Re. Edited version of two non_PC examples

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     Rosie Wilcox provided two examples of politically incorrect writing
     and asked how one might work around them:

     <<a database field indian_tribe>>
     Although Rosie's suggestion of "Native American" (in Canada, "First
     Nations") as a better substitute is helpful, the better solution is to
     choose a different example in the first place. Why risk offence if you
     don't have to? If the example is a database developed specifically for
     Native Americans, ask them how they would prefer to be labeled. If the
     situation is somewhere in between, it would be useful to know why the
     field is called "indian_tribe" in the first place. This might be a
     case of using a specific example when a generic description might work
     better (e.g., "social group", "organisation", etc.).

     <<a button in an application labeled "Men/equipment">>
     This one's easier. Change the button to "Staff/equip." (abbreviation
     to reduce button length, which is often constrained) or "Resources".
     You might even split this into two buttons, one "Labor" and the other
     "Hardware" or equivalent names, depending on what the buttons actually
     lead to.

     Harking back to the "where does an editor's responsibility end?"
     debate, my responsibility includes eliminating all politically
     incorrect language (with specific mention of "sexist" usage); I'd have
     no problem insisting on the changes. If you lack this authority,
     you'll have to rely more on persuasion.

     --Geoff Hart     #8^{)}   <--visually handicapped, but not disabled
     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

     Disclaimer: These comments are my own and don't represent the opinions
     of the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada.