Per MOS:S/HE and WP:GNL 'man-made' should seemingly be replaced in our blurb. Our Voyager 2 article currently uses "human-made"; ("artificial" might also be another option, tho "human-made" seems better, and is also used in some of our Voyager 1 citation headlines).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Incidentally, my thanks to TenorTwelve for pointing out the problem at ITN/C).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "artificial" sounds less clunky than "human-made" and fits the link better. Modulus12 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an error. The "man" in "man-made" refers to Mankind, not male human beings. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the same can be said of every use of male words to represent humans (including Mankind instead of Humankind), but such usages are contrary to the spirit and/or the letter of what Wikipedia has to say on the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not one is happy about it, "man-made" is the usual term in English. "Human-made" sounds to me an artificial construct pushed for political reasons. That might change with time, but writing "human-made" is currently not a politically neutral act, and some of us dislike politicising language in this way even if we agree with the political sentiments. "Artificial object" also sounds a bit strange because we do not usually classify objects into natural and artifial (in the way that we do, for instance, satellites or sweeteners). I would vote for "man-made", then "artificial".Jmchutchinson (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as Chelsea Manning announced that she had adopted the first name Chelsea and was no longer using Bradley, there was a huge debate about whether to change the title of that article right away or to wait for a good number of RS to start using it. If I recall correctly, the former camp won out and Jimbo Wales said Wikipedia should be at the forefront of that issue. --184.248.25.227 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that as of a few years ago, NASA started discouraging the use of the term "unmanned" or "man-made" in favor of terms like "uncrewed" or "artificial", and many space news sources have followed suit, so there's that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely a bit of a grey area, "man-made" is ostensibly a gender-neutral term, but there is criticism and argument against the concept of the gender-neutral "man", as is explained at wikt:man#Usage notes, so it's not an illegitimate question. However, as is explained there, the use of the term "man-made" was considered to be acceptable by 86%-87% of the American Heritage Dictionary usage panel, which is noticeably considered more acceptable than other uses of the gender-neutral "man", all of which however seem to be considered to be acceptable by decisive supermajorities. Culture changes over time, and the cultural view may be different now than in those 2004 surveys, perhaps to the point where the community would discourage this kind of use, but I think it's a stretch to consider this common term to be out of line with what the MOS guidance is getting at. If we want to take a decisive stance on this, it should go to the community.  Swarm  {talk}  14:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• All gender-neutral language is arguably a grey area in the world at large, as distinct from Wikipedia, but it is NOT a grey area according to WP:GNL, which explicitly lists it among its easily-avoided formulations: "Man to stand for both genders in general, either as a separate item (man's greatest discoveries), a prefix (mankind, manmade), or a suffix (businessman, fireman)". However WP:GNL is itself a grey area, being an essay rather than policy, although it is linked to from MOS:S/HE, which is a guideline (but again not a policy).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However it seems reasonably clear that using man-made, especially on the front page. runs counter to the spirit of our official guideline (and thus also against WP:CONSENSUS), as well as contrary to the letter of the related essay, so it would seem to require a pretty strong reason to go against it, and I don't see any such strong reason on offer here ('grey area' is weak almost by definition). It looks even worse when we remember that Wikipedia is frequently attacked for supposedly being a bastion of male systemic sexism, and our insistence on ignoring our own official anti-sexism guideline on our front page in this instance, using all sorts of arguments that systematically ignore what that guideline says (in favour of arguments based on dictionaries, surveys of American public opinion in 2004, individual editors' personal preferences, etc), is liable to be used as pretty powerful ammo by Wikipedia's critics. (Incidentally, my personal preference would probably be to scrap most GNL, but that's beside the point).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if 'human-made' is rejected, 'artificial' is perfectly acceptable according to our guideline (unlike 'man-made'). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that all your critics aren't politically correct. Art LaPella (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing though, the MOS guideline itself does not take a stance on the gender-neutral "man", like the essay does. I've scoured the WP:VPP and WP:MOS talk archives for any indication of specific intent, and while there's plenty of discussions about this issue, the only formal consensus I could find was this, where, of all things, the "generic he" was prohibited, but strikingly, language favoring gender-neutral terms over "-man" as a suffix was simultaneously rejected. Mind you, the essay does advocate for this point, but when put to the community, it was rejected. If the community does not even have the appetite to extend this policy to favor "firefighter" over "fireman", it's unrealistic to suggest that it unambiguously prohibits the use of the gender neutral "man". And, I would personally support with the change, but the argument that it's not allowed under the current MOS guidance is just too dubious.  Swarm  {talk}  19:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very interesting and informative analysis, Swarm. The trouble is that its conclusion seemingly runs counter to the apparent spirit (and indeed seemingly also the letter) of the guideline, the relevant wording being "For an essay with suggestions and sample usage, see Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. ... Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. For example, avoid the generic he." The generic He is given as just one example, while the overall guideline is to "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision" (with the essay being linked as a source of further examples). "Human-made" and "artificial" are both instances of using "gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision", while "man-made" is not. And it seems to me logically impossible to justify rejecting the actual wording of a guideline in favour of a seemingly opposite conclusion based solely on one editor's interpretation of past debates on the matter (incidentally also in various none-too-clear locations, though it would still be almost as problematic if they were clear), a methodology which, if accepted, would mean that no guideline or policy could ever be accepted at face value (Wikipedia is not an anarchy). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close? My impression is there is now a rough consensus here for "artificial" (but not for either 'human-made' or 'man-made'). Nobody has explicitly opposed "artificial", and arguably almost everybody on both sides has seemingly explicitly or implicitly supported it (or deemed it acceptable) as either their first or second choice. But I'm involved (and also not an admin), so my estimate of the consensus doesn't count. So perhaps it's time for some uninvolved admin to now decide the matter one way or another. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man-made is fine, and has nothing to do with the generic ‘he’ described above. Stephen 05:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you closing the discussion or taking part in it? If the former, I guess I'll just have to accept your ruling. If the latter, it is true that man-made is not an instance of the generic He (tho it's not obvious that it has nothing to do with it), but neither is it gender-neutral language (which is what our guideline MOS:S/HE tells us to use). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]