From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sorry, but as a bit of a grammar geek, I couldn't let this pass without comment. To claim that it is a result of feminism is simply silly and detracts from what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.--KimSell 06:25, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Sigh. Fair enough. You want to pretend that it is all the fault of liberals and feminists, despite it dating back centuries. If you want to look silly, then that is fine. I won't bother with this article again and will leave it looking ridiculous.--KimSell 06:30, 23 February 2008 (EST) Meanwhile, maybe someone should look at this site: or this one, if you want to continue pretending that the KJV Bible is feminist or liberal then there is little hope left --KimSell 06:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Didn't you see my edit note that I would comment here shortly? If you did, does that mean that you've jumped to a conclusion without waiting to see what I had to say?
Here is what I had already started typing:
A few comments:
  • I couldn't see how your quote (I assume it to be one, despite the lack of quote marks) from Shakespeare supports your point. I'll have to admit that I never really studied Shakespeare, but I couldn't see in that quote that he is talking about the unknown-gender singular, rather than plural. Looking at it further, perhaps you are right; I'm not sure. But even if you are, my remaining points remain.
Seriously, you deleted it because you didnt understand it? My word, that is silly. When one talks of "every X" you use the singular form. "Every man took his gun." for example. So, in the quote, he used they to make the singular. But hey, its all about the liberals! --KimSell 06:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
  • Your edit was poor in the sense of the flow of the article. The result of your edit was to have the article state that "they" refers to plural, then explain that it had a history of referring to the singular. That comes close to have the article contradict itself. At the very least, you could have made it say that it normally refers to the plural, but sometimes refers to the singular, then go on to explain its history of referring to the singular.
Oh my gosh! It showed that a word can have more than one meaning. That is simply the case. --KimSell 06:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
  • There is also the possibility of middle ground here. Perhaps the word does have a history of being used for the unknown-gender singular, but perhaps this use of the word has become far more common for the reasons that you deleted. In which case you can reinsert a form of your edit, but retain (and modify) what was already there. A common problem on Conservapedia is someone pushing a liberal view to the exclusion of the conservative view, rather than trying to accommodate both.
But there was NO evidence for the "conservative" view, if that is what you think it was. --KimSell 06:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
If my second point was the only point I had, I would have simply fixed the flow myself. But the problems seemed greater than that, so I thought it best to revert and comment.
Philip J. Rayment 06:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Sure, you would prefer to have an incorrect claim in an "encyclopedia" because it is all about the liberals and the feminists. That is your choice. I won't correct this article any further. --KimSell 06:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
KimSell, your reply has not helped your case.
  • No, I did not revert it because I didn't understand it. It was the combination of the points above, not just one by itself, that caused me to revert it.
  • It might have showed that a word can have more than one meaning, but that was not my point. My point was that the article didn't flow well.
  • You not being aware of any evidence for the view that the article expressed does not mean that there is no evidence.
And no, I would not prefer to have an incorrect claim. If you decline to edit the article further despite my implicit invitation to do so, then that is your choice.
Philip J. Rayment 07:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I tried to incorporate both reversions, the traditional use of the word "he" and the historical singular use of "they". Both of these claims require sources to support them, but for now we may have reached a compromise. TheGuy 07:54, 23 February 2008 (EST)

That's the sort of thing that I was hinting at for KimSell to do. They has provided ... (it doesn't really work there, does it?) He has provided (that's better, even if he is a female member of the man-kind) a couple of links above which could be used as sources to reference. Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Oh. I am sorry. I did not realise that what you wanted was a lot of unsupported claims about liberals and feminists, as opposed to the actual reference I gave to the historical usage of the word. I will try to be more conservative in my edits in future. --KimSell 08:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)
And, by the way, if you are going to try to be cute, then at least be accurate. "They has provided" should read "they HAVE provided", and in any case, the use of "they" would not be correct since we know that TheGuy is male. --KimSell 08:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)
We'd appreciate you being more conservative in your edits. It is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Yep, I guess "They have provided" would have been better, but it would have spoilt the joke, wouldn't have it (although I guess you didn't think it funny anyway)? But you are wrong on two points: First, I don't know that TheGuy is male. It is a reasonable thing to think given his name, but then there's been plenty of female authors with male pen-names, so I can't be certain. Second, I was referring to you, not TheGuy! Philip J. Rayment 08:26, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Wow! This encyclopedia whines about the change in the meaning of a word that actually ISN'T a change, as demonstrated in a number of sources that I have given, but then you say you want me to be more "conservative" in your edits, where conservative can only mean "without support, corroboration or evidence". --KimSell 08:31, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Whilst I have tried to discuss the issue civilly and have conceded that you make some valid points, I haven't noticed you conceding anything I've said. All you can do is criticise, it seems. Consider this a warning that if you continue in this vein you might get blocked for violation of commandment 7 (unproductive editing). Philip J. Rayment 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)