwell Publishing House. That there is no consensus among publishers and styleguides would suggest we should follow our own guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a neologism, then as now. Don't try and claim that "chairperson" was commonly-used in the 19th century, as it is easy to prove that false with Google Ngrams. See where the poor little "chairperson" languishes at the bottom of the chart, even into the 21st century? Chairman remains overwhelming dominant, and that's that. Please see WP:UCN. Our own guidelines say to use gender neutral language, and the word "chairman" is gender neutral. "Man" refers to mankind, not male men. I've shown above where women that are chairmen are referred to as a "chairman". This is common. Sadly, common usage dictates that "chairman" remains. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You insist on proscriptive language despite the fact that many authorities disagree with your assertions. Chairperson and chair are as widely used as chairman now. I can show you many places were "chair" or "chairperson" are used when referring to women (e.g., Janet Yellen). Chairman is no longer widely considered neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:UCN is policy. Ngrams doesn't lie. Neither does The New York Times, nor Robert's Rules of Order. "Chairman" remains dominant, and remains gender neutral. It is true that some people use "chairperson", but that is a minority usage in actual practice. As per WP:TITLECHANGES, such a controversial change that would institute a title that is patently forbidden by many style guides and is contrary to common usage is simply not something that can be done. As another example, British companies law mandates the use of chairman (gender neutral). RGloucester — ☎ 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Still cherry picking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How is Ngrams "cherry-picking"? There is nothing for me to "cherry-pick" from Ngrams. How is British companies law "cherry-picking"? It is written into the law of one the main English-speaking nations that the word "chairman" is gender neutral. RGloucester — ☎ 01:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Because you're ignoring the other sources, including academic ones, that disagree with you. Repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What difference does it make what a style guide says? Actual practice is what matters, which is why we have WP:UCN. In actual practice, "chairman" is what people use most often, and I've provided evidence of this. "Chairman" is written into British law as gender neutral. As an example, BBC Trust refers to its leadership as "Diane Coyle, Vice-Chairman" and "Rona Fairhead, Chairman". I wonder why it is that one of the most important entities in British media uses a term that a one Fir Tree refers to as "no longer widely considered neutral". Do you know that the BBC has very, very strict anti-discrimination guidelines, perhaps more strict than with any other company? If they thought that "chairman" was in anyway "non-neutral", it would be gone from these ladies' webpages. It isn't. In fact, you're the one ignoring sources that you dislike, and ignoring centuries of traditional practice at the same time. The fact remains that "chairman" is the most common designation, and is gender neutral. The present title remains, and your arguments are bunk. RGloucester — ☎ 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So gender neutral it was raised as an issue in 1987 to UNESCO, who recommends gender neutral language? And the UK government? And the United Nations Development Program (p. 22)? And the World Health Organization (p. 61)? And the European Union (p. 54, section 14.4)? The government of South Africa (p. 2)? Why, it would seem quite a bit of the English speaking world doesn't use Chairman as a neutral term. How strange. Enough of your "but the BBC!" How many more governments, policy setters, academic organizations, and journalist organizations do I need to trot out for you? Your insistence that "chairman" is gender neutral is an essentially an etymological fallacy. It may have once been, but is not more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Merely because it is not neutral to you does not make it not neutral. Common usage is what we go by, and as demonstrated above, chairman remains the most common. You are trying to make a political point, and failing. Words cannot change in their gender neutrality. They either are or they are not, and chairman is gender neutral. Your "UK government" sources is particularly fun, given that it does not say anything about proscribing "chairman". It simply says "

chairman, chairwoman, chairperson: Lower case in text. Upper case in titles, eg Spencer Tracy, Chairman, GDS.

Great source. Really supports your position. Once again, the position of individual government documents is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is common usage. Common usage is in favour of "chairman", as was seen in the Ngrams. Sorry. Get out of your ivory tower. RGloucester — ☎ 03:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In your imaginary world it's common usage. I've demonstrated that "chairman" is not considered neutral by global authorities. You've offered BBC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Requested moves