Talk:Journeyman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does this talk about apprentices in detail?[edit]

Surely apprentices have their own page. There's very little actual mention of journeymen here.

Agreed. This page is an empty husk. There's a lot of information about journeymen on the internet, most of it is in German. There surely is a person out there who is capable to translate it into English (and isn't tired of the editing wars...) --178.2.100.238 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Knave[edit]

I noticed the word knave does not redirect here anymore but instead redirects to boy. I suggest that it should be switched back.

Or disambiguated -- considering there's at least one more meaning of knave to consider, namely knaves in playing cards. 84.69.188.99 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of article[edit]

Wikipedia's manual of style on naming conventions puts the desired term at the common one(without being too common of course, as in the example of tidal wave). With that said, the term 'journeyperson' gets 121,000 hits on google, and the term 'journeyman' gets 9,450,000. There's an order of mangnitude difference between the two. Kevin_b_er 05:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we use the tile of this artticle as a redirect, but use the Genderequal title for the article.100110100 07:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cant have a gender equal title for this article. The name comes from old english where Journeyman was a status not actually a title - if that makes sense.
Dictionary definition:
  1. One who has fully served an apprenticeship in a trade or craft and is a qualified worker in another's employ.
  2. An experienced and competent but undistinguished worker.
Finally Journeyperson is not in the dictionary - it isn't a word. We need to steer away from PC directives that the government and national agencies are trying to wrongy impose on certain words in the name of equality. *sigh* our poor old language :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not one to blindly support politically correct language, but I do think we should take note that "journeyperson" does have wide modern usage as a term in North America as shown by google hits. I recommend a redirect from Journeyperson to this page and a clear statement that the journeyperson term is in use today, at least in Canada and the USA. It may not mean the same as the medieval journeyman (or modern equivalents of this), but article should note this usage and redirect should be in place Bwithh 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I agree with that I added a section and checked the redirect. Agree? Also do you have any sources we can use for that new section --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind seeing Journeyman mentioning the term journeyperson. But the term is really journeyman and moving the article (wether by the move function or by cutting and pasting article) is not the standard name. I do however note that the page uses 'his' too much. This may be the source of 100110100 misgivings about gender neutrality in the article. Kevin_b_er 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into this a little more and it seems that the term "journeyperson" is being used in the UK as well. (I'll do some editing of the article later on) In Canada, the term seems to have been largely disseminated through governmental use in legislation. In the USA (and possibly the UK) the term came into wide usage through trade unions one by one gradually voting on whether to change the language to something more gender-neutral (this union trend happened in Canada as well). So, in the US at least, the change seems to be coming from endorsements by blue-collar unionized workers. The earliest mention I can find of this name change is a brief one line mention from a Wall Street Journal labor/trade union news roundup from January 1992: The sheet-metal contractors and union's training fund will henceforth use the term "journeyperson" instead of "journeyman," for those who have finished apprenticeships.. In August 1992, The Wall Street Journal published a poem (?!?) based on that line from January:
Dead Latter File
(". . . henceforth, the term `journeyperson' instead of `journeyman,' for those who have finished apprenticeships." -- WSJ news item)


How strange is our world
From the one way back when.
It's now full of persons
Who used to be men.
-- E.B. de Vito.
Bwithh 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No the article title is wrong. I have never seen a textbook that says that gender bias terms should be not be changed. Its so funny how you say that the term's only political, but what caused the politics? The people! Obviously there's something wrong with the term, if there wasn't, there wouldn't be change! Look, language changes. And as the politics show, there are people who do not think it is the right term, nor do the people think it should be, or should still be, or used. We could include in the article about this controversy, & explain why the title is Journeyperson, instead of Journeyman [as Journeyman would be a redirect], & explain the history, the politics, & include maybe, 'Although it is has been traditionally a males only job, hence journeyman instead of journeyperson, journeyperson has gained wide acceptance; hence, in this article, we will use journeyperson instead journeyman.'.100110100 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you define wide acceptance? I still point to google results, where there's a factor of 10 difference between the usage of 'journeyman' vs 'journeyperson'. Kevin_b_er 08:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good point. Maybe I should rephrase it: linguistic acceptance, or grammer acceptance.100110100 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the external link to say 'journeypeople', the article doesn't even use the word, it uses 'journeymen'.
Sigh no this article is about the mediaval term Journeyman and not necessairily it's modern application. Also it is not accepted linguistically it is a political term - say8ing it is a term immposed by people isn't right! Common usage is Journeyman - the only websites that use Journeyperson are corporate sites desperate to follow govt legislation. I for one don't accept the introduction of gender neutral terms - they are frankly wrong and are subverting our language :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with gender-neutral terms that have been widely endorsed, but the fact is that journeyman has been in widespread use for centuries, no matter how widespread use of journeyperson today is. So Journeyman should take priority over Journeyperson. Bwithh 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's not how Wikipedia works. If a gender-neutral exact synonym is in common usage, Wikipedia articles should use it. Which brings us to the question "does one exist for 'journeyman'?" In 2006 the answer was a clear "no". In 2020, the answer is ... still pretty much "no". None of the big-name dictionaries include "journeyperson" yet. Even Wiktionary says it's nonstandard & rare. So the correct article title is "Journeyman", but if a neutral synonym becomes accepted widely, it will take the title. - Frankie1969 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German Journeymen[edit]

Good article here http://www.rechtschaffene-maurer.de/presse1.htm

Everyday Journeyman[edit]

[1]

also here [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.198.108 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coined in 2007 by British adventurist Loyal Mehnert, The Everyday Journeyman is the notion that anyone can experience exciting, life changing journeys on a day to day basis, irregardless of income, education, or skillset. The moniker applies to everything from backpacking across the United States to volunteer work to global adventure sports.

This isn't the place to add things that we make up one day nor is it the place to advertise our websites and books. You need to establish notability WP:NOTE on the subject and/or back up a statement with cited references when making factual statements to things that have historical meaning. By the way, the use of the word journeyman to describe a person going through daily life changing events to advance oneself has been in use for a while and is the foundation of its use when describing a person building knowledge of a trade, so the word journeyman wasn't recently attributed to such events as you've stated. --I already forgot 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aren't most things "made up one day?" The use of the word everyday journey as applied to the above is new and has not been in use for a while. How do we go about "establishing notability?"

The "journey" in journeyman derives from the 14th century French word for "work" (journee). Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master[edit]

This article links to the disambiguation page, Master. Are any of the other pages actually relevant, or would it be better to link straight to Master craftsman? Eigenbanana (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter :) I took the liberty of fixing it, good catch. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Master Craftsman[edit]

Having now lived in Germany for over 30 years, I know for a fact that a master craftsman is not required for a business. In Germany there are "Betriebe" and "Meisterbetriebe" - businesses and master businesses. However a master craftsman is required in businesses that have apprentices. TINYMARK 11:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not so a couple of years ago within the crafts businesses, and still some important crafts business require to have at least a master craftsman for employee if the owner is not one himself. --77.4.90.252 (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Also:[edit]

Naruto? Seriously? I'm taking that off.--87.115.11.104 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of all trades[edit]

The reference to "jack of all trades, master of none" seems to be false. Journeymen are not mentioned in the article about the expression. If no one offers a source for this claim, I suggest removing it.Cosainsé (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sex addict[edit]

im dying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:D80:17D:60D3:5E23:7828:B172 (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journeyman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Link for Journeyman[edit]

Greetings. I'd like to point out that the interlanguage links on the leftside of the page for this particular article is incorrect. Whilst there is no equivalent article in the portuguese language, there is alternative. Currently it is linking this page to the Free Mason Lodges, particularly the part that details member ranks. Whilst not unrelated, the Portuguese Guild article (read: Corporações de ofício) also has this description and is very much talking about this subject matter rather than the current link.

This is a suggestion that this changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:688C:111:6986:FF35:6CF7:EF6C (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journeyman&oldid=1203135766"