Thread: BUG #13589: content error
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 13589 Logged by: Luisa Barnett Email address: barnettluisa@gmail.com PostgreSQL version: 9.5alpha2 Operating system: irrelevant Description: Hello, I was enjoying your PostgreSQL when I came across this statement... "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database for your use. He should have told you what the name of your database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next section." While something as minor as using a male pronoun in reference to a site administrator might seem like no big deal, the reality is that tiny actions add up to create major societal problems, like the severe lack of gender equality in the tech world. I'd love to see this and other instances corrected to state "he or she" or "she or he." Thanks!
barnettluisa@gmail.com wrote: > While something as minor as using a male pronoun in reference to a site > administrator might seem like no big deal, the reality is that tiny actions > add up to create major societal problems, like the severe lack of gender > equality in the tech world. > > I'd love to see this and other instances corrected to state "he or she" or > "she or he." Care to submit a patch? Another alternative is to use the plural "they". -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 8/25/2015 1:37 PM, barnettluisa@gmail.com wrote: > While something as minor as using a male pronoun in reference to a site > administrator might seem like no big deal, the reality is that tiny actions > add up to create major societal problems, like the severe lack of gender > equality in the tech world. > > I'd love to see this and other instances corrected to state "he or she" or > "she or he." in fact, traditionally in American English at least, He, Him, etc are valid for both male AND generic. Attempts at neutering this just sound awkward and pretentious. if you think standard language usage is 'keeping the woman down', you have bigger issues. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
John R Pierce wrote: > On 8/25/2015 1:37 PM, barnettluisa@gmail.com wrote: > >While something as minor as using a male pronoun in reference to a site > >administrator might seem like no big deal, the reality is that tiny actions > >add up to create major societal problems, like the severe lack of gender > >equality in the tech world. > > > >I'd love to see this and other instances corrected to state "he or she" or > >"she or he." > > in fact, traditionally in American English at least, He, Him, etc are valid > for both male AND generic. Attempts at neutering this just sound awkward > and pretentious. We already have a few places using "his or her" and such. (This is subject of debate in other languages also.) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Hi, Yep, let's fix that. On 2015-08-25 20:37:43 +0000, barnettluisa@gmail.com wrote: > "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database for your > use. He should have told you what the name of your database is. In that case > you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next section." Maybe: "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database for your use, in which case you should already have been told what the name of your database. ..."? Greetings, Andres Freund
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-08-25 20:37:43 +0000, barnettluisa@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database for your
>> use. He should have told you what the name of your database is. In that case
>> you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next section."
> Maybe: "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> for your use, in which case you should already have been told what the
> name of your database. ..."?
The hard part of getting rid of "he" is to not make the text harder to
read (you failed at that) or be distracting about it. We're trying to
write technical documentation, not to be politically correct. (Being
PC is fine, mind you, I just don't want to be in-your-face about it.)
I don't mean to dismiss the idea, but I think fixing this without doing
damage to other worthy goals is going to be a lot harder than just
"s/he/he or she/g".
As mentioned upthread, constructive criticism in the form of a patch
might serve to move the discussion forward.
regards, tom lane
PS: in this *particular* example, I wonder whether we couldn't dodge the
problem by just omitting the second sentence altogether.
On 8/25/2015 3:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yep, let's fix that.
>
> On 2015-08-25 20:37:43 +0000,barnettluisa@gmail.com wrote:
>> >"Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database for your
>> >use. He should have told you what the name of your database is. In that case
>> >you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next section."
> Maybe: "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> for your use, in which case you should already have been told what the
> name of your database. ..."?
I think thats excessively wordy and contrived. 'They" [1] would be a
perfectly valid usage, but "He" [2] is totally legitimate as the generic
case.
"Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database for your
use. They should have told you what the name of your database is. In that case
you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next section."
references:
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/he
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2015-08-25 20:37:43 +0000, barnettluisa@gmail.com wrote: > >> "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database for your > >> use. He should have told you what the name of your database is. In that case > >> you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next section." > > > Maybe: "Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database > > for your use, in which case you should already have been told what the > > name of your database. ..."? > > The hard part of getting rid of "he" is to not make the text harder to > read (you failed at that) or be distracting about it. We're trying to > write technical documentation, not to be politically correct. (Being > PC is fine, mind you, I just don't want to be in-your-face about it.) This is what I suggested: "Possibly, your site administrators have already created a database for your use. They should have told you what the name of your database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next section." > I don't mean to dismiss the idea, but I think fixing this without doing > damage to other worthy goals is going to be a lot harder than just > "s/he/he or she/g". Agreed. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2015-08-25 18:19:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The hard part of getting rid of "he" is to not make the text harder to > read (you failed at that) Hey, I'm german, it's expected of me to construct sentences structured like tapeworms.
On 25 Aug 2015 23:31, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > This is what I suggested: > > "Possibly, your site administrators have already created a database for > your use. They should have told you what the name of your database is. > In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next > section." For what it's worth there is a long history of using "plural" pronouns "they", " them", "their" for singular persons. It's becoming increasingly standard but it's always been around. It wouldn't be incorrect to adopt that style though it might invite misguided pedants and debates on that point. c.f. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=27
On 26/08/15 13:31, Greg Stark wrote: > On 25 Aug 2015 23:31, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> This is what I suggested: >> >> "Possibly, your site administrators have already created a database for >> your use. They should have told you what the name of your database is. >> In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead to the next >> section." > For what it's worth there is a long history of using "plural" pronouns > "they", " them", "their" for singular persons. It's becoming > increasingly standard but it's always been around. It wouldn't be > incorrect to adopt that style though it might invite misguided pedants > and debates on that point. > > c.f. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=27 > > I would strongly agree! Better than "she or he", or using "she' to mean both (on the basis "she" includes "he" - you could equally justify using "he" to mean both, as it is the greatest common subset, yet people say it is sexist!). Besides what about those people who: (1) have ambiguous gender (2) have both type of genitalia (at least part, neither necessarily fully functional) (3) have no genitalia (4) or don't want to declare themselves (5) are in the process of changing from one to the other (there is an island where roughly 10% of boys are born looking like females, and at puberty they change. Their parents simply change they name and give them different clothes, and treat it as no big deal! - reading an article about this, got me interested, was fascinating) Probably more importantly, why bring gender into a phrase if it is irrelevant! I have been using what I call 'Gender Appropriate" language long before all this "Political Correctness" nonsense started up. Besides which, you often want to refer to one or more people when discussing something, so using "they", " them", & "their" much more widely makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Gavin
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > As mentioned upthread, constructive criticism in the form of a patch > might serve to move the discussion forward. Here is a patch showing around 45 suggested changes to get the ball rolling. Mostly "he or she", but sometimes other wording, and in one case I took a few liberties and introduced <literal>name</> to stand in for database objects instead of pronouns which I hope doesn't read too clumsily or change the meaning. I didn't cover the release notes. A big +1 from me for changing this (unintentionally) unwelcoming language generally, whatever the new wording. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
On 8/26/15 3:55 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> As mentioned upthread, constructive criticism in the form of a patch >> might serve to move the discussion forward. > > Here is a patch showing around 45 suggested changes to get the ball > rolling. Mostly "he or she", but sometimes other wording, and in one > case I took a few liberties and introduced <literal>name</> to stand > in for database objects instead of pronouns which I hope doesn't read > too clumsily or change the meaning. I didn't cover the release notes. > > A big +1 from me for changing this (unintentionally) unwelcoming > language generally, whatever the new wording. (Reviewing this for the commit fest ...), I welcome this discussion and am surprised that you have found so many issues. But I'm not in favor of this particular patch. I think most people in the discussion were not in favor of "he or she", and I feel in most of the cases where you dropped the pronoun in favor of just "the", it loses clarity. I would be mildly in favor of singular they, but it needs to be woven in carefully.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 8/26/15 3:55 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> As mentioned upthread, constructive criticism in the form of a patch
> >> might serve to move the discussion forward.
> >
> > Here is a patch showing around 45 suggested changes to get the ball
> > rolling. Mostly "he or she", but sometimes other wording, and in one
> > case I took a few liberties and introduced <literal>name</> to stand
> > in for database objects instead of pronouns which I hope doesn't read
> > too clumsily or change the meaning. I didn't cover the release notes.
> >
> > A big +1 from me for changing this (unintentionally) unwelcoming
> > language generally, whatever the new wording.
>
> (Reviewing this for the commit fest ...), I welcome this discussion and
> am surprised that you have found so many issues. But I'm not in favor
> of this particular patch. I think most people in the discussion were
> not in favor of "he or she", and I feel in most of the cases where you
> dropped the pronoun in favor of just "the", it loses clarity.
>
Thanks for taking a look at this. I don't want my attempt to steer things
in a more conservative direction to result in the original complaint not
being fixed, so how about considering just this change to start.sgml for
now:
<para>
Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
- for your use. He should have told you what the name of your
+ for your use and told you what the name of your
database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
to the next section.
</para>
> I would be mildly in favor of singular they, but it needs to be woven in
> carefully.
>
To me it doesn't seem to fit the tone or register of the manual, but I'll
be happy to try it that way if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
(Apparently people have been arguing about this for hundreds of years, and
I don't intend to join them...)
--=20
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
"The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work.
As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty-hose, he is
easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day."
=E2=80=94=E2=80=AFC. Badendyck, New York Times (1985)
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Thanks for taking a look at this. I don't want my attempt to steer things
> in a more conservative direction to result in the original complaint not
> being fixed, so how about considering just this change to start.sgml for
> now:
> <para>
> Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> - for your use. He should have told you what the name of your
> + for your use and told you what the name of your
> database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> to the next section.
> </para>
That would work, but I still wonder why we need that second sentence
at all.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > Thanks for taking a look at this. I don't want my attempt to steer things
> > in a more conservative direction to result in the original complaint not
> > being fixed, so how about considering just this change to start.sgml for
> > now:
>
> > <para>
> > Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> > - for your use. He should have told you what the name of your
> > + for your use and told you what the name of your
> > database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> > to the next section.
> > </para>
>
> That would work, but I still wonder why we need that second sentence
> at all.
+1
Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
+ for your use. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
to the next section.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 9/15/15 8:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/26/15 3:55 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > (Reviewing this for the commit fest ...), I welcome this discussion and > am surprised that you have found so many issues. But I'm not in favor > of this particular patch. I think most people in the discussion were > not in favor of "he or she", and I feel in most of the cases where you > dropped the pronoun in favor of just "the", it loses clarity. > > I would be mildly in favor of singular they, but it needs to be woven in > carefully. I have committed something based on your work and other suggestions. I did not find any similar issues in message strings. There are a few issues in code comments, but I did not feel urged to clean them all up at this point.