[dataflow]

What I don't quite understand is the resistance. It's a fact that some people (and I mean readers, not the editors) don't like, understand, and/or accept the new meaning of this word, whether we like it or not. Whereas everyone should be agreeing that the alternatives are fine. So if you have an alternative everyone is fine with... it seems like a no-brainer to use it? When you have something that everyone is happy with, why insist on an alternative that some people hate?

[nitwit005]

I dislike the way you communicate. It's wrong. I don't care if a majority of people agree with you. That doesn't matter.

Can't see why anyone would be annoyed.

[dataflow]

Why take this personally? This is not a personal battle. It's isn't about disliking the way a person communicates, nor about it being right or wrong. It's about the way Wikipedia articles communicate, namely, in a way that hopefully minimizes friction for their readers (whom it's there for - it's not there for the editors), without compromising on accuracy. I would think editors really ought to be able to distinguish "I like this word more" and "I think this word is best for readers".

[nitwit005]

You asked why there is resistance. I summarized a portion of their argument, in blunt terms, as that makes it clear why some people might be upset.

[woooooo]

There are a billion of us speaking the language. It's a little presumptuous to tell a billion people what to do and there should probably be some amount of default resistance.

[JW_00000]

There's 380 million native speaker of this language, but another billion non-native speakers. If this change helps that latter billion, should the former 380 million object?

(On a personal note, as a non-native speaker of English I've always found the phrase "comprised of" confusing. I infer the "directionality" based on context but am unsure how to use it correctly myself.)

[dataflow]

Nobody is telling a billion people what to do though? We're just talking about what word to use in an article edited by a handful of people. The billion people can keep using whatever words they want.

[amelius]

The billion people prefer to read the language that they also use, in all its glory.

What you're defending is a bit like replacing all female TV hosts by men and then saying that nobody surely is against men on TV.

[dataflow]

Do you really believe the loss society would suffer from editing "comprised of" in Wikipedia articles is actually comparable to what it would suffer if they discriminated against half the population on TV?

[cogitoergofutuo]

I can only speak for myself, but the actual phrase “comprised of” is the least interesting thing to discuss when it comes to this topic.

I am fascinated by a single person taking up the cause of “correcting” the language of others based off of their personal linguistic aesthetic preference.

I don’t see many people saying “I often have to stop at the words ‘comprised of’ and reevaluate the meaning of the sentence that I’m reading lest I completely misunderstand it.” This isn’t actually in practical service of clarity, it’s an exercise in preserving a sense of meaningful posterity — a deeply personal and sentimental endeavor despite what “reasons” one is able to elucidate.

[dataflow]

But again, this isn't even about correcting others' language. People are fine to use whatever language that serves them personally well in their lives - but this isn't about that. It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers. Every comment I'm reading here so far seems to insist this is somehow personal toward the author and correcting them, whereas it really isn't.

[nirvdrum]

Wouldn't this argument cut both ways? Presumably the people that started using the phrase incorrectly were bucking the trend.