This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following text be added to MOS:GENDERID, inserted before the fourth paragraph? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
For a deceased trans or non-binary person, their former name should only be included if the encyclopaedic significance of the deadname is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning. [a] Introduce the former name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
- From Leelah Alcorn:
Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
Note: While Alcorn's gender identity is discussed in significant detail in high quality sources about her, her former name is not.- From Gloria Hemingway:
Gloria Hemingway (born Gregory Hancock Hemingway, November 12, 1931 – October 1, 2001) ...
Note: Hemingway's struggles with her gender dysphoria, and relationship with her gender identity, gender expression, and name are discussed in significant detail in sources about her life.- From Danielle Bunten Berry:
Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ...
Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.Notes
- ^ A 2023 RfC on this guideline reached the consensus that the former name of a trans or non-binary person is not automatically of encyclopaedic interest. As such they are typically considered minor aspects of a person's wider biography.
A recent RfC closed with the consensus that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used
. However, the community fell short of finding a consensus for a specific phrasing based on the options presented. The purpose of this RfC is not to re-litigate the previous RfC, but to find consensus for a phrasing that reflects the closure of the previous RfC, namely that previous names of deceased trans or non-binary people should have some relatively high but not absolute barrier to their use.
Loki (
talk) 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) based on wording proposed by
Sideswipe9th below
it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3, and that
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. This proposal builds upon the wording of the closure, by setting out two inclusion criteria for when a former name of a deceased trans or non-binary person could be included in an article: that the deadname is of clear encyclopaedic significance based on in-depth coverage or discussion in high quality sources, or if the person was notable prior to transitioning. Explicit links are made to the WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BESTSOURCES policy points, with the intentional effect of tying this guideline to both the What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view policies. With regards to the specifics of the closure, this sets the bar for inclusion at a level that is both lower than never (option 3) and higher than sometimes (option 2). It fulfils the consensus that articles should not routinely include the deadnames of deceased trans or non-binary individuals, while giving specific policy based guidance for what the inclusion criteria are. Finally it provides three examples of the applications of the inclusion criteria. While I had hoped that we would be able to find a consensus for inclusion through a discussion at WT:MOSBIO, it seems as though a clear consensus for or against this proposal is not emerging and an RfC is necessary. Finally, while the examples give what I believe to be clear applications of how those articles could meet the proposed criteria, they are not perfect. If better examples are found, either during the RfC or after, I don't think there should be any objection to substituting those in as they otherwise would not alter the scope of the proposal itself. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sourceswith
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sourcesshould there be a consensus for that as an alternative. I'd also have no objection to replacing
or if they were notable prior to transitioningwith
or if they were notable under the former name, as that would more closely match the second paragraph of the existing GENDERID. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interestthat was established just under a week ago. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
With around a hundred editors responding across these RFCs taking place at VPP, it is obvious that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest." [ emphasis in original – .Raven .talk 07:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.So, if anything, most of the comments on the last RFC should have been thrown out as personal opinion that flatly contradict established policy, but certainly not this one. Again, try making good arguments that are based on policy. You are proposing expanding an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED and acting like people who don't agree with you are violating policy, when they're not. You are WP:RGW, and I hope the closer has some sense. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion...." That is the topic of this discussion. – .Raven .talk 16:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sourceswording, will just lead to tendentious wikilawyering and unnecessary WP:CREEP. Under this proposal, the notable deadname of the Nashville school shooter would've been excluded from the article from the very beginning, and editors who try to add the name would've been reverted and pointed to this guideline in the MOS. If an overwhelming number of reliable sources use and report the deceased shooter's birth/deadname, it shouldn't take an uphill battle to include that name in the article. Some1 ( talk) 00:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionof the name; the name is mentioned in every article, but a mention doesn't meet that standard. This is where my concern about the wording comes from; it is overly restrictive and per the examples given doesn't appear to align with the intent. BilledMammal ( talk) 16:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
the fact that almost all of the reporting on the shooter referred to him by his deadname indicates that the inclusion of his deadname is necessary- I agree. The issue is that we would be forbidden from doing so by this policy, as to the best of my knowledge there are no sources providing
in-depth analysis or discussionof the name, and I would be very surprised if such sources did exist. BilledMammal ( talk) 19:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sourcesbe suitable for you?
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.Any barrier that would allow the inclusion of Hale's former name outside of IAR would be too low, as it would require a straight "majority of sources", which has explicitly been rejected per the existing consensus. So where exactly would you set the barrier? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
special privileges for [...] a single group" – Oh, where have I seen/heard that phrasing before? – .Raven .talk 07:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest, and so inclusion of the former name must be justified by analysing and weighing sources. This is surely business as usual for all content? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionbar being inappropriate. You could interpret it strictly, in which case it's too high a bar, or you could interpret it broadly, in which case it's no different to the normal process of analysing and weighing sources. 2) On the question of whether the scope of this RfC should be restricted to finding a result between Option 2 and 3... I can see quite a few people voting in this RfC that didn't vote in the previous one, so although it seems implausible that consensus can change in a matter of weeks, it's quite plausible that consensus can change when the voters are different. If this RfC attracts a substantially larger number of voters than the previous RfC, one could even argue that it has the power to overturn the previous consensus completely. A ratchet effect is probably not healthy. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 10:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's style guide should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented.— No. Following the broad principles of:
does Wikipedia not abide by name changes?— Which part of " name change" says that others may never mention the original name?
Then we treat others worse than we treat ourselves— WP:RENAME explicitly says "Existing ... mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename. Renames appear in the user rename log ... This is done in the interest of transparency." So RENAME does not deny or hide the past, nor should an encyclopedia article on a person who changed their name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED says content will be removed it it is judged to violate wikipedia policies, especially BLP.— But mentioning a person's prior name does not violate policies. And for the purpose of this RFC, BLP is irrelevant because the change is to a guideline about deceased people (and makes no mention of " recent"). Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED is still subservient to WP:NOTEVERYTHING— both are policies, neither is "subservient" to the other. But my original point - disputing Bluerasberry's assertion that "Wikipedia ... should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of [the article subjects]" - stands. NOTCENSORED explicitly contradicts Bluerasberry's assertion, while NOTEVERYTHING does not explicitly cover that assertion either way. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented" irrespective of the community in question. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
[I]t is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3. ... I suggest that some language taking into account the responses and concerns be workshopped, and possibly another RFC be held if the language doesn't get consensus through discussion."-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3", but my larger point is that, regardless, it's hardly FLOGGING in light of that finding.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is questionable, making it not a sound basis for significant change in a contentious areaIf you wish to make a challenge to the closure, then I'd suggest following the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Unless and until there is a successful challenge that overturns the closure of the last RfC, either in whole or in part, then that is the determination of the consensus. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion.and
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. If you wish to challenge that part of the closure, then I defer back to the advice at CLOSECHALLENGE. But until there is a successful challenge to it, that part of the closure is every bit as valid as the part you've quoted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
t
c
17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
t
c
21:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)If WP:NNC doesn't just mean that notability is not required for article content, but that no other policy regarding content can ever incorporate the concept of notability, we'd be in serious trouble here.Your interpretation is the wrong one here. If you had seen this post regarding the correct interpretation of NNC, then you would realize the guidance is clearly using language that suggests notability is not allowed as a criteria rather than simply "not being required". The nutshell says, "does not determine article content", and then even further restricts usage by going on to say, " but only whether the topic may have its own article.". Then the lede just comes right out and says, "They do not limit the content of an article or list...", and finally NNC itself plainly says, " The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles." So, I ask you to think again about what you just said. If NNC means that notability does not determine, limit, or apply to article contents, but only whether a topic may have its own article, then how in the world does anyone justify using notability to incorporate into another policy as a criteria for article contents? I don't think, "um I was just following other editors because I thought it was the right thing, and I didn't know any better" or, "I saw some really experienced editors talk about notability inside contents so I thought it was normal" counts as a good justifications. It was an editor who was much more experienced than me who first made me aware that not everyone here is fully aware of everything just because they have a lot of experience, and also made me aware that there is a problem with a lot of misinformation being spread throughout Wikipedia as well. Huggums537 ( talk) 09:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
...as we are essentially deciding whether the person warrants a wikipedia article under that name by including it in their article.This demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of how the notability guideline operates. We merge notable subjects/articles into other larger articles all the time, but that doesn't mean any bit of the new content in the larger article is allowed to be governed by notability criteria just because the former article was notable. In other words, former notability of any bit of content doesn't justify the use of notability as criteria in a current article. Huggums537 ( talk) 07:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.[ emphasis added
In this case it is really the notability of the subject under the previous name that's at issue, and I think phrasing it like that here might clarify at least the nature of the measure.You don't seem to understand that on Wikipedia, the name of the article is directly linked to the subject in such a way that for all practical purposes makes them the same thing when measuring notability, and trying to stress with italics and bolding that there is somehow a difference between any given subject, and the name of the article for that subject is just circular logic. In other words, if you are talking about the former notability of the subject, you are really also talking about the former notability of the name as JoelleJay has pointed out before. But, truthfully, we could slice this pie any way you want to because it would not matter if the subject and the name were somehow separated out, or linked together because they would each be ruled out as invalid "former notability" or even "current notability" criteria per WP:NNC so present, past, living, dead, single, or together slices of this designated pie don't amount to a hill of beans. Someone might argue that if you put the pie into a blender, then maybe it isn't a pie anymore, but the fact is that NNC is far from being in a blender, and there are only so many ways you will be able to slice this pie before you realize this is the pie you have. Also, I'm perfectly allowed to talk about whatever flaws I think MOS:GENDERID has which preceded this RfC as a pre-curser to initiating such a horrible RfC to begin with. So, please stop propagating this false idea that someone must open a new RfC to express these kind of views because they don't. It amounts to nothing more than attempted censorship, and people who have actual arguments don't resort to such barbaric tactics. Huggums537 ( talk) 13:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
the vast majority of editors have said they disagree with youthough. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You're now the fifth experienced editor to tell [Huggums537] there's no dilemma/conflict. This is bordering WP:IDHT.") This all said, regardless of whether 1 or 2 or even 30% of Wikipedia users agree with Huggums, the CIR invocation (not to mention the other personal attacks) was clearly unwarranted.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
others have already (very repeatedly) discussed your interpretation of NPOV/DUE as to trans personsPeople stating the wrong thing repeatedly doesn't suddenly make their position correct.
As to your inquiryAnd you go on to link to a discussion forcibly closed in two days, not the slam dunk you're professing exists... — Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
People stating the wrong thing repeatedly doesn't suddenly make their position correct."
You are not discussing the topic at hand; this is not a forum for you to vent your wikilawyering analysis.because I didn't bring it up, blueboar did here and JoelleJay did here so if you continue to single me out while not saying anything to others you will get reported. I've been really nice about this, but if you don't stop I will be forced to do something to prevent it from happening. Huggums537 ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
... me being singled out for even posting here with my views...." Not really. – .Raven .talk 18:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
t
c
12:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)encyclopedic interest", which is "
not automatic"... per last week's RfC. – .Raven .talk 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
On-wiki, you can change your username— WP:RENAME explicitly says "Existing ... mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename. Renames appear in the user rename log ... This is done in the interest of transparency." RENAME does not deny or hide the past, nor should an encyclopedia article on a person who changed their name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
... dissociate your new name from the old one, for instance as a WP:CLEANSTART— I do not think WP:CLEANSTART is a good analogy - the reasons for a CLEANSTART are (presumably) different to the reasons for a trans person changing their name, but since you raised it, CLEANSTART says: "Be aware that no one can grant permission for a clean start. ... If you attempt a clean start but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts." This is stretching the (not-very-good) analogy, but the point is that CLEANSTART does not assure disassociation from your old name, not does it say (for example) "editors are forbidden from mentioning an editor's previous account name". Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusionand that
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Loki ( talk) 17:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This proposal would also conflict with policy; there are many circumstances where it would require us to exclude names that WP:NPOV would require us to include due to their prominence in reliable sources." The horse already left that barn: WP:BLPPRIVACY has us not report personal information (address, phone#) against the subject's will, even if news sources have done so: "Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified." WP:BLPCRIME has us not report the names of unconvicted arrestees even if those names have been prominent in RSs. WP:BLPNAME has us be similarly careful about non-arrested people's names: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." (We couldn't have done so anyway without RS[s], but again the "mere existence" of an RS would not be enough.) The previous RfC's closer summarized: "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest" – which is entirely compatible in spirit with those BLP sections. – .Raven .talk 07:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest." [ emphasis added – .Raven .talk 01:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources; the requirement of being "widely published by reliable sources" is less strict than the requirement proposed here and does not conflict with WP:NPOV.
This proposal would also conflict with policy; there are many circumstances where it would require us to exclude names that WP:NPOV would require us to include due to their prominence in reliable sources.Actually, if you check the footnote in the proposal, the second wikilink is to the WP:BALASP part of NPOV. We already have a consensus from the previous RfC (see the first wikilink in the footnote) that the former names of deceased trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically considered to be of encyclopaedic interest, which de facto puts us into WP:VNOT, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and minor aspects territory.
the requirement of being "widely published by reliable sources" is less strict than the requirement proposed hereYes, but it also conflicts with the close of the previous RfC. To quote from that close,
Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? Some of those supporting option 2 suggested a higher bar than majority as well.That tells us that "widely published", which for some editors can be as little as 50%+1, for others is some form of supermajority, and does not always take into account the quality of the sources available, is not only difficult for us to define in a guideline, but also an option that has been rejected to some degree by the community.
Actually, if you check the footnote in the proposal, the second wikilink is to the WP:BALASP part of NPOV.Linking NPOV doesn't change the fact that the proposed wording would require us to exclude names when NPOV would require us to include them - including, it seems, in the case of the example you provided, Gloria Hemingway. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, we should be using our standard editorial practices..."The previous RfC's consensus/closure left this one detail (exactly when to include deadnames, between "sometimes" and "never") for another discussion. This is that discussion, obeying that consensus. Judging "Notability" for inclusion is one of the "standard editorial practices" we're used to; this just applies it to deadnames, the same way we already apply it to articles overall. "
... to decide this issue on a case by case basis."The specifics for each article subject (e.g. was the deadname notable before the change?) WILL have to be decided on a case by case basis. But without sitewide guidance on what to look for, what criteria to apply, we'll have a lot of RfC-type argument about that same issue reprised on talkpage after talkpage, resulting in no consistency across the site. – .Raven .talk 23:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.
And the RfC closed June 7 expects us to cover "living or dead." Why not [in contravention of its expectation/finding] by the same rule?" doesn't misrepresent the RFC. I also have no clue why we're bothering to talk about that as an option, since it's not on the table and, given the last RFC (not to mention this one), isn't likely to be any time soon, but fair enough!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
demand[ing] an insurmountable bar for inclusion, as that comment puts it, is understandable but comes across to me as borrowing trouble. I would also agree with Thryduulf's proposed alternate wording. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources” is an absurdly high bar. Or at least it has the massive potential to be used as such a bludgeon that it is effectively the same as saying “prior notable names only”—a standard that has now been rejected. I would probably support the change without that phrase (ie, include names on encyclopaedic merit) , but at this point it feels like a small group are taking every chance to push a higher bar than the community wants. You have had my opinion many times elsewhere, so I won’t go on. — HTGS ( talk) 20:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Collapse tangential sniping
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 15:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Consensus across the wiki..." — Link?> "
... all names used by a notable individual (pseudonyms, married names, various names used in ancient China) are encyclopedic." WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE differs:
See Public figure for the latter distinction.And once again, the RfC here closed on June 7 has this in the closure statement: "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest." – .Raven .talk 10:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution . Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.
We give former names of dead people" for people like Joan Crawford and Gerald Ford; for living (and in this case "living or dead") non-public figures such as people notable only for one event (BLP1E, BIO1E), we give less detail, e.g. "In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family background, hobbies and employment, etc. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test.... When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event, rather than invading privacy for the sake of padding out an unnecessary biography." – .Raven .talk 16:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
what you say is the June 7 consensus" — See the closure full-text. I quoted from the portion emphasized by boldface in the original. – .Raven .talk 17:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
if they were notable prior to transitioning.That just makes clear what they mean by notable. It has nothing to do with WP:NNC. The void century 12:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.Huggums537 ( talk) 12:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
to tell [you] there's no dilemma/conflict" (that editor then said your continued insistence otherwise was "bordering WP:IDHT").
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles [...]. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
you'll end up looking stupidCouldn't be any
Locke you're a broken record hereTrying to avoid having this project overrun with people pushing agendas gets me labeled as stupid and a "broken record", I'll take that. This is an encyclopedia, a collection of human knowledge. If your goal is to hide or omit knowledge because it offends a particular group of people, then this isn't the place for you. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
but it is harmful when the point is trivial, redundant, or unclear(emphasis added) These changes are redundant to WP:DUE (and even if adopted, are subservient to WP:DUE). The previous RFC was also not based at all on discussion that preceded the RFC, and actually ignored proposed questions and language in favor of an RFC crafted in private between two editors pushing this as their agenda. The proposals being pushed are borderline encapsulations of WP:NOTHERE. When you tell us to stop providing knowledge on things that are verifiable and due in an encyclopedia, you've lost the plot and maybe need to go find something else to do with your spare time. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to inform"Isn't that an argument against all the WP:BIO protections? And policies like WP:DUE, which also limit what we include? – .Raven .talk 16:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.and the last paragraph in the lede would not say,
They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni).Huggums537 ( talk) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I vowed to spend the rest of my editing career educating others to think for themselves and do their own research [as to WP:NNC"), but I think it might be worth reconsidering whether crusading is a worthwhile use of your time, particularly given that your success rate in convincing other editors that your read of WP:NNC is the best, let alone the only, read.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used.
How is requiring that a name essentially meets notability requirements in order to be included in the article of its holder a reasonable reading of the consensus?!" MOS:GENDERID says:
... the mission of Wikipedia is not to respect trans people. It is to respect the facts...."I commend to your attention the Universal Code of Conduct, notably:
"He [John] was previously known as Mary" ... mentions the name without using it to refer to anything other than itself.Puzzling statement, since the inner quote makes quite clear that name refers (or referred) to John. In fact the two sentences together are logically equivalent to the deprecated form, "Mary changed her name to John when she transitioned to male." — which exchanges the rôles of the two names by your rule. That seems to make this use of the Use-mention distinction a dodge.For clarity. That article has the example of cheese (the dairy product) and "cheese" (the word):
But it is use of the name "Mary" to say that it refers to John.— I disagree. In
John is a trans man, The word "John" denotes or refers to a specific person. In
He was previously known as Mary, the word "Mary" denotes or refers to a specific name. That name might denote a person is some sentences, (eg
As a child, before transitioning, Mary attended an all-girls school) but not in
... was known as Mary. It might be make more sense (or be more obviously words-as-words) with quotation marks:
He was previously known as 'Mary'. Perhaps the quotation marks are strictly required, but no reasonable person would misinterpret the meaning of the sentence (in context) without them.Note that my argument regarding the use-mention distinction is independent of whether WMF's Universal Code of Conduct applies. Regardless of whether it is WP:GENDERID or UCoC, the general rule is: use a person's current name; but that does not prohibit mentioning a former name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
In"You had to remove the "He" and replace it with an ellipsis in order to make that last claim, because in the untruncated sentence "He" (or "John") "was known as Mary", that latter name clearly denotes the same person as "He" (or "John"), in fact that's the point of the sentence.In a sentence like "He always thought 'Mary' was a beautiful name", "Mary" does not denote any person, and does refer to nothing but itself.See the difference? – .Raven .talk 09:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)He was previously known as Mary, the wordMarydenotes or refers to a specific name. That name might denote a person i[n] some sentences,... but not in... was known as Mary.
He thought 'Mary' a beautiful name, the word "Mary" denotes a name that does not denote any specific person. In
John was known as 'Mary'(with or without quotes around Mary), the word "Mary" denotes a name, not the person with the name "Mary" (ie John). We are using the word "Mary" to denote/refer to a name, not to denote the person that the name "Mary" denoted. In the same way that the name is not the person (" the word is not the thing"), a reference to the name (ie "was known as Mary") is not a reference to the person. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Mark Twain was privately known as Samuel Clemens, will you tell me that one name or the other does not refer to (denote) that person? – .Raven .talk 19:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
will you tell me that one name or the other does not refer to (denote) that person— In the sentence
Mark Twain was privately known as Samuel Clemens, the words "Samuel Clemens" denote the name, not the person. I still assert that in your sentence we are using the name "Mark Twain" (the words denote the person) and mentioning the name "Samuel Clemens" (the words denote the name). I suspect that we may simply have to agree to disagree here, but I still think that - regardless of debates about semantics - a sentence such as "John was previously known as Mary" does not contravene a policy that says "Use the person's preferred name". Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Please stop trying to right great wrongs, it's disruptive."Citing & quoting our own policies, guidelines, etc., is " trying to right great wrongs"?!Citing & quoting our own policies, guidelines, etc., is " disruptive"?!When did citing & quoting our own policies, guidelines, etc., become against policies, guidelines, etc.? – .Raven .talk 05:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The UCoC... describes conduct amongst editors of the project, not content decisions."Directly above, I quoted a portion of the UCoC's "3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects":
... respecting trans people is not a mission of the project (either locally, or at a foundational level)."Locally, WP:DEADNAME's "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification...." [ emphasis in original certainly seems to advocate respecting at least trans people's preferences of name, pronoun, and job description gender.So again, well....> "
And to engage in that will open up the floodgates..." Slippery slope fallacy. – .Raven .talk 05:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Directly above, I quoted a portion of the UCoC's "3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects":How nice for you. You quoted part of the USER CONDUCT policy relating to not vandalizing the project. Yet again, nothing to do with making editorial decisions. Following our sources can never be considered "hate speech" or "vilifying" or any other adjective you come up with to describe being accurately described based on reliable sources.
To say that this does not describe content decisions seems rather obviously false.It's rather obviously false to suggest this has any bearing whatsoever on editorial decisions. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You quoted part of the USER CONDUCT policy relating to not vandalizing the project. Yet again, nothing to do with making editorial decisions."It takes being a user to make editorial decisions; here the user conduct being addressed was "Deliberately introducing biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content, or hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content." Clearly those are editorial decisions and actions — just bad ones.Are you perhaps trying to distinguish between the decisions/actions of several users/editors, vs. just one?But the UCoC doesn't say anything about approving hate speech, etc., if several editors engage in it. – .Raven .talk 05:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh wait, are you still denying that the UCoC discusses content decisionsSure am. Because it doesn't. It's user conduct, as the title explains and that you seem to keep conveniently ignoring. — Locke Cole • t • c 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's mission(other than right here, in this use–mention distinction). I was juxtaposing it with the idea of respecting dead people's privacy, not movement charters or core content policies.I was under the impression that the previous RFC closed with consensus that deadnames are not automatically encyclopaedic, and so I didn't bother to mention that. Most of the time they're trivia, like the identities of important animal companions, or reasons for a divorce, or salary. All facts, all parts of people's lives that impact their story, usually trivia.What I'm finding myself in strongest support of in this moment is Deadnames of deceased trans people are not automatically encyclopaedic. If insertion or deletion of a deadname is challenged, discuss it on the article talk page. Once consensus is reached, the topic cannot be reopened for 9+12n months, where n is the number of prior discussions on the topic. Folly Mox ( talk) 06:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the present RFC is a follow up to the preceding one, not a close review"So was I. The previous RfC's minority appear to have tried to change that. – .Raven .talk 07:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
the notion that 'hate speech' is synonymous with 'any construction that any one person stridently and vocally dislikes'."Except I neither expressed nor held such a position. I cited the UCoC in reply to the claim that ""
... the mission of Wikipedia is not to respect trans people. It is to respect the facts...."". As I said then, "It seems to me this indicates that to respect people (trans or otherwise) is part of the mission of the entire Wikimedia project.""Hate speech" is an example of the contrary, emphatically disrespecting people... and the Board frowns on it. – .Raven .talk 07:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Even in our article edits.citation needed — Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionwould imply that for historical figures, the name itself must be discussed and analyzed, rather than simply be used. If a historical figure is consistently referred to in the historical record by a deadname rather than a preferred name, said name should be included. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.
Also, that someone tried to insert and consensus was against in the end is not what I would consider to be a problem.Respectfully, I think you're focusing too closely on the end result, and not what lead to that result. In the cases of Xeon and particularly Alcorn, there have been multiple lengthy and sometimes contentious discussions on the inclusion or exclusion of the former name, in no small part because there is a lack of clear guidance in this area of deceased individuals.
it harder for any consensus to emerge. And as with the recent RfC, the three closers made a recommendation that a subsequent discussion/RfC be held to find consensus on a narrow framing. Unfortunately that never happened, and we were left with the current lack of guidance despite the expressed need for it. As I didn't want the situation, where we had an RfC that came with the recommendation for some sort of guidance following a narrowly framed discussion/RfC, to reoccur, I made this proposal.
allow us to omit sources that just mention the deadname in passing— Omitting sources that don't follow our rules, then claiming that our rules follow the sources (but only the ones that comply with our rules) - that seems to be circular reasoning. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
omit sources that just mention the deadname in passingreally just amounts to "find in-depth coverage of a name itself" so it really changes nothing just formulates the words to be more long winded by adding some extra distracting stuff to do with the subject that totally isn't related to what you are actually doing. Huggums537 ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"if required to understand the news", but this is a biography where, whilst nothing is of automatic encyclopaedic interest, it is very likely to be relevant information as changing a name is typically a significant life-event. There is no need to seek approval in Wikipedia - we edit boldly. FOARP ( talk) 14:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Style affects content. We don't "address" anyone in encyclopedia articles...You may wish to give MOS:PEOPLETITLES and MOS:SURNAME a read sometime. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
... with WP:BLP and a number of other guidelines..."At the top of that page is a box saying:
We are first an encyclopedia, and try to preserve and disseminate knowledge. We do have a strong secondary goal of minimizing harm. Somebody's former name was, at some point, a part of their life, and should still be included, provided the wording is sensible and states the facts from a neutral point of view. Obviously, there are concerns over using deadnames in articles, around potential harm and privacy concerns. However, as Stifle said, these concerns are significantly reduced when the subject is dead. Furthermore,
in depth analysis or discussionis a ridiculously high bar to set. The talk page is there for a reason. Again, we don't need blanket policies on every intricity of writing an encyclopedia.(added 12 July) I strongly oppose what Bluerasberry said (
Wikipedia's style guide should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented.) No! Wikipedia is a neutral encylopedia, and shouldn't be forced to
comply [...] and conformwith what a community wants. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionis for all intents and purposes a veto of NPOV. RAN1 ( talk) 23:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
generally reliable sourcesor similar.
in-depth analysisis basically WP:CREEP and highly subjective. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 21:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussion of the nameis an impossibly high bar. I'll note that (per BilledMammal) despite Gloria Hemingway being listed as an example, she does not actually meet that bar. There's not really in-depth analysis of Gloria Hemingway's former name in reliable sources, so it should actually be excluded under this guideline. There'd probably be close to zero trans people who meet that bar. I think probably Public Universal Friend would qualify, but that might be about it. Endwise ( talk) 03:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussion. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The way I was going to handle the near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3 (what SFR is calling 2.8) was by saying that 3 had consensus, but by footnote or other mitigating language the not completely absolute nature of that consensus should be noted.By my reading, and that of the RfC's closer, that is setting the bar higher than just discussion of the name in high quality sources. There needs to be a depth to the discussion, in order to adequately reflect just how high a bar for inclusion the current consensus is. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Note, I got this for example bit backwards. We're discussing why we should include the old name, not the new one. Sorry. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
that is setting the bar higher than just discussion of the name in high quality sources. Namely whether my comment is being used to support Sideswipe or whether Sideswip is criticizing my comment. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There has to be something about the name change that raises it above being a minor aspect of the person's fuller life story." – Umm, that would be a matter of the new name, not the old one, so not affect notability of the old name. Just as, if there's nothing about the name change that raises it, etc., it still won't affect the old name's notability at all.
clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest, so there has to be something about the former name that makes it of interest.
if they were notable prior to transitioningclause.
... so there has to be something about the
former name
that makes it of interest." – This is what I thought I just supported, as with Manning and Mann. Meanwhile, asking about the name change – "
... is there a reason why the person picked the name? Was it in honour of or to remember a friend or relative? Is there a deeper meaning behind the name that links in to other aspects of the person's life? Does it tie into their spirituality, religion, or cultural background in some meaningful way?" – only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old name, i.e. doesn't give a reason why that too should be in the article. – .Raven .talk 16:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
... only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old name ....— well, only if the only old name is the birth name. Theoretically a person could change names before transitioning and then switch to their current name.
or embraced multiple names/identities" – We report on all of David Bowie's names, including David Robert Jones and Ziggy Stardust, but then he never attempted to hide any of them, and no physical transition was involved. (This may not even be a fair example to use, as "stage names" are involved.) People who change names (and genders) before becoming notable may prefer a complete separation, the equivalent of WP:CLEANSTART... and I'm suggesting that we extend the same courtesy to them as to each other here. – .Raven .talk 20:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old nameYou're absolutely right. I made that comment in error and will be striking it in a moment, as I got it the wrong way around (I blame the summer heat, it's too warm where I am!). Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
for the specific proposals" that were previously advanced, there was no consensus, because the censuses was between two of those proposals. And how did I not capture the question asked in my first sentence? Oh well.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
A recent RfC closed with the consensus that the community "believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used". However the community fell short of finding a consensus for a specific barrier for inclusion based on the options presented. The purpose of this RfC is not to re-litigate the previous RfC, but to find consensus for a barrier for inclusion that reflects the closure of the previous RfC.This summarises the relevant part of the closure of the last RfC, and states clearly that the purpose of this RfC is to fulfil the consensus that was already established by it. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
efn}}
footnotes. Or the two long ones could just be made more concise, e.g. by eliminating the redundant "Note:" introductions, and by compressing things like "While Alcorn's gender identity is discussed in significant detail in high quality sources about her, her former name is not." to something more like "Alcorn's former name is not covered in high-quality sources.". The really blathery "Hemingway's struggles with her gender dysphoria, and relationship with her gender identity, gender expression, and name are discussed in significant detail in sources about her life." can be reduced to "Hemingway's former name is covered in high-quality sources." Even leave out "in significant detail", which really doesn't make sense in this context (a name is a name not a novel; once you've given the full name what more "significant detail" could there be?) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 23:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
looks unlikely to be disagreed with". I'd also still strongly disagree with your comment that
This procedural problem could have been avoided if the lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME had not been ignored—for one, because I did not ignore that RFCBEFORE (which I also participated in), and, for two, because the idea that there was wide concern about priming effects in the RFCBEFORE is just not at all borne out by the comments there (see section on "small proposal" by Trystan).-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The suggestion of excluding views that don't fit within the bounds of the previous RFC's close keeps getting suggested. That would be the wrong approach for a closer to take.
As an overarching principle, our guidelines reflect consensus. Practically, they require actual the consensus of the community behind them to function. This is a centrally located, well-advertised RFC, and if the proposed change reflects community consensus, that will be shown in the result, without the need to artificially exclude any dissenting views from consideration.
The suggestion that editors are free to challenge the previous close has been made. In my view, that would be unproductive. The close of question 2 found no consensus for change, suggested that a consensus could be found between options 2 and 3, and contemplated a further discussion or RFC would be "likely to result in consensus language". All of which is quite reasonable. I'm somewhat skeptical on how likely a compromise option will be to actually attract enough support to establish a consensus, but the current RFC will answer that exact question, provided it is run in a fair and open manner.-- Trystan ( talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive."
Those who didn't get the outcome they desired are more motivated to try to continue pushing over and over to overturn a result through decreased participation of the community versus the group trying to reverse a decision.I note that the warring over these issues has been going on for long enough that participation bias may already have applied to the original RFC that this RFC is following up on. And even several RFCs before it. Anomie ⚔ 11:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.(emphasis original) Had there been more time between this RfC and the close of the previous one, say six months to a year, I think an argument could be made that potentially consensus on this had changed. However for this particular topic, I don't think that it's plausible that consensus has changed so radically that those points I've quoted no longer apply.
Some of the above points are getting dangerously close to saying that some people should not participate in an RfC. In abstract terms: if the spectrum of possible wording on a guidline or policy is from 1 to 9 and a proposal is made to change it from its current 5 to 2, then someone who prefers 1 is entitled to support while arguing that 1 would be better, even if 1 or anything else was rejected previously. Similarly, someone who prefers 9 is entitled to oppose while arguing that 9 would be better, even if 5 or anything else was rejected previously. Someone who doesn't like spicy food but who is given the choice between adding more spice to the spicy food pot or leaving it as it is has a valid argument when saying "It's too spicy already, so I oppose adding more spice". EddieHugh ( talk) 18:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion...." This does not invite revisiting options already declined there. – .Raven .talk 23:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
by rejecting A′ merely because it was not raised in RFC1" – Except in this case A′ was already raised in RFC1, and expressly rejected... just a week ago.2) "
let's take WP:DETCON at its word.... DETCON is arrant nonsense that nobody actually believes" – You just rejected the premise of your own comment's preceding text. Why bother posting it?3) Except that "objective level of 'quality'" argues against a seemingly vague contextless word... which in the original text has a specific context: "quality... as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" — in other words, whether arguments are in accord with policy, or not. This is neither "arrant nonsense that nobody actually believes" nor ultimately indeterminable. – .Raven .talk 02:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." [ emphasis added – In this case the argument was "previously considered", and consensus established a week ago, not very "old". – .Raven .talk 02:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
a solid community consensus that runs somewhere between the never and the sometimes of Topic 2, as you said in the summary of the whole RFC? Loki ( talk) 16:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
a solid community consensus that runs somewhere between the never and the sometimes of Topic 2. That doesn't bring us to where exactly the consensus is, though. I've said in other places regarding this that if I could have closed topic 2 as consensus for 2.8 I would have, but that would still leave the same position of having to determine what, if any, changes to make to the MOS. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Replies moved here from from above to keep the discussion on topic; initially made in reply to this comment BilledMammal ( talk) 17:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
established through discussion of the name in high quality sourceshas much of the same issues as the current proposal; Hemingway's former name is included in almost all high quality sources covering her, but the name itself isn't discussed. I would mostly agree with Blueboar, although I would prefer "including" rather than "using" the name.
if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment, particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person."
Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? Some of those supporting option 2 suggested a higher bar than majority as well.To fulfil the existing consensus, any proposed barrier has to be higher than something based on mere volume of sources.
The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.During the drafting I considered whether linking in with N, or something that derives from N, would be appropriate, but because of NNC I quickly came to the obvious conclusion that we can't apply notability criteria to article content in that manner. That's ultimately why I settled on BALASP, which is applicable to content and about inclusion versus exclusion of minor aspects of a subject.
However, I think further discussion of alternatives should be done elsewhereWe could move this comment chain, in part or in whole, to a subsection below the survey. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists.Given that I don't believe there is any issue with applying criteria derived from WP:GNG if it would be appropriate. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion.
In effect, what it means is that we would only include the former names of living trans or non-binary individuals if they change their name after the point at which we created an article about them.That isn't quite accurate; it is saying we only include the former names of living trans or non-binary individuals if they change their name after the point at which we could have created an article about them. Personally, I don't think that is the ideal metric - it requires us to include the former name of people who barely passed WP:NACTOR or another of the more inclusive SNG's prior to transitioning but then became significantly more notable later, and it requires us to exclude the former name of people who became notable after transitioning but who have their former name included in every reliable source on the subject - but that is a different discussion.
there must be a reason to include the deadname beyond the mere fact that the person was once known by that namewould be a bit too low a bar and not provide quite enough guidance. I tried to use WP:PLA in the last RFC to provide some guidance in option 2 (with one factor to be considered being the majority of reliable sources), but obviously that got, at best, a mixed response. (I also don't know that PLA would cover examples like Gloria Hemingway, who's been mentioned a few times here.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
If consensus is and remains that a name of TG/NB person that pre-dates that subject's notability (or an old name of a TG/NB person who is not notable at all) should not be used in mainspace, such an old name can simply be replaced with the current one.from 05:14, 17 November 2020.
it requires us to include the former name of people who barely passed WP:NACTOR or another of the more inclusive SNG's prior to transitioning but then became significantly more notable laterI'm curious if you have an example in mind for this.
is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sourceswith
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sourcesis a more workable option here. It lowers the barrier somewhat from "in-depth analysis" to just "discussion of the name", while still keeping it restricted to higher quality sources. It sidesteps the volume threshold problem entirely, and because of this meets the consensus from the last RfC quite well. Though we (BilledMammal and I) disagree on whether my original proposal as written would allow for Gloria Hemingway or the Public Universal Friend's name, I think Trystan's proposal would definitely support both. It would still leave Aiden Hale's former name for the application of IAR, but as I've said previously (to some support) trying to make this guideline apply to Hale would result in too low a threshold of inclusion for the vast majority of applicable articles. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be flexible, but that flexibility has the same endless discussion trap that our current lack of guidance has.It might, but I'm not convinced it will - most of our policies are flexible, and all of the best ones are. I don't see any harm in trying; it prevents us from always including the name, and if it proves problematic in practice we can return here with a new proposal seeking to adjust it with clear examples of where the issues are.
I'm curious if you have an example in mind for this.No, I don't edit in this area, but I would expect such examples to exist. The real issue is the SNG's being overly inclusive (although marginally meeting GNG prior to transition is another example of when we probably shouldn't include the name), but again a different discussion.
Though we (BilledMammal and I) disagree on whether my original proposal as written would allow for Gloria Hemingway or the Public Universal Friend's name, I think Trystan's proposal would definitely support both.Can you provide examples of sources that you believe would demonstrate that their former names meet the requirements of this proposal (or if you are unable to, Trystan's)? Our disagreement could simply be because I haven't seen the sources you have. BilledMammal ( talk) 19:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't edit in this areaAh ha! Ok, as an editor who does edit in this area, I'm telling you straight up that the flexibility in your proposal coming from a floating definition of widely will be a problem because of the issues alluded to in my last reply.
Ok, as an editor who does edit in this area, I'm telling you straight up that the flexibility in your proposal coming from a floating definition of widely will be a problem because of the issues alluded to in my last reply.People in every area (including occasionally myself) say flexibility is a problem in guidelines and policies dealing with their area. They're usually wrong; I think it is better to start with more flexibility (although any of these proposals, including mine, will reduce considerably the flexibility from the status quo) and tighten the specific aspects that are problematic, rather than starting with an extremely inflexible guideline that could be used to exclude names from articles that should include them.
synonymous with fraud and delusion(pages 173-175, and throughout the rest of the chapter how the former name and seemingly not the chosen name became associated with a story of walking on water.
The eighth child, her fourth daughter, was born on November 29, 1752, and was given the biblical name Jemima, after one of the daughters of Job.
This arrangement was necessary because Jemima Wilkinson, from the beginning of her ministry, refused to own any real property in her own name. Her attitude was explained in a petition, stating that she, "being wholly devoted to her Religious Duties & deeming it inconsistent therewith & unbecoming her character to have any personal concern or agency in pecuniary or temporal concerns constituted Sarah Richards, one of her most Trustworthy Followers & Friends, Trustee of the lands."
A story that is perhaps apocryphal, but not at all improbable, relates her answer to a man named Day, who was trying to induce her to admit to the name Jemima Wilkinson instead of the Universal Friend.
This woman, who had recognized no other name than the Publick Universal Friend for more than four decades, was compelled by fear of a legal disadvantage to admit that she was the one "who in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy six was called Jemima Wilkinson and ever since that time the Universal Friend a new name which the mouth of the Lord Hath named.
A codicil further identifying the Universal Friend as Jemima Wilkinson was added on July 7, 1818, and signed with an X. This was witnessed by Gold, John Briggs, and James Brown, Jr. The fact that this resolute woman refused to sign the name Jemima Wilkinson, yet, when forced by legal necessity to make a signature, signed an X as "her cross or mark" has misled some writers to con- clude that she could not read or write
In her native New England, however, the name of Jemima Wilkinson was synonymous with fraud and delusion.
As early as July 1791, the Friend, with Sarah Richards acting as his agent and trustee (the prophet refused to use his legal name in order to conduct business or to sully himself with such worldly matters), began to make payments to Robinson and Hathaway for land in the town.
William Savery mentioned the episode in his journal, writing that “Sheriff Norton informed us he had lately attempted to Serve a Writ on Jemima Wilkinson at the Suit of Judge Potter’s son Thomas.” The Friend initially refused to recognize the writ, which was addressed to Jemima Wilkinson. Only after some negotiation did the prophet agree to accept the warrant and post bail “under the name of ye Universal Friend commonly calld Jemima Wilkinson.”
Thomas Gold, one of the lawyers employed by Malin, asked, “Does she [Wilkinson] not sense that everything is at stake, the roof over her head” and advised, “the Friends name must be used, to wit, Jemima Wilkinson, as Complainant with you.”
It is also worth noting that the will’s opening paragraph and codicil each specify that the Universal Friend and Jemima Wilkinson were the same person. The document’s first sentence denotes it as “the Last will and Testament of the Person Called the Universal Friend . . . who in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy six was called Jemima Wilkinson and ever since that time the Universal Friend.” In a similar vein, the codicil states, “Be it remembered that in order to remove all doubts of the due execution of the foregoing Last will & testament I being the person who before the year one thousand seven hundred & seventy seven was known & called by the name of Jemima Wilkinson but since that time as the Universal Friend.” Yet even after taking such pains, the Friend signed the will with an “X” so that he could avoid writing his original name.
The society of followers also used linguistic gender performances to separate themselves from the "wicked world"; they marked themselves as believers by refusing to use gendered pronouns or the name "Jemima Wilkinson" for the being known as the "Publick Universal Friend," "a newname which the mouth of the Lord hath named."
For those who believed the Friend divine, and for those who damned Jemima Wilkinson as a devil, radical religious experience provided a key site for reimagining and critiquing gender constructs in the years following the American Revolution.
Language choices could also mark points of entering and exiting the community, as the apostate and denouncer Abner Brownell refers to "The Friend" in diary entries written during the time of his membership in the Friend's community but then calls "her" "Jemima Wilkinson" in his later published denunciation, Enthusiastical Errors, Described and Decried.
Only after the community's lawyer insisted that the law would not recognize the community's legal rights to the land unless they made use of the name Jemima Wilkinson did the Friend grudgingly allow it to be used—by signing an X to a document bearing the name.
Conventions of historical scholarship also enforce given names, since though I can use "the Friend" in my text, I still must search for and cite archives bearing the name Jemima Wilkinson
functionally indistinguishable, then I may not ever be able to convince you with any amount of evidence. And that's fine, reasonable minds can disagree on this.
given your difficulties in finding discussion of the nameI would not say I had any difficulties finding discussion of the name. While we clearly disagree on whether or not this meets either of the thresholds set out, please do not speak for me, and state that I have encountered difficulties where I clearly believe otherwise. I would like to ask that you strike that. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If you're seeing Trystan and my proposals asYour proposal says X or Y is required, Trystan's says X is required. In theory, yours is less restrictive than Trystan's, but as Y is effectively a subset of X they are equivalent. Why do you see Trystan's as less restrictive?functionally indistinguishable, then I may not ever be able to convince you with any amount of evidence.
Can you explain why you see a discussion of their refusal to identify with their former self as a discussion of their former name?I was somewhat in the process of writing something akin to this before your reply, as I realised I should have added it in my second paragraph.
indicated whether one was part of the community of the saved or part of the "wicked world". That content contextualises what you've quoted in 13, and also includes a demonstrative example from the memoirs of a child whose parents were followers of the Friend.
In theory, yours is less restrictive than Trystan's, but as Y is effectively a subset of X they are equivalent.Respectfully, I think you've misunderstood both mine and Trystan's proposal. For the sake of convenience my proposal is
through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, and Trystan's proposal is
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources. Breaking this down, both proposals restrict the inclusion criteria to content present in high quality sources. My proposal then puts a further restriction on it by requiring either in-depth analysis or in-depth discussion of the name to be present in those sources. The in-depth qualifier applies to both discussion or analysis of the name. That's a very high bar, and I acknowledged it as such in my !vote above. Trystan's proposal however removes the in-depth qualifier and requires only discussion of the name in high quality sources. This is a lower barrier to inclusion than my proposal, because it just requires the presence of a discussion, regardless of the depth of that discussion, to be present in the relevant sources. It is still however still a higher barrier than mere verifiability. Trystan acknowledged that this is a lower barrier when proposing it, as he opposed my proposal as too high of a barrier. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
On page 594 you have skipped over an entire paragraph on how the use of a specific name to refer to the Friend "indicated whether one was part of the community of the saved or part of the "wicked world"". That content contextualises what you've quoted in 13, and also includes a demonstrative example from the memoirs of a child whose parents were followers of the Friend.
Regardless I have to ask, when you are reading the pages I have listed above and selecting quotations from them, why have you skipped over the surrounding context and not made any reference to it or summary of it?Because I didn't consider the context to change whether the sections I believed you were referring to involved discussion of the name? If you did, it would have been better for you to provide the quotations and summaries rather than relying on me to do so.
The in-depth qualifier applies to both discussion or analysis of the name.I interpreted it as applying only to the analysis, but I see now how you interpreted it to apply to both. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
can you explain how this context involves discussion of the name?Put succinctly, the context is discussing how different groups of people used the name. It is there to establish understanding, so that when Larson notes the accounting of Huldah Davis, the reader can contextualise which group Davis and her parents belonged to (ie, followers of the Friend). Discussion on the use of a name is discussion of an aspect of the name.
If you did, it would have been better for you to provide the quotations and summariesI've already said why I did not wish to quote from the source materials in a manner such as you did, as to provide the full context it would amount to a copyvio from the more recently published sources. I thought I had adequately summarised however, especially as I gave the page numbers where the entirety of the content appeared.
Because I didn't consider the context to change whether the sections I believed you were referring to involved discussion of the name?The context is part of the discussion. It's present to help readers understand the fullness of the text. To go back to accounting of Huldah Davis mentioned above and on page 594, if I had just quoted
In her recollections, Davis refers to Jemima Wilkinson but is careful to note that her parents, followers of the Friend, always referred to "the Friend," and Davis uses the community's language through most of her account.would you have understood that Davis' use of the community's language implied a
sense of belongingthat significantly outlasted the existence of that community, but despite the sense of belonging her use of the Friend's former name indicated that Davis was not a follower of the Friend's ministry? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on the use of a name is discussion of an aspect of the name.In practice, I don't believe that discussion of the use of the name will be interpreted as discussion of the name, and I think that if you intended to propose that such discussion would be sufficient for inclusion your proposal should read
established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the use of the name in high quality sources/
established through discussion of the use of the name in high quality sources
mentioning how a trans persons sibling continued to use their birth nameis discussion of the use of a name, as is an article mentioning that prior to transitioning the subject was called their birth name.
I think that if you intended to propose that such discussion would be sufficient for inclusion your proposal should read ...If I wanted to limit my proposal to high quality sources that contain in-depth discussion on the use of the former name, then I would have done so. However that would arguably be an even higher standard than what I proposed, because that sort of discussion is exceedingly rare. My proposal is broader than that, as it allows for other types of in-depth discussion or analysis of the former name.
For example, an article mentioning how a trans persons sibling continued to use their birth name is discussion of the use of a nameI feel like this is somewhat of a strawman. While it is a sad fact that many trans and non-binary people have transphobic family members who refuse to use that person's chosen name and pronouns, if a high quality source was to include this it would be something in the form of something like
X's sibling(s) were not supportive of their transition, and in the case of a modern high quality source (something written in the last ten or so years) would very likely exclude the former name when doing so. Such a mention would certainly not be in-depth enough to meet my proposal, nor would it even meet the lower threshold from Trystan's proposal.
as is an article mentioning that prior to transitioning the subject was called their birth nameHard disagree. In either Trystan's or my threshold there has to be at minimum a discussion or analysis of the name. Simply mentioning it once, or even using it throughout as the primary name when referring to the subject would not be a discussion or analysis of the name. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If I wanted to limit my proposal to high quality sources that contain in-depth discussion on the use of the former name, then I would have done so.Then it should have read
established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name or use of the name in high quality sources/
established through discussion of the name or use of the name in high quality sources. It doesn't change my point, which is that you are expecting people to interpret "discussion of the name" far more broadly than the wording would suggest it be interpreted.
Simply mentioning it once, or even using it throughout as the primary name when referring to the subject would not be a discussion or analysis of the name.I agree, but that wasn't my hypothetical and your interpretation of discussion of the name includes discussion of the use of the name. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't change my point, which is that you are expecting people to interpret "discussion of the name" far more broadly than the wording would suggest it be interpreted.I could just as easily turn that back, and say that you're interpreting it in a much narrower manner than many of the RfC's participants. I would also posit that your wording is unclear, because
in-depth use of the nameis somewhat of a nonsensical phrase. But it seems to stem from that you perhaps consider that a discussion or analysis on the use of the name is a distinct topic from discussion or analysis of the name? Whereas I see it as a subtype of a discussion or analysis of the name?
I agree, but that wasn't my hypotheticalUnless I missed a step (it is late and I really should go to sleep), it certainly wasn't my hypothetical either. The first time I see it appearing in this discussion is your comment at 01:48, 26 June 2023. If it's not your hypothetical, and if it's not mine, then whose hypothetical is this? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I could just as easily turn that back, and say that you're interpreting it in a much narrower manner than many of the RfC's participants.Of the editors who have provided information on how they interpret it, most have interpreted it in a narrower fashion than you have - and even if all those editors are interpreting it "incorrectly" the fact that so many have done so demonstrates that the wording is flawed.
I would also posit that your wording is unclear, because "in-depth use of the name" is somewhat of a nonsensical phrase.It would be intended to be read as
in-depth discussion of use of the name/
discussion of use of the name, but I don't think the specifics of how it would need to be worded are relevant - the point is that the current wording is flawed.
born as, which usually happens in the lede. That's more an alt topic name than "content". Per WP:NNC, other content in the article body should probably just be decided case by case based on whether the information is WP:DUE. The void century 12:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." As I understand the proposal, and based on the last RFC, no this proposal would not just apply to the lead.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The current MOS:GENDERID does the same thing
In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should only be included in the lead sentence if the person was notable prior to coming out. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly". In the intervening 8 years, despite many discussions and RfCs on the guideline, many of which focused on whether to include or exclude a deadname, prior to this RfC NNC had been mentioned three times; by Godsy in June 2016, by Rabbitflyer in August 2021, and by Iamreallygoodatcheckers in August 2021. In all three instances the concerns were either dismissed by other argumentation, or not otherwise remarked upon by discussion participants.
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page. The guideline does not apply WP:N to content, instead the guideline is using N as a shorthand way of saying something akin to
If a living transgender or non-binary person changed their name prior to an article about them being created, it should not be included in any page. In this instance, N is effectively an easy to define cut-off date for when a former name can be included for a living trans or non-binary person. It is a date and time. If a living person has an article about them, and transitions after that article was written, then we likely include their former name as they are very likely a public figure and WP:BLPNAME would not apply. If instead that person transitioned prior to us writing an article about them, then we likely will not include their former name, because at that point their former name is a privacy issue and BLPNAME applies in part. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person changed their name prior to an article about them being created, it should not be included in any page.The problem here is that you are trying to shift the focus on a date and time, but the date and time doesn't matter. Neither does "living" or "dead". What matters is that whatever the time and date might be, you are wanting to use notability as the criteria to include content "in a page". That is the conflict. The before or after is completely irrelevant because you can't use notability as a criteria to include content "in a page" either way so date and time means nothing. There is no "cutoff date" for this rule. If you are saying the inclusion of content within a page depends on whether a previous article existed or not, then it is even worse than using notability as a criteria because you would actually be using notability of something else as a criteria which is like off the charts nuts. Huggums537 ( talk) 07:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if there would be consensus to update MOS:GENDERID to remove the word living so it applies to all trans people, living and deceased (as an alternative to this proposal)?That was topic 2, option 3 in the RfC that was held earlier this month. While it had the highest level of support of any of the options, it did not have enough support on its own to form a consensus. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
require deadnames be documented in multiple HQRS that provide SIGCOV of the person
has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
in-depth analysis or discussion of the nameare not required, nor notability pre-transition. Instead, all that's required is multiple reliable sources mention the deadname, as long as the subject itself receives SIGCOV. The void century 02:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Even under this proposal, if the deadname is included, it's included immediately. This leads to issues such as Wendy Carlos - universally known as that name for the last fourty years - being deadnamed in the first sentence.
If we look beyond trans individuals, it's pretty normal in articles on actors or singers, where a person is basically only known by one name throughout their life - say, Tina Turner or W. H. Kendal to include their birth name, even when it's of very limited notability. But those names have no capacity for harm. And note that Kendal's birthname isn't mentioned until the second paragraph, which is honestly more respect than we show the average trans person, when there's not even an indication Kendal disliked his birthname.
I'm rather against this proposal, as it all but codifies deadnaming people in the first sentence. There's going to be cases where people came out as trans long after their career was all-but over. Dee Palmer, say, might need to do that just so you know who she is. But can't we state that the more of their career, the more of their notability is seperated from their transness, the further into their article the appearance of their deadname should be, bottoming out at simple non-inclusion?
It's weird to have this binary form where we either show all possible respect and care as regards deadnaming, or absolutely zero respect, policy all but requires we out them in the first few words. The examples given are probably justified - known most of their lives under the deadname, and much of their notability predates it - but that's not going to always be the case. Wendy Carlos is a good example where the deadname probably needs a brief mention somewhere, but almost all commentary on her for decades has used her preferred name, so including it right at the start isn't justifiable. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 08:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Current Name, biologically Old Name,...)", like some people treat the rule as being [although it is not that], is not a one-size-fits-all approach; I support putting once-notable deadnames that have long been unused by anyone where they're more relevant. I've seen articles mention marginally notable, long-unused deadnames (of e.g. actors who did one minor film pre-transition, and many major films post-transition) in ==Early career==, which seems more sensible than putting it in the first five words. (I've seen editors remove the name entirely from such articles, too, which also seems reasonable.)
t
c
13:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
when determining whether to mention a deadname for LIVING trans people we say to give significantly more weight sources written AFTER transition"). I think the idea is that someone who is not notable pre-transition won't have that many pre-transition sources, not that post-transition sources are given more weight. That said, whether or not that's what we do it for living trans persons, I'm intrigued about whether a post-death sources rule could work for deceased trans persons. Would love to hear more thoughts-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is getting very long and there is an element of bludgeoning going on, with the most prolific contributor having made 70 comments. I suggest that editors who have already expressed their position refrain from commenting on new !votes. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
There are those who would apply the TG/NB rules we already have to everyone, so we need to consider the very real possibility that this is going to end up being a general policy change, or at least a nexus of debate about making such a general change to our privacy versus public information standards, and not just one specific to a particular narrow class of subjects. See e.g.: "This is not a gender identity issue but I see no reason not to extend the same courtesy of privacy to cisgendered persons who are not notable under their birth names and request they be omitted." [3] This is by no means the first time I've encountered such reasoning. There is every reason to expect that whatever wording is hammered out here is going to rather forcefully be argued to apply to everyone. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
... extend the same courtesy of privacy to cisgendered persons who ... request [their birthname] be omitted. There's a big difference between excluding a birth name by default (eg in the case of trans people) and on request (cisgender/ Teller). If we are to have the same rule for cis and trans/NB people, is that rule "exclude by default" or "exclude by request"? Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the community needs to be made aware that some participants of this discussion began a slow moving edit war to introduce substantially the same language as discussed above into the MoS despite the "no consensus" result of this discussion. It began the same day as the close, and the language has now been re-added for a third time. Substantial efforts have been made on the talk page by a number of editors (myself included) to explain to the editors trying to force the addition in that this is inappropriate without further discussion and express consensus for the addition before hand, especially in light of the scale of the last two RfCs and the divisiveness of the issue, but these attempts seem to be falling on deaf ears at this point.
I personally am done engaging with the IDHT and am leaving that discussion. I'm also not personally inclined to escalate the matter to AE, ANI, ANEW. But behavioural issues put to the side, I do think the matter needs community eyes on it if only to see that the input above is not ignored. Perhaps someone's approach to urging restraint will be more successful than mine. SnowRise let's rap 05:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
BilledMammal inserted the language into the policy the very same day that the above RfC closed with a "no consensus" (and mostly opposed) result on very similar languageYou keep asserting this is "very similar language" to the RfC proposal despite seemingly agreeing that it is in fact materially very different, so different that you would actually switch your own !vote to support it. That multiple oppose !voters support this change should be an indication BilledMammal is instating language that functionally reflects the consensus from both this RfC and the one prior that the threshold for inclusion of dead transpeople's pre-notability deadnames should lie somewhere between "documented in multiple RS" and "the deadname guideline for BLPs (never)". We don't need another tiresome RfC to identify the exact words to split that difference. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following text be added to MOS:GENDERID, inserted before the fourth paragraph? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
For a deceased trans or non-binary person, their former name should only be included if the encyclopaedic significance of the deadname is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning. [a] Introduce the former name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
- From Leelah Alcorn:
Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
Note: While Alcorn's gender identity is discussed in significant detail in high quality sources about her, her former name is not.- From Gloria Hemingway:
Gloria Hemingway (born Gregory Hancock Hemingway, November 12, 1931 – October 1, 2001) ...
Note: Hemingway's struggles with her gender dysphoria, and relationship with her gender identity, gender expression, and name are discussed in significant detail in sources about her life.- From Danielle Bunten Berry:
Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ...
Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.Notes
- ^ A 2023 RfC on this guideline reached the consensus that the former name of a trans or non-binary person is not automatically of encyclopaedic interest. As such they are typically considered minor aspects of a person's wider biography.
A recent RfC closed with the consensus that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used
. However, the community fell short of finding a consensus for a specific phrasing based on the options presented. The purpose of this RfC is not to re-litigate the previous RfC, but to find consensus for a phrasing that reflects the closure of the previous RfC, namely that previous names of deceased trans or non-binary people should have some relatively high but not absolute barrier to their use.
Loki (
talk) 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) based on wording proposed by
Sideswipe9th below
it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3, and that
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. This proposal builds upon the wording of the closure, by setting out two inclusion criteria for when a former name of a deceased trans or non-binary person could be included in an article: that the deadname is of clear encyclopaedic significance based on in-depth coverage or discussion in high quality sources, or if the person was notable prior to transitioning. Explicit links are made to the WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BESTSOURCES policy points, with the intentional effect of tying this guideline to both the What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view policies. With regards to the specifics of the closure, this sets the bar for inclusion at a level that is both lower than never (option 3) and higher than sometimes (option 2). It fulfils the consensus that articles should not routinely include the deadnames of deceased trans or non-binary individuals, while giving specific policy based guidance for what the inclusion criteria are. Finally it provides three examples of the applications of the inclusion criteria. While I had hoped that we would be able to find a consensus for inclusion through a discussion at WT:MOSBIO, it seems as though a clear consensus for or against this proposal is not emerging and an RfC is necessary. Finally, while the examples give what I believe to be clear applications of how those articles could meet the proposed criteria, they are not perfect. If better examples are found, either during the RfC or after, I don't think there should be any objection to substituting those in as they otherwise would not alter the scope of the proposal itself. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sourceswith
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sourcesshould there be a consensus for that as an alternative. I'd also have no objection to replacing
or if they were notable prior to transitioningwith
or if they were notable under the former name, as that would more closely match the second paragraph of the existing GENDERID. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interestthat was established just under a week ago. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
With around a hundred editors responding across these RFCs taking place at VPP, it is obvious that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest." [ emphasis in original – .Raven .talk 07:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.So, if anything, most of the comments on the last RFC should have been thrown out as personal opinion that flatly contradict established policy, but certainly not this one. Again, try making good arguments that are based on policy. You are proposing expanding an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED and acting like people who don't agree with you are violating policy, when they're not. You are WP:RGW, and I hope the closer has some sense. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion...." That is the topic of this discussion. – .Raven .talk 16:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sourceswording, will just lead to tendentious wikilawyering and unnecessary WP:CREEP. Under this proposal, the notable deadname of the Nashville school shooter would've been excluded from the article from the very beginning, and editors who try to add the name would've been reverted and pointed to this guideline in the MOS. If an overwhelming number of reliable sources use and report the deceased shooter's birth/deadname, it shouldn't take an uphill battle to include that name in the article. Some1 ( talk) 00:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionof the name; the name is mentioned in every article, but a mention doesn't meet that standard. This is where my concern about the wording comes from; it is overly restrictive and per the examples given doesn't appear to align with the intent. BilledMammal ( talk) 16:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
the fact that almost all of the reporting on the shooter referred to him by his deadname indicates that the inclusion of his deadname is necessary- I agree. The issue is that we would be forbidden from doing so by this policy, as to the best of my knowledge there are no sources providing
in-depth analysis or discussionof the name, and I would be very surprised if such sources did exist. BilledMammal ( talk) 19:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sourcesbe suitable for you?
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.Any barrier that would allow the inclusion of Hale's former name outside of IAR would be too low, as it would require a straight "majority of sources", which has explicitly been rejected per the existing consensus. So where exactly would you set the barrier? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
special privileges for [...] a single group" – Oh, where have I seen/heard that phrasing before? – .Raven .talk 07:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest, and so inclusion of the former name must be justified by analysing and weighing sources. This is surely business as usual for all content? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionbar being inappropriate. You could interpret it strictly, in which case it's too high a bar, or you could interpret it broadly, in which case it's no different to the normal process of analysing and weighing sources. 2) On the question of whether the scope of this RfC should be restricted to finding a result between Option 2 and 3... I can see quite a few people voting in this RfC that didn't vote in the previous one, so although it seems implausible that consensus can change in a matter of weeks, it's quite plausible that consensus can change when the voters are different. If this RfC attracts a substantially larger number of voters than the previous RfC, one could even argue that it has the power to overturn the previous consensus completely. A ratchet effect is probably not healthy. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 10:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's style guide should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented.— No. Following the broad principles of:
does Wikipedia not abide by name changes?— Which part of " name change" says that others may never mention the original name?
Then we treat others worse than we treat ourselves— WP:RENAME explicitly says "Existing ... mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename. Renames appear in the user rename log ... This is done in the interest of transparency." So RENAME does not deny or hide the past, nor should an encyclopedia article on a person who changed their name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED says content will be removed it it is judged to violate wikipedia policies, especially BLP.— But mentioning a person's prior name does not violate policies. And for the purpose of this RFC, BLP is irrelevant because the change is to a guideline about deceased people (and makes no mention of " recent"). Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED is still subservient to WP:NOTEVERYTHING— both are policies, neither is "subservient" to the other. But my original point - disputing Bluerasberry's assertion that "Wikipedia ... should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of [the article subjects]" - stands. NOTCENSORED explicitly contradicts Bluerasberry's assertion, while NOTEVERYTHING does not explicitly cover that assertion either way. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented" irrespective of the community in question. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
[I]t is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3. ... I suggest that some language taking into account the responses and concerns be workshopped, and possibly another RFC be held if the language doesn't get consensus through discussion."-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3", but my larger point is that, regardless, it's hardly FLOGGING in light of that finding.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is questionable, making it not a sound basis for significant change in a contentious areaIf you wish to make a challenge to the closure, then I'd suggest following the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Unless and until there is a successful challenge that overturns the closure of the last RfC, either in whole or in part, then that is the determination of the consensus. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion.and
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. If you wish to challenge that part of the closure, then I defer back to the advice at CLOSECHALLENGE. But until there is a successful challenge to it, that part of the closure is every bit as valid as the part you've quoted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
t
c
17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
t
c
21:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)If WP:NNC doesn't just mean that notability is not required for article content, but that no other policy regarding content can ever incorporate the concept of notability, we'd be in serious trouble here.Your interpretation is the wrong one here. If you had seen this post regarding the correct interpretation of NNC, then you would realize the guidance is clearly using language that suggests notability is not allowed as a criteria rather than simply "not being required". The nutshell says, "does not determine article content", and then even further restricts usage by going on to say, " but only whether the topic may have its own article.". Then the lede just comes right out and says, "They do not limit the content of an article or list...", and finally NNC itself plainly says, " The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles." So, I ask you to think again about what you just said. If NNC means that notability does not determine, limit, or apply to article contents, but only whether a topic may have its own article, then how in the world does anyone justify using notability to incorporate into another policy as a criteria for article contents? I don't think, "um I was just following other editors because I thought it was the right thing, and I didn't know any better" or, "I saw some really experienced editors talk about notability inside contents so I thought it was normal" counts as a good justifications. It was an editor who was much more experienced than me who first made me aware that not everyone here is fully aware of everything just because they have a lot of experience, and also made me aware that there is a problem with a lot of misinformation being spread throughout Wikipedia as well. Huggums537 ( talk) 09:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
...as we are essentially deciding whether the person warrants a wikipedia article under that name by including it in their article.This demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of how the notability guideline operates. We merge notable subjects/articles into other larger articles all the time, but that doesn't mean any bit of the new content in the larger article is allowed to be governed by notability criteria just because the former article was notable. In other words, former notability of any bit of content doesn't justify the use of notability as criteria in a current article. Huggums537 ( talk) 07:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.[ emphasis added
In this case it is really the notability of the subject under the previous name that's at issue, and I think phrasing it like that here might clarify at least the nature of the measure.You don't seem to understand that on Wikipedia, the name of the article is directly linked to the subject in such a way that for all practical purposes makes them the same thing when measuring notability, and trying to stress with italics and bolding that there is somehow a difference between any given subject, and the name of the article for that subject is just circular logic. In other words, if you are talking about the former notability of the subject, you are really also talking about the former notability of the name as JoelleJay has pointed out before. But, truthfully, we could slice this pie any way you want to because it would not matter if the subject and the name were somehow separated out, or linked together because they would each be ruled out as invalid "former notability" or even "current notability" criteria per WP:NNC so present, past, living, dead, single, or together slices of this designated pie don't amount to a hill of beans. Someone might argue that if you put the pie into a blender, then maybe it isn't a pie anymore, but the fact is that NNC is far from being in a blender, and there are only so many ways you will be able to slice this pie before you realize this is the pie you have. Also, I'm perfectly allowed to talk about whatever flaws I think MOS:GENDERID has which preceded this RfC as a pre-curser to initiating such a horrible RfC to begin with. So, please stop propagating this false idea that someone must open a new RfC to express these kind of views because they don't. It amounts to nothing more than attempted censorship, and people who have actual arguments don't resort to such barbaric tactics. Huggums537 ( talk) 13:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
the vast majority of editors have said they disagree with youthough. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You're now the fifth experienced editor to tell [Huggums537] there's no dilemma/conflict. This is bordering WP:IDHT.") This all said, regardless of whether 1 or 2 or even 30% of Wikipedia users agree with Huggums, the CIR invocation (not to mention the other personal attacks) was clearly unwarranted.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
others have already (very repeatedly) discussed your interpretation of NPOV/DUE as to trans personsPeople stating the wrong thing repeatedly doesn't suddenly make their position correct.
As to your inquiryAnd you go on to link to a discussion forcibly closed in two days, not the slam dunk you're professing exists... — Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
People stating the wrong thing repeatedly doesn't suddenly make their position correct."
You are not discussing the topic at hand; this is not a forum for you to vent your wikilawyering analysis.because I didn't bring it up, blueboar did here and JoelleJay did here so if you continue to single me out while not saying anything to others you will get reported. I've been really nice about this, but if you don't stop I will be forced to do something to prevent it from happening. Huggums537 ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
... me being singled out for even posting here with my views...." Not really. – .Raven .talk 18:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
t
c
12:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)encyclopedic interest", which is "
not automatic"... per last week's RfC. – .Raven .talk 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
On-wiki, you can change your username— WP:RENAME explicitly says "Existing ... mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename. Renames appear in the user rename log ... This is done in the interest of transparency." RENAME does not deny or hide the past, nor should an encyclopedia article on a person who changed their name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
... dissociate your new name from the old one, for instance as a WP:CLEANSTART— I do not think WP:CLEANSTART is a good analogy - the reasons for a CLEANSTART are (presumably) different to the reasons for a trans person changing their name, but since you raised it, CLEANSTART says: "Be aware that no one can grant permission for a clean start. ... If you attempt a clean start but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts." This is stretching the (not-very-good) analogy, but the point is that CLEANSTART does not assure disassociation from your old name, not does it say (for example) "editors are forbidden from mentioning an editor's previous account name". Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusionand that
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Loki ( talk) 17:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This proposal would also conflict with policy; there are many circumstances where it would require us to exclude names that WP:NPOV would require us to include due to their prominence in reliable sources." The horse already left that barn: WP:BLPPRIVACY has us not report personal information (address, phone#) against the subject's will, even if news sources have done so: "Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified." WP:BLPCRIME has us not report the names of unconvicted arrestees even if those names have been prominent in RSs. WP:BLPNAME has us be similarly careful about non-arrested people's names: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." (We couldn't have done so anyway without RS[s], but again the "mere existence" of an RS would not be enough.) The previous RfC's closer summarized: "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest" – which is entirely compatible in spirit with those BLP sections. – .Raven .talk 07:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest." [ emphasis added – .Raven .talk 01:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources; the requirement of being "widely published by reliable sources" is less strict than the requirement proposed here and does not conflict with WP:NPOV.
This proposal would also conflict with policy; there are many circumstances where it would require us to exclude names that WP:NPOV would require us to include due to their prominence in reliable sources.Actually, if you check the footnote in the proposal, the second wikilink is to the WP:BALASP part of NPOV. We already have a consensus from the previous RfC (see the first wikilink in the footnote) that the former names of deceased trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically considered to be of encyclopaedic interest, which de facto puts us into WP:VNOT, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and minor aspects territory.
the requirement of being "widely published by reliable sources" is less strict than the requirement proposed hereYes, but it also conflicts with the close of the previous RfC. To quote from that close,
Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? Some of those supporting option 2 suggested a higher bar than majority as well.That tells us that "widely published", which for some editors can be as little as 50%+1, for others is some form of supermajority, and does not always take into account the quality of the sources available, is not only difficult for us to define in a guideline, but also an option that has been rejected to some degree by the community.
Actually, if you check the footnote in the proposal, the second wikilink is to the WP:BALASP part of NPOV.Linking NPOV doesn't change the fact that the proposed wording would require us to exclude names when NPOV would require us to include them - including, it seems, in the case of the example you provided, Gloria Hemingway. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, we should be using our standard editorial practices..."The previous RfC's consensus/closure left this one detail (exactly when to include deadnames, between "sometimes" and "never") for another discussion. This is that discussion, obeying that consensus. Judging "Notability" for inclusion is one of the "standard editorial practices" we're used to; this just applies it to deadnames, the same way we already apply it to articles overall. "
... to decide this issue on a case by case basis."The specifics for each article subject (e.g. was the deadname notable before the change?) WILL have to be decided on a case by case basis. But without sitewide guidance on what to look for, what criteria to apply, we'll have a lot of RfC-type argument about that same issue reprised on talkpage after talkpage, resulting in no consistency across the site. – .Raven .talk 23:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.
And the RfC closed June 7 expects us to cover "living or dead." Why not [in contravention of its expectation/finding] by the same rule?" doesn't misrepresent the RFC. I also have no clue why we're bothering to talk about that as an option, since it's not on the table and, given the last RFC (not to mention this one), isn't likely to be any time soon, but fair enough!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
demand[ing] an insurmountable bar for inclusion, as that comment puts it, is understandable but comes across to me as borrowing trouble. I would also agree with Thryduulf's proposed alternate wording. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources” is an absurdly high bar. Or at least it has the massive potential to be used as such a bludgeon that it is effectively the same as saying “prior notable names only”—a standard that has now been rejected. I would probably support the change without that phrase (ie, include names on encyclopaedic merit) , but at this point it feels like a small group are taking every chance to push a higher bar than the community wants. You have had my opinion many times elsewhere, so I won’t go on. — HTGS ( talk) 20:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Collapse tangential sniping
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 15:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Consensus across the wiki..." — Link?> "
... all names used by a notable individual (pseudonyms, married names, various names used in ancient China) are encyclopedic." WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE differs:
See Public figure for the latter distinction.And once again, the RfC here closed on June 7 has this in the closure statement: "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest." – .Raven .talk 10:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution . Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.
We give former names of dead people" for people like Joan Crawford and Gerald Ford; for living (and in this case "living or dead") non-public figures such as people notable only for one event (BLP1E, BIO1E), we give less detail, e.g. "In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family background, hobbies and employment, etc. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test.... When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event, rather than invading privacy for the sake of padding out an unnecessary biography." – .Raven .talk 16:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
what you say is the June 7 consensus" — See the closure full-text. I quoted from the portion emphasized by boldface in the original. – .Raven .talk 17:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
if they were notable prior to transitioning.That just makes clear what they mean by notable. It has nothing to do with WP:NNC. The void century 12:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.Huggums537 ( talk) 12:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
to tell [you] there's no dilemma/conflict" (that editor then said your continued insistence otherwise was "bordering WP:IDHT").
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles [...]. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
you'll end up looking stupidCouldn't be any
Locke you're a broken record hereTrying to avoid having this project overrun with people pushing agendas gets me labeled as stupid and a "broken record", I'll take that. This is an encyclopedia, a collection of human knowledge. If your goal is to hide or omit knowledge because it offends a particular group of people, then this isn't the place for you. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
but it is harmful when the point is trivial, redundant, or unclear(emphasis added) These changes are redundant to WP:DUE (and even if adopted, are subservient to WP:DUE). The previous RFC was also not based at all on discussion that preceded the RFC, and actually ignored proposed questions and language in favor of an RFC crafted in private between two editors pushing this as their agenda. The proposals being pushed are borderline encapsulations of WP:NOTHERE. When you tell us to stop providing knowledge on things that are verifiable and due in an encyclopedia, you've lost the plot and maybe need to go find something else to do with your spare time. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to inform"Isn't that an argument against all the WP:BIO protections? And policies like WP:DUE, which also limit what we include? – .Raven .talk 16:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.and the last paragraph in the lede would not say,
They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni).Huggums537 ( talk) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I vowed to spend the rest of my editing career educating others to think for themselves and do their own research [as to WP:NNC"), but I think it might be worth reconsidering whether crusading is a worthwhile use of your time, particularly given that your success rate in convincing other editors that your read of WP:NNC is the best, let alone the only, read.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used.
How is requiring that a name essentially meets notability requirements in order to be included in the article of its holder a reasonable reading of the consensus?!" MOS:GENDERID says:
... the mission of Wikipedia is not to respect trans people. It is to respect the facts...."I commend to your attention the Universal Code of Conduct, notably:
"He [John] was previously known as Mary" ... mentions the name without using it to refer to anything other than itself.Puzzling statement, since the inner quote makes quite clear that name refers (or referred) to John. In fact the two sentences together are logically equivalent to the deprecated form, "Mary changed her name to John when she transitioned to male." — which exchanges the rôles of the two names by your rule. That seems to make this use of the Use-mention distinction a dodge.For clarity. That article has the example of cheese (the dairy product) and "cheese" (the word):
But it is use of the name "Mary" to say that it refers to John.— I disagree. In
John is a trans man, The word "John" denotes or refers to a specific person. In
He was previously known as Mary, the word "Mary" denotes or refers to a specific name. That name might denote a person is some sentences, (eg
As a child, before transitioning, Mary attended an all-girls school) but not in
... was known as Mary. It might be make more sense (or be more obviously words-as-words) with quotation marks:
He was previously known as 'Mary'. Perhaps the quotation marks are strictly required, but no reasonable person would misinterpret the meaning of the sentence (in context) without them.Note that my argument regarding the use-mention distinction is independent of whether WMF's Universal Code of Conduct applies. Regardless of whether it is WP:GENDERID or UCoC, the general rule is: use a person's current name; but that does not prohibit mentioning a former name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
In"You had to remove the "He" and replace it with an ellipsis in order to make that last claim, because in the untruncated sentence "He" (or "John") "was known as Mary", that latter name clearly denotes the same person as "He" (or "John"), in fact that's the point of the sentence.In a sentence like "He always thought 'Mary' was a beautiful name", "Mary" does not denote any person, and does refer to nothing but itself.See the difference? – .Raven .talk 09:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)He was previously known as Mary, the wordMarydenotes or refers to a specific name. That name might denote a person i[n] some sentences,... but not in... was known as Mary.
He thought 'Mary' a beautiful name, the word "Mary" denotes a name that does not denote any specific person. In
John was known as 'Mary'(with or without quotes around Mary), the word "Mary" denotes a name, not the person with the name "Mary" (ie John). We are using the word "Mary" to denote/refer to a name, not to denote the person that the name "Mary" denoted. In the same way that the name is not the person (" the word is not the thing"), a reference to the name (ie "was known as Mary") is not a reference to the person. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Mark Twain was privately known as Samuel Clemens, will you tell me that one name or the other does not refer to (denote) that person? – .Raven .talk 19:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
will you tell me that one name or the other does not refer to (denote) that person— In the sentence
Mark Twain was privately known as Samuel Clemens, the words "Samuel Clemens" denote the name, not the person. I still assert that in your sentence we are using the name "Mark Twain" (the words denote the person) and mentioning the name "Samuel Clemens" (the words denote the name). I suspect that we may simply have to agree to disagree here, but I still think that - regardless of debates about semantics - a sentence such as "John was previously known as Mary" does not contravene a policy that says "Use the person's preferred name". Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Please stop trying to right great wrongs, it's disruptive."Citing & quoting our own policies, guidelines, etc., is " trying to right great wrongs"?!Citing & quoting our own policies, guidelines, etc., is " disruptive"?!When did citing & quoting our own policies, guidelines, etc., become against policies, guidelines, etc.? – .Raven .talk 05:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The UCoC... describes conduct amongst editors of the project, not content decisions."Directly above, I quoted a portion of the UCoC's "3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects":
... respecting trans people is not a mission of the project (either locally, or at a foundational level)."Locally, WP:DEADNAME's "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification...." [ emphasis in original certainly seems to advocate respecting at least trans people's preferences of name, pronoun, and job description gender.So again, well....> "
And to engage in that will open up the floodgates..." Slippery slope fallacy. – .Raven .talk 05:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Directly above, I quoted a portion of the UCoC's "3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects":How nice for you. You quoted part of the USER CONDUCT policy relating to not vandalizing the project. Yet again, nothing to do with making editorial decisions. Following our sources can never be considered "hate speech" or "vilifying" or any other adjective you come up with to describe being accurately described based on reliable sources.
To say that this does not describe content decisions seems rather obviously false.It's rather obviously false to suggest this has any bearing whatsoever on editorial decisions. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You quoted part of the USER CONDUCT policy relating to not vandalizing the project. Yet again, nothing to do with making editorial decisions."It takes being a user to make editorial decisions; here the user conduct being addressed was "Deliberately introducing biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content, or hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content." Clearly those are editorial decisions and actions — just bad ones.Are you perhaps trying to distinguish between the decisions/actions of several users/editors, vs. just one?But the UCoC doesn't say anything about approving hate speech, etc., if several editors engage in it. – .Raven .talk 05:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh wait, are you still denying that the UCoC discusses content decisionsSure am. Because it doesn't. It's user conduct, as the title explains and that you seem to keep conveniently ignoring. — Locke Cole • t • c 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's mission(other than right here, in this use–mention distinction). I was juxtaposing it with the idea of respecting dead people's privacy, not movement charters or core content policies.I was under the impression that the previous RFC closed with consensus that deadnames are not automatically encyclopaedic, and so I didn't bother to mention that. Most of the time they're trivia, like the identities of important animal companions, or reasons for a divorce, or salary. All facts, all parts of people's lives that impact their story, usually trivia.What I'm finding myself in strongest support of in this moment is Deadnames of deceased trans people are not automatically encyclopaedic. If insertion or deletion of a deadname is challenged, discuss it on the article talk page. Once consensus is reached, the topic cannot be reopened for 9+12n months, where n is the number of prior discussions on the topic. Folly Mox ( talk) 06:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the present RFC is a follow up to the preceding one, not a close review"So was I. The previous RfC's minority appear to have tried to change that. – .Raven .talk 07:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
the notion that 'hate speech' is synonymous with 'any construction that any one person stridently and vocally dislikes'."Except I neither expressed nor held such a position. I cited the UCoC in reply to the claim that ""
... the mission of Wikipedia is not to respect trans people. It is to respect the facts...."". As I said then, "It seems to me this indicates that to respect people (trans or otherwise) is part of the mission of the entire Wikimedia project.""Hate speech" is an example of the contrary, emphatically disrespecting people... and the Board frowns on it. – .Raven .talk 07:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Even in our article edits.citation needed — Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionwould imply that for historical figures, the name itself must be discussed and analyzed, rather than simply be used. If a historical figure is consistently referred to in the historical record by a deadname rather than a preferred name, said name should be included. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.
Also, that someone tried to insert and consensus was against in the end is not what I would consider to be a problem.Respectfully, I think you're focusing too closely on the end result, and not what lead to that result. In the cases of Xeon and particularly Alcorn, there have been multiple lengthy and sometimes contentious discussions on the inclusion or exclusion of the former name, in no small part because there is a lack of clear guidance in this area of deceased individuals.
it harder for any consensus to emerge. And as with the recent RfC, the three closers made a recommendation that a subsequent discussion/RfC be held to find consensus on a narrow framing. Unfortunately that never happened, and we were left with the current lack of guidance despite the expressed need for it. As I didn't want the situation, where we had an RfC that came with the recommendation for some sort of guidance following a narrowly framed discussion/RfC, to reoccur, I made this proposal.
allow us to omit sources that just mention the deadname in passing— Omitting sources that don't follow our rules, then claiming that our rules follow the sources (but only the ones that comply with our rules) - that seems to be circular reasoning. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
omit sources that just mention the deadname in passingreally just amounts to "find in-depth coverage of a name itself" so it really changes nothing just formulates the words to be more long winded by adding some extra distracting stuff to do with the subject that totally isn't related to what you are actually doing. Huggums537 ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"if required to understand the news", but this is a biography where, whilst nothing is of automatic encyclopaedic interest, it is very likely to be relevant information as changing a name is typically a significant life-event. There is no need to seek approval in Wikipedia - we edit boldly. FOARP ( talk) 14:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Style affects content. We don't "address" anyone in encyclopedia articles...You may wish to give MOS:PEOPLETITLES and MOS:SURNAME a read sometime. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
... with WP:BLP and a number of other guidelines..."At the top of that page is a box saying:
We are first an encyclopedia, and try to preserve and disseminate knowledge. We do have a strong secondary goal of minimizing harm. Somebody's former name was, at some point, a part of their life, and should still be included, provided the wording is sensible and states the facts from a neutral point of view. Obviously, there are concerns over using deadnames in articles, around potential harm and privacy concerns. However, as Stifle said, these concerns are significantly reduced when the subject is dead. Furthermore,
in depth analysis or discussionis a ridiculously high bar to set. The talk page is there for a reason. Again, we don't need blanket policies on every intricity of writing an encyclopedia.(added 12 July) I strongly oppose what Bluerasberry said (
Wikipedia's style guide should bend, comply, and conform to the wishes of communities who assert wishes for how they want to be represented.) No! Wikipedia is a neutral encylopedia, and shouldn't be forced to
comply [...] and conformwith what a community wants. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussionis for all intents and purposes a veto of NPOV. RAN1 ( talk) 23:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
generally reliable sourcesor similar.
in-depth analysisis basically WP:CREEP and highly subjective. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 21:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussion of the nameis an impossibly high bar. I'll note that (per BilledMammal) despite Gloria Hemingway being listed as an example, she does not actually meet that bar. There's not really in-depth analysis of Gloria Hemingway's former name in reliable sources, so it should actually be excluded under this guideline. There'd probably be close to zero trans people who meet that bar. I think probably Public Universal Friend would qualify, but that might be about it. Endwise ( talk) 03:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
in-depth analysis or discussion. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The way I was going to handle the near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3 (what SFR is calling 2.8) was by saying that 3 had consensus, but by footnote or other mitigating language the not completely absolute nature of that consensus should be noted.By my reading, and that of the RfC's closer, that is setting the bar higher than just discussion of the name in high quality sources. There needs to be a depth to the discussion, in order to adequately reflect just how high a bar for inclusion the current consensus is. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Note, I got this for example bit backwards. We're discussing why we should include the old name, not the new one. Sorry. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
that is setting the bar higher than just discussion of the name in high quality sources. Namely whether my comment is being used to support Sideswipe or whether Sideswip is criticizing my comment. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There has to be something about the name change that raises it above being a minor aspect of the person's fuller life story." – Umm, that would be a matter of the new name, not the old one, so not affect notability of the old name. Just as, if there's nothing about the name change that raises it, etc., it still won't affect the old name's notability at all.
clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest, so there has to be something about the former name that makes it of interest.
if they were notable prior to transitioningclause.
... so there has to be something about the
former name
that makes it of interest." – This is what I thought I just supported, as with Manning and Mann. Meanwhile, asking about the name change – "
... is there a reason why the person picked the name? Was it in honour of or to remember a friend or relative? Is there a deeper meaning behind the name that links in to other aspects of the person's life? Does it tie into their spirituality, religion, or cultural background in some meaningful way?" – only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old name, i.e. doesn't give a reason why that too should be in the article. – .Raven .talk 16:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
... only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old name ....— well, only if the only old name is the birth name. Theoretically a person could change names before transitioning and then switch to their current name.
or embraced multiple names/identities" – We report on all of David Bowie's names, including David Robert Jones and Ziggy Stardust, but then he never attempted to hide any of them, and no physical transition was involved. (This may not even be a fair example to use, as "stage names" are involved.) People who change names (and genders) before becoming notable may prefer a complete separation, the equivalent of WP:CLEANSTART... and I'm suggesting that we extend the same courtesy to them as to each other here. – .Raven .talk 20:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
only concerns the new name, and doesn't affect the notability of the old nameYou're absolutely right. I made that comment in error and will be striking it in a moment, as I got it the wrong way around (I blame the summer heat, it's too warm where I am!). Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
for the specific proposals" that were previously advanced, there was no consensus, because the censuses was between two of those proposals. And how did I not capture the question asked in my first sentence? Oh well.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
A recent RfC closed with the consensus that the community "believes that, for the most part, the prior name [of a deceased trans or non-binary person] should not be used". However the community fell short of finding a consensus for a specific barrier for inclusion based on the options presented. The purpose of this RfC is not to re-litigate the previous RfC, but to find consensus for a barrier for inclusion that reflects the closure of the previous RfC.This summarises the relevant part of the closure of the last RfC, and states clearly that the purpose of this RfC is to fulfil the consensus that was already established by it. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
efn}}
footnotes. Or the two long ones could just be made more concise, e.g. by eliminating the redundant "Note:" introductions, and by compressing things like "While Alcorn's gender identity is discussed in significant detail in high quality sources about her, her former name is not." to something more like "Alcorn's former name is not covered in high-quality sources.". The really blathery "Hemingway's struggles with her gender dysphoria, and relationship with her gender identity, gender expression, and name are discussed in significant detail in sources about her life." can be reduced to "Hemingway's former name is covered in high-quality sources." Even leave out "in significant detail", which really doesn't make sense in this context (a name is a name not a novel; once you've given the full name what more "significant detail" could there be?) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 23:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
looks unlikely to be disagreed with". I'd also still strongly disagree with your comment that
This procedural problem could have been avoided if the lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME had not been ignored—for one, because I did not ignore that RFCBEFORE (which I also participated in), and, for two, because the idea that there was wide concern about priming effects in the RFCBEFORE is just not at all borne out by the comments there (see section on "small proposal" by Trystan).-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The suggestion of excluding views that don't fit within the bounds of the previous RFC's close keeps getting suggested. That would be the wrong approach for a closer to take.
As an overarching principle, our guidelines reflect consensus. Practically, they require actual the consensus of the community behind them to function. This is a centrally located, well-advertised RFC, and if the proposed change reflects community consensus, that will be shown in the result, without the need to artificially exclude any dissenting views from consideration.
The suggestion that editors are free to challenge the previous close has been made. In my view, that would be unproductive. The close of question 2 found no consensus for change, suggested that a consensus could be found between options 2 and 3, and contemplated a further discussion or RFC would be "likely to result in consensus language". All of which is quite reasonable. I'm somewhat skeptical on how likely a compromise option will be to actually attract enough support to establish a consensus, but the current RFC will answer that exact question, provided it is run in a fair and open manner.-- Trystan ( talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive."
Those who didn't get the outcome they desired are more motivated to try to continue pushing over and over to overturn a result through decreased participation of the community versus the group trying to reverse a decision.I note that the warring over these issues has been going on for long enough that participation bias may already have applied to the original RFC that this RFC is following up on. And even several RFCs before it. Anomie ⚔ 11:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest.(emphasis original) Had there been more time between this RfC and the close of the previous one, say six months to a year, I think an argument could be made that potentially consensus on this had changed. However for this particular topic, I don't think that it's plausible that consensus has changed so radically that those points I've quoted no longer apply.
Some of the above points are getting dangerously close to saying that some people should not participate in an RfC. In abstract terms: if the spectrum of possible wording on a guidline or policy is from 1 to 9 and a proposal is made to change it from its current 5 to 2, then someone who prefers 1 is entitled to support while arguing that 1 would be better, even if 1 or anything else was rejected previously. Similarly, someone who prefers 9 is entitled to oppose while arguing that 9 would be better, even if 5 or anything else was rejected previously. Someone who doesn't like spicy food but who is given the choice between adding more spice to the spicy food pot or leaving it as it is has a valid argument when saying "It's too spicy already, so I oppose adding more spice". EddieHugh ( talk) 18:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion...." This does not invite revisiting options already declined there. – .Raven .talk 23:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
by rejecting A′ merely because it was not raised in RFC1" – Except in this case A′ was already raised in RFC1, and expressly rejected... just a week ago.2) "
let's take WP:DETCON at its word.... DETCON is arrant nonsense that nobody actually believes" – You just rejected the premise of your own comment's preceding text. Why bother posting it?3) Except that "objective level of 'quality'" argues against a seemingly vague contextless word... which in the original text has a specific context: "quality... as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" — in other words, whether arguments are in accord with policy, or not. This is neither "arrant nonsense that nobody actually believes" nor ultimately indeterminable. – .Raven .talk 02:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." [ emphasis added – In this case the argument was "previously considered", and consensus established a week ago, not very "old". – .Raven .talk 02:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
a solid community consensus that runs somewhere between the never and the sometimes of Topic 2, as you said in the summary of the whole RFC? Loki ( talk) 16:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
a solid community consensus that runs somewhere between the never and the sometimes of Topic 2. That doesn't bring us to where exactly the consensus is, though. I've said in other places regarding this that if I could have closed topic 2 as consensus for 2.8 I would have, but that would still leave the same position of having to determine what, if any, changes to make to the MOS. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Replies moved here from from above to keep the discussion on topic; initially made in reply to this comment BilledMammal ( talk) 17:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
established through discussion of the name in high quality sourceshas much of the same issues as the current proposal; Hemingway's former name is included in almost all high quality sources covering her, but the name itself isn't discussed. I would mostly agree with Blueboar, although I would prefer "including" rather than "using" the name.
if such inclusion would satisfy the principle of least astonishment, particularly considering the majority of reliable sources discussing said person."
Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? Some of those supporting option 2 suggested a higher bar than majority as well.To fulfil the existing consensus, any proposed barrier has to be higher than something based on mere volume of sources.
The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.During the drafting I considered whether linking in with N, or something that derives from N, would be appropriate, but because of NNC I quickly came to the obvious conclusion that we can't apply notability criteria to article content in that manner. That's ultimately why I settled on BALASP, which is applicable to content and about inclusion versus exclusion of minor aspects of a subject.
However, I think further discussion of alternatives should be done elsewhereWe could move this comment chain, in part or in whole, to a subsection below the survey. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists.Given that I don't believe there is any issue with applying criteria derived from WP:GNG if it would be appropriate. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion.
In effect, what it means is that we would only include the former names of living trans or non-binary individuals if they change their name after the point at which we created an article about them.That isn't quite accurate; it is saying we only include the former names of living trans or non-binary individuals if they change their name after the point at which we could have created an article about them. Personally, I don't think that is the ideal metric - it requires us to include the former name of people who barely passed WP:NACTOR or another of the more inclusive SNG's prior to transitioning but then became significantly more notable later, and it requires us to exclude the former name of people who became notable after transitioning but who have their former name included in every reliable source on the subject - but that is a different discussion.
there must be a reason to include the deadname beyond the mere fact that the person was once known by that namewould be a bit too low a bar and not provide quite enough guidance. I tried to use WP:PLA in the last RFC to provide some guidance in option 2 (with one factor to be considered being the majority of reliable sources), but obviously that got, at best, a mixed response. (I also don't know that PLA would cover examples like Gloria Hemingway, who's been mentioned a few times here.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
If consensus is and remains that a name of TG/NB person that pre-dates that subject's notability (or an old name of a TG/NB person who is not notable at all) should not be used in mainspace, such an old name can simply be replaced with the current one.from 05:14, 17 November 2020.
it requires us to include the former name of people who barely passed WP:NACTOR or another of the more inclusive SNG's prior to transitioning but then became significantly more notable laterI'm curious if you have an example in mind for this.
is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sourceswith
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sourcesis a more workable option here. It lowers the barrier somewhat from "in-depth analysis" to just "discussion of the name", while still keeping it restricted to higher quality sources. It sidesteps the volume threshold problem entirely, and because of this meets the consensus from the last RfC quite well. Though we (BilledMammal and I) disagree on whether my original proposal as written would allow for Gloria Hemingway or the Public Universal Friend's name, I think Trystan's proposal would definitely support both. It would still leave Aiden Hale's former name for the application of IAR, but as I've said previously (to some support) trying to make this guideline apply to Hale would result in too low a threshold of inclusion for the vast majority of applicable articles. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be flexible, but that flexibility has the same endless discussion trap that our current lack of guidance has.It might, but I'm not convinced it will - most of our policies are flexible, and all of the best ones are. I don't see any harm in trying; it prevents us from always including the name, and if it proves problematic in practice we can return here with a new proposal seeking to adjust it with clear examples of where the issues are.
I'm curious if you have an example in mind for this.No, I don't edit in this area, but I would expect such examples to exist. The real issue is the SNG's being overly inclusive (although marginally meeting GNG prior to transition is another example of when we probably shouldn't include the name), but again a different discussion.
Though we (BilledMammal and I) disagree on whether my original proposal as written would allow for Gloria Hemingway or the Public Universal Friend's name, I think Trystan's proposal would definitely support both.Can you provide examples of sources that you believe would demonstrate that their former names meet the requirements of this proposal (or if you are unable to, Trystan's)? Our disagreement could simply be because I haven't seen the sources you have. BilledMammal ( talk) 19:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't edit in this areaAh ha! Ok, as an editor who does edit in this area, I'm telling you straight up that the flexibility in your proposal coming from a floating definition of widely will be a problem because of the issues alluded to in my last reply.
Ok, as an editor who does edit in this area, I'm telling you straight up that the flexibility in your proposal coming from a floating definition of widely will be a problem because of the issues alluded to in my last reply.People in every area (including occasionally myself) say flexibility is a problem in guidelines and policies dealing with their area. They're usually wrong; I think it is better to start with more flexibility (although any of these proposals, including mine, will reduce considerably the flexibility from the status quo) and tighten the specific aspects that are problematic, rather than starting with an extremely inflexible guideline that could be used to exclude names from articles that should include them.
synonymous with fraud and delusion(pages 173-175, and throughout the rest of the chapter how the former name and seemingly not the chosen name became associated with a story of walking on water.
The eighth child, her fourth daughter, was born on November 29, 1752, and was given the biblical name Jemima, after one of the daughters of Job.
This arrangement was necessary because Jemima Wilkinson, from the beginning of her ministry, refused to own any real property in her own name. Her attitude was explained in a petition, stating that she, "being wholly devoted to her Religious Duties & deeming it inconsistent therewith & unbecoming her character to have any personal concern or agency in pecuniary or temporal concerns constituted Sarah Richards, one of her most Trustworthy Followers & Friends, Trustee of the lands."
A story that is perhaps apocryphal, but not at all improbable, relates her answer to a man named Day, who was trying to induce her to admit to the name Jemima Wilkinson instead of the Universal Friend.
This woman, who had recognized no other name than the Publick Universal Friend for more than four decades, was compelled by fear of a legal disadvantage to admit that she was the one "who in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy six was called Jemima Wilkinson and ever since that time the Universal Friend a new name which the mouth of the Lord Hath named.
A codicil further identifying the Universal Friend as Jemima Wilkinson was added on July 7, 1818, and signed with an X. This was witnessed by Gold, John Briggs, and James Brown, Jr. The fact that this resolute woman refused to sign the name Jemima Wilkinson, yet, when forced by legal necessity to make a signature, signed an X as "her cross or mark" has misled some writers to con- clude that she could not read or write
In her native New England, however, the name of Jemima Wilkinson was synonymous with fraud and delusion.
As early as July 1791, the Friend, with Sarah Richards acting as his agent and trustee (the prophet refused to use his legal name in order to conduct business or to sully himself with such worldly matters), began to make payments to Robinson and Hathaway for land in the town.
William Savery mentioned the episode in his journal, writing that “Sheriff Norton informed us he had lately attempted to Serve a Writ on Jemima Wilkinson at the Suit of Judge Potter’s son Thomas.” The Friend initially refused to recognize the writ, which was addressed to Jemima Wilkinson. Only after some negotiation did the prophet agree to accept the warrant and post bail “under the name of ye Universal Friend commonly calld Jemima Wilkinson.”
Thomas Gold, one of the lawyers employed by Malin, asked, “Does she [Wilkinson] not sense that everything is at stake, the roof over her head” and advised, “the Friends name must be used, to wit, Jemima Wilkinson, as Complainant with you.”
It is also worth noting that the will’s opening paragraph and codicil each specify that the Universal Friend and Jemima Wilkinson were the same person. The document’s first sentence denotes it as “the Last will and Testament of the Person Called the Universal Friend . . . who in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy six was called Jemima Wilkinson and ever since that time the Universal Friend.” In a similar vein, the codicil states, “Be it remembered that in order to remove all doubts of the due execution of the foregoing Last will & testament I being the person who before the year one thousand seven hundred & seventy seven was known & called by the name of Jemima Wilkinson but since that time as the Universal Friend.” Yet even after taking such pains, the Friend signed the will with an “X” so that he could avoid writing his original name.
The society of followers also used linguistic gender performances to separate themselves from the "wicked world"; they marked themselves as believers by refusing to use gendered pronouns or the name "Jemima Wilkinson" for the being known as the "Publick Universal Friend," "a newname which the mouth of the Lord hath named."
For those who believed the Friend divine, and for those who damned Jemima Wilkinson as a devil, radical religious experience provided a key site for reimagining and critiquing gender constructs in the years following the American Revolution.
Language choices could also mark points of entering and exiting the community, as the apostate and denouncer Abner Brownell refers to "The Friend" in diary entries written during the time of his membership in the Friend's community but then calls "her" "Jemima Wilkinson" in his later published denunciation, Enthusiastical Errors, Described and Decried.
Only after the community's lawyer insisted that the law would not recognize the community's legal rights to the land unless they made use of the name Jemima Wilkinson did the Friend grudgingly allow it to be used—by signing an X to a document bearing the name.
Conventions of historical scholarship also enforce given names, since though I can use "the Friend" in my text, I still must search for and cite archives bearing the name Jemima Wilkinson
functionally indistinguishable, then I may not ever be able to convince you with any amount of evidence. And that's fine, reasonable minds can disagree on this.
given your difficulties in finding discussion of the nameI would not say I had any difficulties finding discussion of the name. While we clearly disagree on whether or not this meets either of the thresholds set out, please do not speak for me, and state that I have encountered difficulties where I clearly believe otherwise. I would like to ask that you strike that. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If you're seeing Trystan and my proposals asYour proposal says X or Y is required, Trystan's says X is required. In theory, yours is less restrictive than Trystan's, but as Y is effectively a subset of X they are equivalent. Why do you see Trystan's as less restrictive?functionally indistinguishable, then I may not ever be able to convince you with any amount of evidence.
Can you explain why you see a discussion of their refusal to identify with their former self as a discussion of their former name?I was somewhat in the process of writing something akin to this before your reply, as I realised I should have added it in my second paragraph.
indicated whether one was part of the community of the saved or part of the "wicked world". That content contextualises what you've quoted in 13, and also includes a demonstrative example from the memoirs of a child whose parents were followers of the Friend.
In theory, yours is less restrictive than Trystan's, but as Y is effectively a subset of X they are equivalent.Respectfully, I think you've misunderstood both mine and Trystan's proposal. For the sake of convenience my proposal is
through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, and Trystan's proposal is
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources. Breaking this down, both proposals restrict the inclusion criteria to content present in high quality sources. My proposal then puts a further restriction on it by requiring either in-depth analysis or in-depth discussion of the name to be present in those sources. The in-depth qualifier applies to both discussion or analysis of the name. That's a very high bar, and I acknowledged it as such in my !vote above. Trystan's proposal however removes the in-depth qualifier and requires only discussion of the name in high quality sources. This is a lower barrier to inclusion than my proposal, because it just requires the presence of a discussion, regardless of the depth of that discussion, to be present in the relevant sources. It is still however still a higher barrier than mere verifiability. Trystan acknowledged that this is a lower barrier when proposing it, as he opposed my proposal as too high of a barrier. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
On page 594 you have skipped over an entire paragraph on how the use of a specific name to refer to the Friend "indicated whether one was part of the community of the saved or part of the "wicked world"". That content contextualises what you've quoted in 13, and also includes a demonstrative example from the memoirs of a child whose parents were followers of the Friend.
Regardless I have to ask, when you are reading the pages I have listed above and selecting quotations from them, why have you skipped over the surrounding context and not made any reference to it or summary of it?Because I didn't consider the context to change whether the sections I believed you were referring to involved discussion of the name? If you did, it would have been better for you to provide the quotations and summaries rather than relying on me to do so.
The in-depth qualifier applies to both discussion or analysis of the name.I interpreted it as applying only to the analysis, but I see now how you interpreted it to apply to both. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
can you explain how this context involves discussion of the name?Put succinctly, the context is discussing how different groups of people used the name. It is there to establish understanding, so that when Larson notes the accounting of Huldah Davis, the reader can contextualise which group Davis and her parents belonged to (ie, followers of the Friend). Discussion on the use of a name is discussion of an aspect of the name.
If you did, it would have been better for you to provide the quotations and summariesI've already said why I did not wish to quote from the source materials in a manner such as you did, as to provide the full context it would amount to a copyvio from the more recently published sources. I thought I had adequately summarised however, especially as I gave the page numbers where the entirety of the content appeared.
Because I didn't consider the context to change whether the sections I believed you were referring to involved discussion of the name?The context is part of the discussion. It's present to help readers understand the fullness of the text. To go back to accounting of Huldah Davis mentioned above and on page 594, if I had just quoted
In her recollections, Davis refers to Jemima Wilkinson but is careful to note that her parents, followers of the Friend, always referred to "the Friend," and Davis uses the community's language through most of her account.would you have understood that Davis' use of the community's language implied a
sense of belongingthat significantly outlasted the existence of that community, but despite the sense of belonging her use of the Friend's former name indicated that Davis was not a follower of the Friend's ministry? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on the use of a name is discussion of an aspect of the name.In practice, I don't believe that discussion of the use of the name will be interpreted as discussion of the name, and I think that if you intended to propose that such discussion would be sufficient for inclusion your proposal should read
established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the use of the name in high quality sources/
established through discussion of the use of the name in high quality sources
mentioning how a trans persons sibling continued to use their birth nameis discussion of the use of a name, as is an article mentioning that prior to transitioning the subject was called their birth name.
I think that if you intended to propose that such discussion would be sufficient for inclusion your proposal should read ...If I wanted to limit my proposal to high quality sources that contain in-depth discussion on the use of the former name, then I would have done so. However that would arguably be an even higher standard than what I proposed, because that sort of discussion is exceedingly rare. My proposal is broader than that, as it allows for other types of in-depth discussion or analysis of the former name.
For example, an article mentioning how a trans persons sibling continued to use their birth name is discussion of the use of a nameI feel like this is somewhat of a strawman. While it is a sad fact that many trans and non-binary people have transphobic family members who refuse to use that person's chosen name and pronouns, if a high quality source was to include this it would be something in the form of something like
X's sibling(s) were not supportive of their transition, and in the case of a modern high quality source (something written in the last ten or so years) would very likely exclude the former name when doing so. Such a mention would certainly not be in-depth enough to meet my proposal, nor would it even meet the lower threshold from Trystan's proposal.
as is an article mentioning that prior to transitioning the subject was called their birth nameHard disagree. In either Trystan's or my threshold there has to be at minimum a discussion or analysis of the name. Simply mentioning it once, or even using it throughout as the primary name when referring to the subject would not be a discussion or analysis of the name. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If I wanted to limit my proposal to high quality sources that contain in-depth discussion on the use of the former name, then I would have done so.Then it should have read
established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name or use of the name in high quality sources/
established through discussion of the name or use of the name in high quality sources. It doesn't change my point, which is that you are expecting people to interpret "discussion of the name" far more broadly than the wording would suggest it be interpreted.
Simply mentioning it once, or even using it throughout as the primary name when referring to the subject would not be a discussion or analysis of the name.I agree, but that wasn't my hypothetical and your interpretation of discussion of the name includes discussion of the use of the name. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't change my point, which is that you are expecting people to interpret "discussion of the name" far more broadly than the wording would suggest it be interpreted.I could just as easily turn that back, and say that you're interpreting it in a much narrower manner than many of the RfC's participants. I would also posit that your wording is unclear, because
in-depth use of the nameis somewhat of a nonsensical phrase. But it seems to stem from that you perhaps consider that a discussion or analysis on the use of the name is a distinct topic from discussion or analysis of the name? Whereas I see it as a subtype of a discussion or analysis of the name?
I agree, but that wasn't my hypotheticalUnless I missed a step (it is late and I really should go to sleep), it certainly wasn't my hypothetical either. The first time I see it appearing in this discussion is your comment at 01:48, 26 June 2023. If it's not your hypothetical, and if it's not mine, then whose hypothetical is this? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I could just as easily turn that back, and say that you're interpreting it in a much narrower manner than many of the RfC's participants.Of the editors who have provided information on how they interpret it, most have interpreted it in a narrower fashion than you have - and even if all those editors are interpreting it "incorrectly" the fact that so many have done so demonstrates that the wording is flawed.
I would also posit that your wording is unclear, because "in-depth use of the name" is somewhat of a nonsensical phrase.It would be intended to be read as
in-depth discussion of use of the name/
discussion of use of the name, but I don't think the specifics of how it would need to be worded are relevant - the point is that the current wording is flawed.
born as, which usually happens in the lede. That's more an alt topic name than "content". Per WP:NNC, other content in the article body should probably just be decided case by case based on whether the information is WP:DUE. The void century 12:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." As I understand the proposal, and based on the last RFC, no this proposal would not just apply to the lead.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The current MOS:GENDERID does the same thing
In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should only be included in the lead sentence if the person was notable prior to coming out. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly". In the intervening 8 years, despite many discussions and RfCs on the guideline, many of which focused on whether to include or exclude a deadname, prior to this RfC NNC had been mentioned three times; by Godsy in June 2016, by Rabbitflyer in August 2021, and by Iamreallygoodatcheckers in August 2021. In all three instances the concerns were either dismissed by other argumentation, or not otherwise remarked upon by discussion participants.
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page. The guideline does not apply WP:N to content, instead the guideline is using N as a shorthand way of saying something akin to
If a living transgender or non-binary person changed their name prior to an article about them being created, it should not be included in any page. In this instance, N is effectively an easy to define cut-off date for when a former name can be included for a living trans or non-binary person. It is a date and time. If a living person has an article about them, and transitions after that article was written, then we likely include their former name as they are very likely a public figure and WP:BLPNAME would not apply. If instead that person transitioned prior to us writing an article about them, then we likely will not include their former name, because at that point their former name is a privacy issue and BLPNAME applies in part. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person changed their name prior to an article about them being created, it should not be included in any page.The problem here is that you are trying to shift the focus on a date and time, but the date and time doesn't matter. Neither does "living" or "dead". What matters is that whatever the time and date might be, you are wanting to use notability as the criteria to include content "in a page". That is the conflict. The before or after is completely irrelevant because you can't use notability as a criteria to include content "in a page" either way so date and time means nothing. There is no "cutoff date" for this rule. If you are saying the inclusion of content within a page depends on whether a previous article existed or not, then it is even worse than using notability as a criteria because you would actually be using notability of something else as a criteria which is like off the charts nuts. Huggums537 ( talk) 07:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if there would be consensus to update MOS:GENDERID to remove the word living so it applies to all trans people, living and deceased (as an alternative to this proposal)?That was topic 2, option 3 in the RfC that was held earlier this month. While it had the highest level of support of any of the options, it did not have enough support on its own to form a consensus. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
require deadnames be documented in multiple HQRS that provide SIGCOV of the person
has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
in-depth analysis or discussion of the nameare not required, nor notability pre-transition. Instead, all that's required is multiple reliable sources mention the deadname, as long as the subject itself receives SIGCOV. The void century 02:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Even under this proposal, if the deadname is included, it's included immediately. This leads to issues such as Wendy Carlos - universally known as that name for the last fourty years - being deadnamed in the first sentence.
If we look beyond trans individuals, it's pretty normal in articles on actors or singers, where a person is basically only known by one name throughout their life - say, Tina Turner or W. H. Kendal to include their birth name, even when it's of very limited notability. But those names have no capacity for harm. And note that Kendal's birthname isn't mentioned until the second paragraph, which is honestly more respect than we show the average trans person, when there's not even an indication Kendal disliked his birthname.
I'm rather against this proposal, as it all but codifies deadnaming people in the first sentence. There's going to be cases where people came out as trans long after their career was all-but over. Dee Palmer, say, might need to do that just so you know who she is. But can't we state that the more of their career, the more of their notability is seperated from their transness, the further into their article the appearance of their deadname should be, bottoming out at simple non-inclusion?
It's weird to have this binary form where we either show all possible respect and care as regards deadnaming, or absolutely zero respect, policy all but requires we out them in the first few words. The examples given are probably justified - known most of their lives under the deadname, and much of their notability predates it - but that's not going to always be the case. Wendy Carlos is a good example where the deadname probably needs a brief mention somewhere, but almost all commentary on her for decades has used her preferred name, so including it right at the start isn't justifiable. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 08:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Current Name, biologically Old Name,...)", like some people treat the rule as being [although it is not that], is not a one-size-fits-all approach; I support putting once-notable deadnames that have long been unused by anyone where they're more relevant. I've seen articles mention marginally notable, long-unused deadnames (of e.g. actors who did one minor film pre-transition, and many major films post-transition) in ==Early career==, which seems more sensible than putting it in the first five words. (I've seen editors remove the name entirely from such articles, too, which also seems reasonable.)
t
c
13:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
when determining whether to mention a deadname for LIVING trans people we say to give significantly more weight sources written AFTER transition"). I think the idea is that someone who is not notable pre-transition won't have that many pre-transition sources, not that post-transition sources are given more weight. That said, whether or not that's what we do it for living trans persons, I'm intrigued about whether a post-death sources rule could work for deceased trans persons. Would love to hear more thoughts-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is getting very long and there is an element of bludgeoning going on, with the most prolific contributor having made 70 comments. I suggest that editors who have already expressed their position refrain from commenting on new !votes. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
There are those who would apply the TG/NB rules we already have to everyone, so we need to consider the very real possibility that this is going to end up being a general policy change, or at least a nexus of debate about making such a general change to our privacy versus public information standards, and not just one specific to a particular narrow class of subjects. See e.g.: "This is not a gender identity issue but I see no reason not to extend the same courtesy of privacy to cisgendered persons who are not notable under their birth names and request they be omitted." [3] This is by no means the first time I've encountered such reasoning. There is every reason to expect that whatever wording is hammered out here is going to rather forcefully be argued to apply to everyone. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
... extend the same courtesy of privacy to cisgendered persons who ... request [their birthname] be omitted. There's a big difference between excluding a birth name by default (eg in the case of trans people) and on request (cisgender/ Teller). If we are to have the same rule for cis and trans/NB people, is that rule "exclude by default" or "exclude by request"? Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the community needs to be made aware that some participants of this discussion began a slow moving edit war to introduce substantially the same language as discussed above into the MoS despite the "no consensus" result of this discussion. It began the same day as the close, and the language has now been re-added for a third time. Substantial efforts have been made on the talk page by a number of editors (myself included) to explain to the editors trying to force the addition in that this is inappropriate without further discussion and express consensus for the addition before hand, especially in light of the scale of the last two RfCs and the divisiveness of the issue, but these attempts seem to be falling on deaf ears at this point.
I personally am done engaging with the IDHT and am leaving that discussion. I'm also not personally inclined to escalate the matter to AE, ANI, ANEW. But behavioural issues put to the side, I do think the matter needs community eyes on it if only to see that the input above is not ignored. Perhaps someone's approach to urging restraint will be more successful than mine. SnowRise let's rap 05:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
BilledMammal inserted the language into the policy the very same day that the above RfC closed with a "no consensus" (and mostly opposed) result on very similar languageYou keep asserting this is "very similar language" to the RfC proposal despite seemingly agreeing that it is in fact materially very different, so different that you would actually switch your own !vote to support it. That multiple oppose !voters support this change should be an indication BilledMammal is instating language that functionally reflects the consensus from both this RfC and the one prior that the threshold for inclusion of dead transpeople's pre-notability deadnames should lie somewhere between "documented in multiple RS" and "the deadname guideline for BLPs (never)". We don't need another tiresome RfC to identify the exact words to split that difference. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)