Talk:Singular they

Garner's Modern English Usage

Citing a 2003 edition (at least two editions behind) is not reasonable. This needs to be replaced by citation to the current edition (2022), the wording in which has very likely changed on this, since it is evidence-based.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've updated to the 2016 edition, which (still) verifies the claim. I'll check the 2022 edition if I can find it. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Where to add precedent in the article?

The chief objection to singular they seems to be "it is not grammatical." But there is precedent for such a change. Originally, "you" was exclusively plural, with "thou/thee" being used to indicate the second person singular. Early Modern English began losing this form, with it disappearing in Modern English by around 1750 (outside of rural dialects and some religious communities.) We have used "you" in both a singular and plural sense for centuries with very little in the way of confusion. I would be happy to write this out with references for the article, but I am not sure where it would best fit in. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe an addition or note near the beginning of the "Inflected forms and derivative pronouns" section, where there is a reference to "singular you"? Funcrunch (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I will have that done this weekend. TechBear | Talk | Contributions

MOS:DLIST

This article is massively violating MOS:DLIST by abusing the <dd>...</dd> element (wikimarkup :) as a visual indentation mechanism, producing all kinds of bogus list markup in the rendered result, which is a major accessibility problem. That markup is only for use inside description lists AKA definition lists AKA association lists (despite the fact that we regularly abuse the shit out of it on talk pages for visual indentation; our articles have accessibility guidelines to comply with that our talk pages do not.

Doing this:

Intro text here:
: Example text here

is wrong. This is even worse, since it creates two different kind of broken lists at once:

* Intro text here:
: Example text here

All of the examples that are actual quotations should probably be done with {{blockquote|1=Quoted text here|author=Author Name|source=Other source details}}

Examples that are not quotations should be formatted with {{block indent|1=Example text here}}.

For cases where there are groups of introductory statements followed by one or more illustrative examples, presently mis-coded as stuff like:

* Intro text here:

: Example text here

: 2nd example text here

the proper markup is:

; Intro text here:

: Example text here

: 2nd example text here

since that is a valid DLIST.

If one or another of those example entries in such a list needs to be a block quotation itself, use {{gbq}}, a version of {{blockquote}} designed to work inside DLIST markup.
Edit: That is no longer necessary; WP:TemplateStyles are now used by {{glossary}} to adjust display of {{blockquote}} inside a d-list, so the old {{gbq}} CSS-tweaking wrapper for {{blockquote}} has been made obsolete and no longer exists. If for some reason {{glossary}} is not wanted to be used, and the {{blockquote}} display in situ is producing an undesirable amount of vertical whitespace, this can be adjusted with custom CSS as {{blockquote|1=[Quote text here]|style=[CSS here]}}, but it's simpler just to wrap the d-list with {{glossary}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC); updated: 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the lion's share. — Remsense聊 20:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Singular vs Plural

Normally I would object to using plurals where singular is appropriate but then I thought of the following. What is plural? It appears that in English we don't add s for just more than 1, we also add s for less than 1. For example I have 1 orange. I have 1.1 oranges. I have 0.9 oranges. Note we don't say I have 0.9 orange. We use a plural construct for some reason. Now we can argue than if a bit of skin drops off you, you are no longer 1 Fred, but potentially 0.99999999999 Freds... if you can use 0.9 oranges because the complete orange is not present, why cant you use Freds when not complete Fred is present? If you can now use such plurals and of course as humans we are never the full human we were a moment ago given skin sheds all day long as dust, it should be justifiable to refer to part of a Fred as they. Its not singular, it is less than 1. 120.21.231.181 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Prescription of they/them pronouns being used only for non-binary people

The sentance In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals emerged for people who do not exclusively identify as male or female makes it sound as if the only people to use they/them pronouns are trans and/or non-binary. As people frequently use Wikipedia to find information or correct people do other editors think this should be changed? It also suggests that non-binary identities started in the 21st century, even if we ignore non-binary identities before the term was coined I believe this is inaccurate as the term gained popularity in the 1990's. I'd suggest

In the late 20th century, the use of singular they with known individuals started to become more common as a personal pronoun

EnbyEditor (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the suggested edit. Perhaps, we could add at the end of the sentence ", especially among people who do not exclusively identify as male or female." or something similar to acknowledge that it is primarily used by us queer folks. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. "In the late 20th century" will be unsourced, but it's not more unsourced than the current "In the early 21st century". It would help if someone could find a source that gives a timeline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The early 21st century is sourced in the article body (not the lede) with a reference to the OED, whose earliest citation for they in this sense is 2009, and American Speech, which reports a citation from 2008. Both the 2009 citation and the 2008 citation frame this use of they as a neologism, and the authors of the American Speech column describe it as "genuinely new", writing in 2016. Earliest citations are not proof of earliest usage, of course, but I'd like to see some evidence for the late 20th century or at least some source suggesting it before putting it in the article. AJD (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe this OED page implies this is the case towards the end there, but I find the wording confusing so I'll try to find a better source tomorrow when I'm not so tired EnbyEditor (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't think that article says anything suggesting that the sense of they that we're discussing here was used before the 21st century. AJD (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This article suggests otherwise EnbyEditor (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I read the article you link but I can't find any claim or evidence in it that singular-they-for-specific-people began to be used in the late 20th century. Could you provide a quote so I know what you're referring to? AJD (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

By the 1990s, large numbers of people were asking to be referred to directly by them. The writer Kate Bornstein, who used the pronouns ze/hir to describe a character in the 1996 novel Nearly Roadkill, was one of the first to bring the practice into the mainstream.

The article directly states it EnbyEditor (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also relating to @CapnZapp has consensus really not been reached? One person disagrees with 3 others over something clearly stated in a trusted source EnbyEditor (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what the article says. The excerpt you quote says that gender-neutral pronouns in general were in use in the 1990s, not that the they/them pronoun in particular was. (It says "referred to by them," not "referred to by them.") The article does not support the claim that singular they for specific people was used at all in the 1990s. AJD (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I seem to have misread that section, however rereading the article I found a section that shows even earlier usage of they/them pronouns for individuals whose gender is known For a time in the 1600s, medical texts even referred to individuals who did not accord with binary gender standards as they/them.

The poem Guillaume de Palerme is also contains an example of genderless they.

I believe if we're not going to refer to the 1990s as the year it emerged or became common (despite the terms Genderqueer and Non-Binary being coined and popularised in the 1980s and 1990d respectively) we should at least change the phrasing of the sentance to remove the prescription of personal they/them pronouns as exclusively non-binary.

I also think we should replace male and female with man and woman, as those generally aren't the correct terms to use when describing people's gender identity.

I'll tag @Firefangledfeathers as they seem active in the discussion. EnbyEditor (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we could add something to the body based on that line in The Atlantic, and we should also use the source they link to: this one in the Boston Globe. I don't think it really changes the situation about popularization in the 21st century being best for the lead, for now at least.

I don't agree that we're saying that they/them is just for non-binary people. We're saying that's one usage. I don't have a strong opinion about male/female vs. man/woman. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I forgot I was doing this, here is a source, I updated the page also EnbyEditor (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this, thanks mainly to AJD's explanation. Unless we can find sources on late 20th century uses, we should keep the current language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think my suggestion removes the idea that primarily queer people use singular they as their pronouns EnbyEditor (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

First recorded usage of singular they

I think a good summary of the first recorded usage of a singular they in "William and the Werewolf" would be good as this is already referenced in one of the external links and it gives legitimacy to the usage to some people who say it is "ungrammatical". Pomo72 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Can this be flagged for deletion? Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and don't know the correct usage. I want this deleted because I realised that it is already talked about. Pomo72 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, It's not a problem. Almost nothing on Wikipedia is actually deleted. This Talk section will just be archived eventually. Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)