Talk:Farhad Manjoo

message: Substituted at 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: There is a book, published in 2016 with the title "So, you want to fish?" . The author is listed as Farhad Manjoo.  Is this the same Farhad Manjoo that is the subject of this article? --Akhooha (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question ! For a few reasons, I believe not but I'll look into it and into brushing up the entry in hopes of confirming. E.g. this review of that book says the author lives in Maritzburg, South Africa, and to my knowledge this entry's Farhad Manjoo still lives in the US, though he was born in SA... It'd also be a bit unusual for an NYT writer who already has a book under his belt to self-publish a memoir and get no apparent US reviews--but, not impossible, and our entry is thin, relative to available sources, and out-of-date. So I'll try to catch it up and settle the matter. And the more the merrier on that effort! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the author photo in Google Books, I'd say they are not the same person. - Kzirkel (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, you want to fish? 

message: As no other wikipedia policy has so far been presented on this talk page that is directly relevant (other than those policies encouraging standard English grammar in the usage of singular and plural pronouns, including but not limited to MOS:SINGULAR and MOS:PLURALS), and as Funcrunch agrees that MOS:GENDERID "isn't directly relevant here" (as the subject of the page is a cisgender man), it seems to me that we should keep the status quo and side with the original state of the article (using standard written English).  I will make the change to restore the original.  But to avoid an edit war, I ask that people reply in the talk section with a contrary but directly relevant Wikipedia policy and discuss if they disagree, so that we can get WP:CONSENSUS. In the absence of consensus, I think we should defer to existing applicable Wikipedia policy (with the editors who want to keep standard written English).  Otherwise, perhaps we could consider alternatives that keep standard written English? (--such as using "they" in quotation marks with singular verbs, as suggested earlier here).  But if there is a better way to proceed, please speak up.  Thanks!
:I support allowing the article subject to choose their preferred pronoun. No Wikipedia policies prevent articles from using the preferred pronouns for an individual, and I do not see the term "standard English" used in the Manual of Style. No reason to not use the singular they if requested by an article subject. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to wait for other editors to respond here (it's has not been long since you started this discussion) or take this to the BLP noticeboard or another relevant place. Two editors disagree with your changes, and you are now at 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, and so please stop edit warring and continue with the discussion on the talk page. The section of the MOS you cite is not relevant to pronouns. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ and indent your comments with colons (:). Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I will wait, but note that I am NOT at 3 reverts in 24 hours, that you have come close to violating 3RR with your repeated reversions, and that other editors on this page (if you check the history) have disagreed with the use of 'they' and plural verbs to refer to a single subject. You are taking advantage of your own edit warring to hold the page at your preferred result. The section of MOS I cite is relevant, as it refers to "English plurals" article on correct grammar and pronoun casing for number. In the absence of consensus, this will have to be resolved by dispute resolution, on whether the wikipedia style policy on correct grammar is controlling, or some other policy that I am not aware of and that no one has yet cited is.  Thanks for the reminder on the colon and tildes.2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I would add that one could equally well say that the plural pronoun side has made great changes not long after the topic was started, as I see the question as this: whether the original using singular pronouns and verbs to refer to the subject, in which there was once a consensus, should remain, consistent with standard written English -- or a radical change should be sustained, even though WP:CONSENSUS was not reached.  I don't know which way Wikipedia will come down on that, ---but that's the way I see it, that you are edit warring against a prior consensus (the original form of the page), and without any directly relevant policy to support it.2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Before engaging in repeated reversions, please engage here.  Note that the version using singular pronouns was the most recent version that had consensus.  Currently there is consensus for neither the singular or plural pronoun version. It is my view that the most recent version that had consensus (i.e. singular pronouns) should stand until the issue is resolved, especially given the policy in favor of standard English usage. I can see the other side, but respectfully submit that in these circumstances the burden is on those who wish to propose a change from a version with consensus to one that is controversial and uses non-standard grammar. 2601:184:4080:8D01:8C52:3794:3D54:2DD2 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments about "standard English" would be the same against the MOS:GENDERID policy, which is an accepted part of Wikipedia. The Oxford Dictionary also disagree with your statements about grammar: "" I agree with the other editors who have commented on this talk page that there is no reason to not use the article subject's preferred pronoun. You have provided no valid reason to treat Manjoo differently. Several people have disagreed with you here and no one else has supported your position on the talk page, which means that you cannot continue to edit war to insert your preferred language. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: we covered why MOS:GENDERID does not apply earlier here: the subject does not identify with another gender. Regarding Oxford, one can cite violently opposing recent reference works on this (as I did above). the issue has become a political football, but the 16th century use is not the use you are advocating here, nor are we in the 16th century. As far as current practice, we all read a great deal in English, and I don’t see how one can seriously claim “they are” in reference to private individuals is anything near a standard practice. As far as WP:CONSENSUS, I was not aware it was a matter of popularity, but I did cite three other editors who have disagreed with your changes (from their edits and comments in edit history). If you’re saying WP:CONSENSUS means we have to accept your disputed version under these circumstances, rather than stick to the version that had previously been accepted by everyone, that’s something, but I don’t see that in the policy. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is based on reasoned discussion. All three editors who have commented on the talk page about the use of singular they have been in favor of keeping the article subject's preferred pronoun, except for you. No consensus could have formed prior to Manjoo requesting the use of the singular they. If no one else agrees with you, then you can either WP:DROPTHESTICK or pursue another avenue of dispute resolution. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the benefit of having the other editors who disagreed (with plural pronouns in reference to individuals) comment here.  I think you’ll find particular pages tend to attract particular biases in editors, and so I think you’re not seeing or giving sufficient weight to how far away you are from consensus for your preferred edits. I agree the current version lacks consensus, and that the previous version would not have consensus now. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version has the preference of 3 editors. You can call it "bias" all you want. Maybe that is why other editors are not engaging in a pointless discussion with you. I no longer will be either. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The other versions (against “they are”) have the preference of four editors total (see edit history). I appreciate that the three other editors have not commented here, and that’s why I mentioned something I thought would not be controversial, that some pages draw and excite some editors and viewpoints more than others (by way of explanation for their not commenting on this page; a similar problem skews primary voters to ideological extremes). I was not accusing you of bias, nor do I regard bias as necessarily unhealthy: I have a point of view and bias myself, and I am sure that some other pages on wikipedia would end up with a consensus closer to my biases (and the same problem on the other side). I mentioned it only in what I thought was the true spirit of WP:CONSENSUS, which is not (I thought) to win a popularity contest, but to genuinely account for and represent different reasoned views that have some acceptance or weight. But if you seriously believe that the use of plural pronouns and verbs for private individuals is universally regarded as unobjectionable and non-controversial, it probably would be difficult to make headway in a discussion.  2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what to do. I usually only make minor edits to Wikipedia to fix grammatical errors, and I stumbled onto this. I believe it should be changed to standard usage. What is the policy? Quarkbuddha (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When you have even a couple of editors united to revert opposing changes (and who initiate unfounded accusations of various wikipedia rules violations unless you back down), I don’t think there’s much you can do, at least not without learning and spending a lot of time on the wikipedia appeals process. I agree the article is not now in accord with the wikipedia policy on standard grammar (and it’s also just plain ugly to read!), but in my view, it wasn’t worth the effort to appeal.2601:184:4080:8D01:381C:9FBF:7B9A:71B9 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy discussion on use of singular they