This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Regarding this edit that was reverted. There is an obvious conflict with the original wording and the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, which states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
There are already guidelines and policies covering former names and privacy concerns, which is why I added links to the section. Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names? Consensus doesn't get to override policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names?, is to be found in the many community processes linked at MOS:GIDINFO.
Hi. I am a non-binary person. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on transgender and nonbinary people (MOS:GI) and I really think they should be changed. Why does it specifically say only a living person gets the respect of being referred to by their preferred pronouns?
If a person's preferred pronouns were known why should they not be respected in death? It is high time to update these guidelines. Errlane ( talk) 10:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
(I noticed this on the MOS:GIDINFO page, but the content is transcluded from here)
As of this writing we offer two examples of "don't include the former name if not notable", both written in green (indicating this is how to write things):
First off, the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say: The first article begins "Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) is an American actress and..." Green text should IMO be reserved for the actual words we want to teach readers to use. Plus, wouldn't it be better if the example actually contrasted what to write with what to not write (which is why we'd use a made-up example)
Why not use a made-up example, and why not write (in green) the exact phrasing we want readers to adopt:
Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.
My question is: why did the community decide to not use this style of examples?
CapnZapp (
talk) 07:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nobody is discussing pronouns. Both I and the GENDERID is discussing whether to mention the former name. My example clearly shows how to write and how to not write it.
I'm saying that this...
(obviously switching to a made-up example so we can show the incorrect way of doing it; illustrating what we're telling users NOT to do) ...is much more easily understood than whatever the current text's examples is trying to say. Unlike the current text it avoids text you're not supposed to write (in other words, no they don't contain "the exact phrasing that users should adopt"), doesn't begin with a "From" (that I don't understand the purpose of), and extremely clearly illustrates both the green do and the red don't.
That I chose Jane Doe as my example name, and my choice of example nationality, "job", and pronoun, is entirely irrelevant and beside the point. CapnZapp ( talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
For example (feel free to write better explanatory text; copying bits from reply above just to illustrate):
When pretransition name is a "birth name" (example from Laverne Cox):
When it is not (example from Rachel Leland Levine):
When pretransition name is not notable (fictional example):
(do not include non-notable pretransition name at all)
CapnZapp ( talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
"one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not". The value in those particular examples, as I suggested above, is simply to underline the fact that there is no single formula mandated in this branch of the decision tree, either. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Do the multiple examples help understand this better?As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Late in the previous discussion, a point was raised: shouldn't CHANGEDNAME point to GENDERID?
And so it does (very last line). However, note the word "living" in the current text. Does GENDERID apply to living subjects only or equally to deceased subjects? We afford greater protections to living bio article subjects, is GENDERID one of these?
If the answer is "yes only to living" then GENDERID needs to make this distinction. If the answer is "no; to all" the above line at CHANGEDNAME needs to be edited. (To be clear: I have no opinion either way, I just want to point out this possible discrepancy)
CapnZapp ( talk) 06:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Out of no where this format à la "Austrian and American" comes to counter the long established tradition of the hyphen! Goodness gracious ;)
Where and when has this format been decided all of a sudden? Synotia ( talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors, regardless of whether or not they are used attributively (Aboriginal Australians, Asian American studies, Black British people).
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.
Consider an individual such as Amber McLaughlin (born Scott A. McLaughlin). McLaughlin was executed for the murder and rape of a woman, committed while living as male, only transitioning to female while on death row. You will find a number of other cases of individuals who have transitioned post-incarceration for heinous crimes, although this is the only case (thus far) which has ended in execution. McLaughlin's notability is due to committing heinous crimes; although the primary source of notability is only for being executed for them, being executed for a crime can't really be separated from the crime itself (especially in a case such as this, in which nobody–to my knowledge–is suggesting this was the execution of an innocent person). (Technically MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to McLaughlin, since it only applies to living persons–but I'm trying to raise a broader point here than just that one individual case.)
Here are some arguments why MOS:GENDERID should not apply in such cases:
Note, I am only suggesting we should carve out an exception for heinous crimes such as murder, rape, child abuse, etc, not for less inherently abhorrent offences. Such an exception would not apply to e.g. Chelsea Manning, since whatever your view on her criminal convictions, few would seriously suggest they are on the same level as rape or murder. I was thinking about filing an RFC on this topic, but thought it would be better to raise it informally for discussion first. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Per EddieHugh's request, below is proposed revised text based off what consensus here was showing, but edited to address their concerns.
When a living transgender or non-binary person's former name is not notable, that name should not be included in the article. For example:
When a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under theirpretransistionpretransitionname, that name should not be included in the article.
For example:
- From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
- From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
- Avoid:
Not notable, do not use:Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under theirpriorformer name, that namemayshould be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce thepriorformer name with "born" if they were notable under their birth name or "formerly" if notable under apriorformer professional name, stage name, or pseudonym. For example:
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, that name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
- From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
- From Elliot Page, notable under
priorformer professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...
Thoughts, objections, concerns? CapnZapp, Newimpartial — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before.above I hope to have helped made sure this change didn't fly under the radar. (Unlike you Trystan I don't mind the change, but then again, I don't have a strong opinion either way). CapnZapp ( talk) 07:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
introduce the name with "born" or "formerly":. MOS:BIRTHDATE says
Birth and death labels are included only when needed for clarity. When given, use full words, whether immediately preceding a date or not:(which is referring to writing out "born" instead of using "b."). Examples may not be "rules", but they demonstrate the proper application of the rules to help aid in understanding them and almost every time a birth name is used in the examples when the person is known by a different name, "born" is used to mark the birth name. The only exception is MOS:NEE says specifically, when a birth name is given for someone who's changed their surname,
Editors may denote this [the birth name] with "born" ...or, if the surname change is due to marriage, né or née may be used instead of born. (The conditional may is used here because of the exception for when né/née might be used instead.)
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." — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 18:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Any further thoughts/concerns/edits, or does this look good to deploy? Clean (hopefully) final version (with the existing, unchanged preceding) below ... CapnZapp, EddieHugh — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:17, 6 February 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. For example:
- From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
- From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine ( /ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
- Avoid: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
- From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
- From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...
Comment - I don't blame you for not knowing the tedious background, but many editors would regard your change to the final intro paragraph, from should only be included if
to In the case of .... should be included
as substantive and, given the background, even as requiring its own RfC. (The former only sets limits on inclusion, while the latter positively mandates inclusion when the condition is met - at least, that is how many of us read that policy language.)
Newimpartial (
talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
User:Tcr25, I have concerns about Rachel Levine being used as an example above. She was an academic researcher into eating disorders pre-transition, and published a number of articles in medical journals under her birth name. Obviously pre-transition she was a lot less notable than now, but I'm not sure she was entirely non-notable – and I think that's a rather different situation from someone like Laverne Cox, who as far as I am aware was a complete nobody pre-transition. A person might be interested in Levine's academic career/research/publications, and a person who wants to pursue that interest would need to know what name she published much of her work in that area under. By contrast, a person's reasons for knowing Cox's birth name couldn't be anything other than interest in celebrity trivia. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that discussion seems to have died out on this, I've moved the stable version of the examples and intro text to the MOS page. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
MOS:CONTEXTBIO doesn’t make mention of sex (or gender), but it seems like there would be no reason not to treat it the same. We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”, except in cases like “first woman to win a Nobel Prize” (and so on). Am I missing something, or is this sort of consideration so obvious to be CREEPy? — HTGS ( talk) 04:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”— but we do categorise them ( Category:Women's association football players, Category:Women scientists) and thus we should define them as such. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
… is a New Zealand) so a carveout for trans bios would be fine by me. Eg, a footnote like “femalerugby union player
for trans individuals this guideline may not always apply”. But I do feel that CONTEXTBIO's current wording (
gender … should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability) would cover it well enough for the good judgment of good editors. — HTGS ( talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you need to avoid Bill Gates III? ErceÇamurOfficial ( talk) 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, an extra paragraph was added to
WP:JOBTITLES in this
, likely a response to a dispute I had with the editor over applying JOBTITLES to position leads following the use of "The". There was no discussion over this paragraph so unsure whether it is against consensus or a worthy inclusion. Or simply put, can such addition be checked, it seems to be a rewording of the third point above the examples table but excluding the exceptions, does this paragraph now argue that it should be capped even after using "the" or "a"? Third point above, stated it can be capitalised when it is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article)
.
Dank
Jae 00:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
These need to be discussed. The current wording is STABLE. Changing guidelines whilst involved in a dispute related to those guidelines (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#user:Skyerise) is incredibly poor form. Giant Snowman 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi All, There are numerous discussions going on both on wiki talk pages, via wiki (near) edit wars and within the art-world and in the media regarding reclassifying Ukrainian born persons (artists, chess players etc), current labelled as Russian. This could also impact other persons subject to historic colonial, conquered and other disputed areas. I think we need some clarity and potentially some individual ruling in some cases. So, can someone provide some expert guidance on the MOS.
Example Talk:Kazimir Malevich born in Kyiv, then part of the Russian empire, to Polish parent (does not clarify where they were born), studied in Russia, calls himself Ukrainian, was part of a Russian school (style of art, not educational)
Cheers 2404:4408:638C:5E00:75C2:43D3:364F:F481 ( talk) 05:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
would be more informative, less contentious, and remain consistent with guidance. I don't know if a similar formulation would help for the other discussions you mention. -- Mgp28 ( talk) 13:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Kazimir Severinovich Malevich (23 February [O.S. 11 February] 1879 – 15 May 1935) was an artist in the Ukrainian avant-garde...
Could some outsiders please comment on what is the proper way to introduce Christopher Columbus (1451—1506) when taking into account WP:MOSBIO? On the talk page there's been a year-long continuous discussion over whether Columbus should be introduced as 'Genoese' or 'Italian', which are the two most frequently used adjectives in literature. There is a general consensus that Columbus came from the Republic of Genoa, one of the Maritime republics on the northern Italian peninsula, though his origins are sometimes disputed (see the article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus), and he later moved to Iberia working for the Crown of Castile. There's also plenty of sources that suggest the origins of Italian nationalism can be traced back to the Renaissance which was already underway in Columbus' lifetime. My position has been to introduce him by 'Genoese', and I've tried to impose a middle ground solution by removing nationality altogether, but such edits always get reverted back to 'Italian' instantly. WP:MOSBIO has been introduced to the discussion only recently, but there is ongoing discussion over the proper interpretation, with some even questioning the guideline itself. Machinarium ( talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm interested in reading the discussion that led to Native American citizenships being added to CONTEXTBIO, but I can't seem to find it. Anybody know of it's location? – 2. O. Boxing 07:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
citizenship(as opposed to nationality) is always the relevant framing; it seems to fit better for First Nations but less well for other indigenous groups (Métis, Inuit);
Indigineous peoples, and that link says,
The Indigenous peoples of the Americas are the inhabitants of the Americas before the arrival of the European settlers in the 15th century, and the ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples(bolding mine). That pretty much fits my (and probably many others outside of North America) understanding of Native American; it primarily relates to ethnicity/descent and doesn't relate to nationality or citizenship (that would be American).That being said, I agree with the format used for Wilma Mankiller as it's directly relevant to her notability (and noting the tribe in parentheses is informative), but certainly not for Donna Nelson, a notable chemist. I think any guidance would be more apprirate as a sentence or two in the ethnicity and religion part. Whether or not people view it as ethnicity or nationality/citizenship, it's clear it isn't on the same level as citizenship to a soverign state, which I believe is the spirit of the guideline. – 2. O. Boxing 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
spirit of the guidelineis somewhat at issue here. I see two pieces of relevant text that can be used to discern this "spirit":
In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, and
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
when indigenous people carry their indigineity as a highly visible aspect of their identity, as long as the nationality/citizenship to the relevant sovereign nation is in the first sentence. – 2. O. Boxing 22:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
local decision that the wider community doesn't agree with or recognisethan the UK/FIFA decision to recognize Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as we have discussed at my Talk. I also don't think it is up to Wikipedia editors to decide who are or aren't
sovereign nations, nor am I aware of any basis in WP policy to assign nationality exclusively by selecting among Westaphalian states. That isn't actually what the policy text in question tells us to do, it isn't what our articles do now, and I haven't seen a formal proposal here to change policy and practice to insist that this is what we should do, either.
country, region or territoryis not always a national state, and that it is up to sources not editors primarily to decide which national identities are relevant to a subject's notability. But if there is a strong argument against the inclusion of Indigenous identities in the lead paragraph for biographies where they are strongly emphasized by high-quality sources, I certainly haven't seen such an argument in this section (nor does existing policy provide the basis for one, AFAICT). Newimpartial ( talk) 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
lump Canadian indigenous and American indigenous people together. I do maintain, though, that in both cases national identities have been documented in RS that may be relevant for the lead paragraph of a biographical article. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This edit adding a section on nationality include the referenced phrase. Is there any objection to adjusting that, like the other similar guidelines here, to be explicit about exceptions where the subject still has a strong connection to a previous nation? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 04:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
What I would like to see is a much more explicit policy that, for people for whom the question of nationality is in any way unclear...: Guessing on one's nationality is already covered by WP:V and WP:OR. — Bagumba ( talk) 07:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
misunderstandingyou see. " FIFA nationality" is a strict subset of legal citizenship - it could also be understood as a subset of nationality of occupation. Obviously, nationality of residence and nationality of occupation are distinct concepts. But for people who are notable precisely in relation to a certain form of nationality (e.g., national team membership), should Wikipedia not continue to present this consistently in biographical articles? I don't know what "misunderstanding" you have detected. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
spiritas well. (Moxy's comment above,
Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, is an example of what I referred to in that earlier post as a
gloss, simplifying and transforming the guideline into a principle some editors support but which policy text does not actually stipulate.)
Perhaps the solution is to not use any such descriptions in the intro of BLPs or bios-in-general. GoodDay ( talk) 15:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I seem to have missed it, so could someone point me to the on-wiki interaction that established the consensus that was then documented in the series of edits under discussion above ( [5])? While I see some useful clarification among those edits, I also see a good deal of confusion and an editorial preference to move further away from the sources of BLP articles than any previous consensus or community practice would require. Could someone clarify this, please? Newimpartial ( talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm also interested in finding the discussion that lead to these additions, specifically the Native American example. I found this proposal from November with only one reply from Skyerise before it was added. It's probably worth noting that CorbieVreccan was the one who added the footnote in March 2022. I had a look in the WP:IPNA talk page archives but couldn't find any discussion there. I'm still presuming there's one thats eluding me. – 2. O. Boxing 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Determining 'which' nationality to use in a bio, has at times been a thorny topic. Do we go with "birth country"? The country the person lived in most of their lives? The 'only' determining factor, would be what do reliable sources do, per individual. GoodDay ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Skyerise: Your addition of nationality examples in November had the edit summary: "add examples of presentation of nationality according to the committee-written guidance". For reference, can you provide a link to the old version where these came from, or a link(s) to relevant discussion for the specific wording. Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
In the examples added on 13:05, 15 November 2022, there's two examples for dual nationality that use "and" and discourage hyphenating:
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician
- For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.
- Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor
- This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.
However, these examples were added to the MOS only shortly after they were changed in the respective bios:
These were not stable versions. However, per the policy WP:PROPOSAL:
Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.
Do the changes reflect a standard practice? Are there examples of where this has been followed, prior to the MOS change? It seems to contradict MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES:
For people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when using the combination adjectivally and a space when they are used as nouns, with the first used attributively to modify the second
The changes still might make sense, but I don't think we should rely on WP:SILENCE as consensus for this.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
When describing dead people as they relate to achievements, records and currently-living people, what tense should I use? Specifically, for
Puti Tipene Watene, we currently have “he is the only person to both represent the New Zealand national rugby league team and become a Member of Parliament
” and “He is the great-grandfather of rugby league player Dallin Watene-Zelezniak
” (emphasis added). If there’s general agreement on the right way to phrase these, I think it would be worth adding them to the
Tense section, even if only to guide confused souls like me. —
HTGS (
talk) 10:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
...he is the only person ever to have both represented...and become.... (Conveniently, become is both the present tense and the past participle.) That puts the overt action in the past but is formally in the present tense, which is appropriate because the possibility of someone else doing the same thing has not closed. If the NZ team and Parliament no longer existed, then "was" would be correct. -- Trovatore ( talk) 07:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
At O.G. Anunoby, his full name is verifiably sourced as "Ogugua Anunoby Jr." [7] MOS:FULLNAME reads:
While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials).
However, MOS:JR says:
Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources.
Should "Jr." be included in the lead sentence's full name, if it's not part of the title i.e. WP:COMMONNAME? — Bagumba ( talk) 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
He’s actually Ogugua Anunoby Jr., son of a scholar, brother of a former NFL player.If I understand your concern correctly, editors should not WP:OR that a person legally added Jr./Sr. to their name. I am familiar with David Arseneault Jr., whose WP:COMMONNAME is referred to with "Jr.", but where it's dubious that it's part of his legal name, since he has a different middle name than his father. With Anunoby, his father is not publicly notable, so there's no conflicting evidence that their middle names dont match, and there is no reason to believe "Jr." is dubious. In my experience, people's middle names and suffixes are not commonly referred to in reliable sources, but are generally presented on WP as their legal name if reliably verifiable. While there is reasonable doubt to not include "Jr." as part of a legal name like with Arseneault, I think "commonly used" can be too confused with COMMONNAME, setting an excessive bar, in Anunoby's case. Anunoby's page title should remain without "Jr.", but it seems reasonable that it's part of his legal name, as we would treat a source if it mentioned a middle name instead. — Bagumba ( talk) 04:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
who a person is( WP:LEADSENTENCE). Furthermore, I gave no weight to arguments based solely on a cultural divide between English and Americans.Editors are welcome to contact me through my talk page if they wish to discuss my closure.— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
To bring
WP:POSTNOM in better agreement with
MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I propose that this policy be altered to specifically omit
post-nominal letters from lead sentences.
Per our guideline on biographical opening paragraphs, "the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." Post-nominal letters, many of which are unknown to laypeople, do not do any of those things. If anything, they actually delay a reader from getting to the part of the opening sentence that describes a person's notability.
Instead, WP:POSTNOM would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article. If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited/turned into RfC 00:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing should ever be in an infobox unless it is also in the real text of the article. Infoboxes are a summary, not a replacement. So "move to infobox" is a non-starter. Whether postnominals are lead-worthy is another question, but I think they are. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
They are a part of the name.— No. By definition post-nominal letters "are letters placed after a person's name", so the are not part of the name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
they are part of the string that you write when you address someone in a formal-enough context— That may be the case, but the lead sentence of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a "formal-enough context". There are many formal forms of address, but Wikipedia is not obliged to use them. For example, in a formal context, one would probably refer to His Majesty King Charles III, President Joe Biden, or The Honourable Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, but none or our articles use those forms in the lead sentence. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
honorific-prefix =
The Honourable
.
Prime Minister of Australia's infobox includes style = ...
The Honourable
[1] (formal)
.
Mitch Ames (
talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)"Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman"[8]...)[9] and would support the removal of post-nominals from the lead sentences of biographies altogether. No opinion on whether they are listed in the infoboxes, although if they are, the post-nominals need to be verifiable (sourced) and discussed in the body of the articles first. Some1 ( talk) 16:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RAan incomprehensible jumble of letters, distracting from the actually important bits at the start of the lede. Where post nominals are actually crucial for the notability of the person (for example, someone notable primary for a Victoria Cross), I'd expect them to be written out as prose. Where they are not, they can be left for the body and discussed there where relevant. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Sauli Väinämö Niinistö (born 24 August 1948) is a Finnish politician who has served as president of Finland since March 2012...or
George Smith Patton Jr. (November 11, 1885 – December 21, 1945) was a general in the United States Army...or
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman, soldier, and writer who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twice..(I'd go as far as arguing that Churchill's lede should move the prime ministership closer to the name, as
soldieris so vague).For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notability. We don't talk, at the start of the lede, about Niinistö's
Grand Master and Commander Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of the White Rose of Finland, or about how Patton has the
Grand Cross of the Military Order of the White Lionor, indeed, about how Churchill was a Knight of the Order of the Garter: those awards and honours are not those people's (main) claim to fame, and they are very high awards indeed.It is even more clear cut for lesser (in this context) awards, such as Churchill having the Territorial Decoration, Patton having the Legion of Merit or Niinistö having nine honorary doctorates. For all these things, appending them — as an incomprehensible soup of acronyms, none the less — to the subjects name in the very first sentence of the article highlights the less important, confuses the reader, and pushes the actual main claim to fame further and further down the article. They are, in my view, given WP:UNDUE weight in the first sentence of the lede.With that out of the way, there certainly are some cases where the honour/award, or rather the action that led to it, is the main claim to fame. These probably include those awarded with e.g. Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor or Mannerheim Cross. But even here, too, the actual post nominal is redundant for the first sentence of the article: we can simply write
Robert Vaughan Gorle (6 May 1896 – 9 January 1937) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross...without any need for the postnominal.And there will be some cases where the honours/awards are sufficiently important, in the context of the person's other accomplishments in life, that they warrant writing out in a subsequent sentence of the lede, but not in the first sentence. The practice of always writing out the post nominals immediately following the name ignores all nuance and considerations of dueness in preference for a notation that is horribly reader-unfriendly and more often than not highlights the (comparatively) unimportant, distracting from the crucial. Ljleppan ( talk) 05:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notabilityturns out to be incorrect and false. For many people in academia in post-nominal-producing countries, in particular, and many of the post-nominals commonly used by those people in those countries, the post-nominal indicates being "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (e.g. FRS) for which membership is an automatic pass of our academic notability criteria. So putting it into the lead has the purpose, for those competent to read it, of clearly asserting the subject's notability. For those not already familiar with these abbreviations, the expanded form of the same recognition should be included later in the article text, of course, just like the expansion of other claims in the lead should be in the article text. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
fellowships, professions, etc.into my argument and explain how the underlying argument regarding dueness and redundancy is affected. Second, fellowships are, in my view closer to honours/awards than professions, and e.g. the first sentence of Fellow of the Royal Society seems to agree. Third, WP:POSTNOM already limits the use of postnominals, excluding
[a]cademic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications, which
should be omitted from the lead, so I don't see the point of going on about professions. W/r/t the MOS and
more specific instructions over the broad, general ones, the MOS is absolutely filled with language highlighting how important it is that the lede is easily understandable. See both paras of MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADSENTENCE regarding clarity; MOS:REDUNDANCY regarding redundancy and MOS:LEADREL regarding due weight. Yes, these are high-level principles, which is precisely the point of this discussion: many members of the community appear to believe the "more specific instructions" clash with the fundamentals, and it is the "more specific instructions" that should be adjusted so as to be in sync with the fundamentals rather than the other way around. PS, reading WP:ENGVAR with fresh eyes, I don't see what part of that this would fall under, as it talks about vocabulary, spelling and grammar rather than dueness of information. Ljleppan ( talk) 06:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
As I said..." Where did you say that? That may perhaps significantly change and clarify my understanding of the argument you are attempting to make.
postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style— no more so than prefixes such as The Most Honourable, ... Her Majesty, His Holiness, etc, which MOS:PREFIX explicitly says should not be included. Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 00:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
If ... everything is going to be excluded then the prenominal stuff like "Sir" should also be dropped— I would support such a change. I've never been a fan of ( MOS:SIR) including "Sir", "Lady" and the like; I don't see that they are any more special than other honorifics.
issues of how do we name articles about people's who's name includes titles, ie William, Prince of Wales— I think they are fundamentally different, in that "Prince of Wales" here is a disambiguator - there are many Williams, but only one Prince of Wales. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
now you are talking about modifying several MOS's (not just 1)— Obviously a separate specific RFC would be required, but there's no reason why we could not modify other parts of MOS (given appropriate consensus). It is not unknown for a proposed specific change to be shown to be a specific instance of a more general change that should be considered.
violating WP:ENGVAR— Several posts have mentioned ENVAR, but I don't think this comes under ENGVAR at all. ENGVAR is about differences in vocabulary, spelling, grammar, date formats, not the importance of honorifics. Can someone quote the specific part of ENGVAR (or Comparison of American and British English) that they think applies here? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The formal style for him is "Sir John Grey Gorton GCMG, AC, CH"or
The formal address for the prime minister is "The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP"(or whatever would be actually correct). Royal folk like Elizabeth II would still have their section like Titles, styles, honours, and arms, since for them, the topic is too extensive for the lede anyway. MOS:POSTNOM should continue to proscribe academic postnoms like "Ph.D" (and MOS:CREDENTIAL things like "Dr."). — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article.), but I'm not seeing a good reason to get rid of them entirely. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
the appropriateness of including a middle name in the lead sentence when the person and RS coverage do not commonly include it.— As with dates of birth, one primary reason for including it is that is part of unique identity. A common way (in formal/official scenarios in real life) of distinguishing between two otherwise identically named people is by middle name, and/or date of birth. I might distinguish between John Henry Smith and John Joseph Smith, or possibly John Smith born 1970-01-01 and John Smith born 1981-02-03, but rarely if ever (possibly in some very specific cases) would I distinguish between John Smith AO, John Smith MBE, and John Smith (with no post-nominals). Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
part of uique identity"? As for middle names, if they are only for distinquishing between two similar things, aren't disambiguators supposed to be used only if necessary? How is that consistent with a 100% (as discussed & defined elsewhere here) stance? Gecko G ( talk) 00:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
don't some of those countries consider postnoms "part of uique identity"?— Not the I'm aware of. It's common (in Australia) to request "full legal name" and date of birth, but I've never had anyone (or any form) ask for postnominals. Even the Australian passport does not have a space for postnominals, suggesting that they are not part of identity for other countries. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I also don't see how one particular countries lack of such a form spot for postnominals means that other countries ... don't use them more.— I'm not saying that other countries don't use them; I'm saying that other countries do not require then as part of official identity. (My original point - in response to "the appropriateness of including a middle name [and/or DOB] in the lead" - was that middle names and date of birth can be part of your unique/official/legal identity, but postnominals are not, hence middle names and date of birth (DOB) are fundamentally different to postnominals.) I gave the specific example of the passport application form because the passport is used by countries other than the issuer. If other countries considered postnomimals to be part of unique/legal/official identity then the passport issuing country would probably include them in the passport (as they include middle names and DOB) because the other countries would want to know about them.
A passport ... contains a person's identity. ... It is typical for passports to contain the full name, photograph, place and date of birth...
minimal International normsof a "person's identity" and thus included on passports - whereas postnominals are not part of those international norms, and not so commonly used to uniquely identify ("disambiguate", in the real world) people with otherwise identical names. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Post-nominals and their full name are essentially in defining the subject in a formal tone.(beyond not agreeing with it from the first principles) is that I don't understand why the same argument wouldn't apply to all other similar components often attached to names, such as academic titles, other honorifics, etc. Our manual of style takes a very strong, almost categorical, stance that these should not be included. Is your position that these standards should be relaxed to allow for further variation base on where the subject hails from? If not, perhaps you could help me see why these particular attachments to the legal name are distinct.As for Akon, I'd actually agree that the first sentence of the lede there is not very informative. In fact, I don't see the name the artist is commonly known with ("Akon") anywhere in the lede, which seems like a rather massive oversight. Ljleppan ( talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Granted, I made up that classification because I don't know what the correct classification is but that is the pith of my question. How should we best handle the pronouns of those that have expressly admitted that they don't care?
For us to not care in the article makes a mess of things and can cause confusion in reading the article.
For us to enforce a pronoun against the expressed desires of the subject seems disrespectful.
Do we litter the article with "(he/she) said" or "s/he said"? Do we default to "they" (despite the desires of the subject)? Padillah ( talk) 13:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
We need to find a better formulation for opening sentences. The first sentence should focus on what makes the person notable… and in most cases the person’s nationality is a secondary characteristic, not what makes them notable. Most people are primarily known for being an academic, or a singer, or a business man (etc)… not an American academic, or a British singer, or a German business man. Blueboar ( talk) 12:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
national identitymeans. Some editors assume that the relevant national identity for BLPS is always, or nearly always, represented by a national citizenship (and this is clearly the case in some instances - such as members of national football teams - where citizenship is directly tied to Notability). Other editors are more interested in following the sources, and the sources will often frame BLP subjects in more varied ways, emphasizing
region or territoryrather than Westaphalian state, and sometimes invoking national identities that may, for example, include Indigineity.
deciding what level of source support is required for inclusion of this information in the lead paragraph: At a minimum, it must be verifiable. — Bagumba ( talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
a German business mancan convey geographic information about the subject as well as just the citizenship/nationality. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.
country, region, or territorydoesn't necessarily equate to
where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. The second part seems to mean almost exclusively Westphalian state, which would equate only to country. There are many cases where the region or territory may be more pertinent to identity and notability than country. See the prior example about Carles Puigdemont or the arguments on this page about Wilma Mankiller and whether or not tribal citizenship trumps Westphalian state citizenship. In some cases, nationality may not be directly relevant to their notability; for example Carsten Höller was born in Germany and apparently still holds German citizenship, but grew up in Belgium, made some of his early notable art in Italy, and now lives in Sweden. Is he a "German artist" because of his passport? An "Italian artist" because of his early work? A "Swedish artist" because that's where he lives? Or is "European artist" a better description absent any WP:RS where he is labeled German, Italian, or Swedish? Even when nationality/citizenship may help explain where a person is/was notable (per TulsaPoliticsFan's comment), is an adjective the best way to do it? For example, John Edward Bouligny's first sentence names him as "an American politician who was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing the state of Louisiana." Is "an American politician" really necessary there? Even if a reader wasn't sure if Louisiana was part of the United States at the time, it's clear he served in the U.S. Congress, so that should clue them to his nationality. In this case "American politician" is also ambiguous because he was elected as a member of the American Party (aka the Know-Nothings). Maybe the party affiliation is appropriate in the first sentence, but then it's not an indicator of his nationality. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 13:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
it is completely within the guidelines to call someone who has taught at Harvard for 20 years an American - even if they were born elsewhere, retain their original citizenship, and are only a permanent resident of the US. In the original discussions, the key was: where did the work for which they are notable mostly occur? If it is predominantly in a single country, that's the context that supported them while they did the things for which they became notable.Per that sentiment, Tumilowicz would be labeled "English businessman" (he presumably became notable in England, where he'd been living for a dozen years).
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, the Dalai Lama would be described as Indian, not Tibetan, which is ridiculous. (Yes, there is conditionality in the CONTEXTBIO statement, but "in most modern-day cases" implies that exceptions will be rare.) People should be described as they describe themselves and/or how WP:RS describe them. Sometimes this will mean a single nationality; other times it may be a regional or ethnic (hyphenated or not) adjective or a more complex phrase. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Nationality is important - it's defining, and the majority of categories are nationality related. Removing from the lede serves no purpose and would result in literally hundreds of thousands of articles having to be amended. It's not an issue. Giant Snowman 19:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
In most modern-day cases.... It's a guideline, not a policy, and even for those WP:IAR always applies. " What about..." exceptions don't preclude a general guideline from existing. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Question is - Can nationality be applied to all bio pages? That's a mighty big task, to get a consensus for an across the board application. GoodDay ( talk) 15:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Where a subject is only - or mainly known in a particular locale,(US or UK for example) and only covered by local sources, addressing a local audience, nationality will often not be mentioned at all - since it will be assumed to be known by that audience. This obviously isn't an indication that the nationality of that person isn't important. I'm inclined to agree with those that say nationality, along with the where and when of birth and upbringing, and similar info is basic biog info - the number of people for whom such info isn't relevant and/or interesting is probably tiny(even if their life develops mainly elsewhere and/or in a different cultural environment). Pincrete ( talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I propose that the nationality examples recently removed be restored. I ask that we break the discussion into two parts: first support or oppose !votes for whether we should include any examples. Second, discussion to resolve the exact wording and presentation of the examples to be added. Accordingly, I've put the most recent version at the top of the subsection. Skyerise ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Nationality examples
Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases). Examples of how to handle historical subjects vary:
The simplest example is someone who continued to reside in their country of origin:
- Daniel Boone (November 2, 1734 [ O.S. October 22] – September 26, 1820) was an American pioneer and frontiersman
The second example is someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country:
- Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992) was an American writer
- Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance.
In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician
- For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.
- Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor
- This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.
Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. Indigenous people's citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names. [a]
- Wilma Pearl Mankiller (November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American ( Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.
Finally, in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted.
- Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance polymath, active as a mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic canon
- Copernicus's nationality is disputed, so it is omitted.
Notes for examples
- ^ For additional guidelines on naming conventions and sourcing Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, see Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities.
The above is a starting point for discussion. Skyerise ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Skyerise ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment - unless explicit consensus is obtained somewhere for Most living people will be described with a single nationality
, the guideline shouldn't be saying that most living people should be described with a single nationality. This is true whether or not editors want to include a list of examples.
Newimpartial (
talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
obvious logic, and it is not really a claim supported in the status quo of the guideline.
single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases).would have the lead for Carles Puigdemont describe him as a "Spanish politician" instead of (as it currently does) "a Catalan politician and journalist from Spain." His identity and notability are tied up with Catalonian independence, not his Spanish citizenship. As others have noted in the myriad discussions and threads here, we should follow WP:RS and shouldn't insist upon a Westphalian state nationality in the first sentence when it may not be the best way to describe someone. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I was looking for more writing on this and found two wikipedia essays that may be helpful. This one ( Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality) is originally from 2007 and seems to have been received poorly. This essay ( User:Mr248/Citizenship and nationality) was written in 2021 as an attempted rewrite of the 2007 essay and I thought was super interesting and may be helpful in building some consensus here. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Daniel Boone There is already a basic example showing "an American" (Caesar Chavez) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples
Remove Isaac Asimov
MOS:ETHNICITY already says: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
, and
MOS:BIRTHPLACE says Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability
However, there may be cases where it is tied to their notability.
Anne Frank, an
WP:FA, reads ...was a German-born Jewish girl ...
Chris Lu, a
WP:GA, reads ...is a Chinese American political advisor...
—
Bagumba (
talk) 08:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Schwarzenegger and Lorre Are there other exisitng examples that show support for "and" over hyphenated dual nationalities? As discussed at #Dual_nationality:_hypenate_or_"and" (above), those two bios were changed within the hour before the MOS examples were added. Also note that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES supports hyphenating.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Nicolaus Copernicus Already multiple examples at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples that do not use nationality.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Jerome Frank Disciple: Please do explain this IMHO unfounded revert. And please note: We also have the Nixon example in the preceding text, which is resumed in the table as well. Hildeoc ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I recently got an edit reverted ( see here) in an article about a university where I changed "Professor" to "professor" in front of a person's name.
I was linked MOS:PEOPLETITLES, which states: "Overview: Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name".
However, the section in "Titles of people" called "Academic or professional titles and degrees" specifically states "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title".
The capitalizations I changed were simply of professors, not people known as "Professor [Name]". I'm wondering if my initial edit was correct here, as I'm a bit confused now. Any help is appreciated, thanks so much! HeyElliott ( talk) 18:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only – without an honorific prefix such as 'Mr.', 'Mrs.', or 'Ms.', and without academic or professional prefixes like 'Dr.', 'Prof.', 'Rev.', etc. – or may be referred to by a pronoun." Given that, under your interpretation, what's the point of MOS:CREDENTIAL?-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
For the subject of biographies, [academic titles] ... should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title." ... Did this mean, essentially, "The subject of a biography should only have an academic title attached to their name if that subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title."? If so, I'm okay with that, and I've made that change, but I think that the wording I used is clearer. If you meant something else or you disagree, obviously feel free to revert me. Third, I don't think your placement made much sense. Why was the new guidance on academic titles (i.e. relationship with the institution discussed) included after the discussion of post nominals, and not in the first paragraph? Also, are you saying the titles should only be used on pages related to the institution? Doesn't that go against the School Project guidance?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Academic and professional titles ([eg] Professor Margaret Doe) should only be added if the person has a relationship to an institution being discussed.), so I just plonked it on the end. I thought it obvious that it should not be relevant to subjects of their own biographies. Please do rearrange within that second paragraph if you have a clearer way to put it.
Post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the subject's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject" ? I'm still a bit confused by the third point there. I'm on the move but I'll come back later and see if I can parse it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! There's a new RFC on MOS:GEDNERID, based on the discussions regarding "next steps" in the above RFC. Link to the village pump discussion. The RFC will capture 3 topics, a broader inquiry than the above RFC, and, as to two of the topics, it will include multiple options. Thanks everybody-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
At present, DEADNAME contains two paragraphs relating to how to handle the deadnames of trans and non-binary people across the project, with one paragraph giving guidance for people who were not notable prior to transition, and one for people who were notable prior to transition. Both paragraphs contain the qualifier that they only apply to living trans or non-binary people, and in practice there is some leeway granted per WP:BDP for a period after death.
Digging into the history of this, the living qualifier was added in October 2020 with the edit summary referencing a post-RfC discussion that's linked at MOS:IDINFO. Upon reviewing that discussion, I came to the conclusion that the living qualifier was added somewhat boldly, and while the post-RfC discussion went on for a significant period of time after it was added, the continued discussion was on whether or not the DEADNAME guidance at the time only applied to article leads.
Could we remove the living qualifier, from the two relevant paragraphs in DEADNAME, such that the guidance applies to all trans or non-binary biographies? In context, this would mean that the text would now read:
If a 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. For example:
...
In the case of a transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
...
Impact wise, for dead trans and non-binary individuals who were notable prior to their transition, this would result in no change. However for dead trans and non-binary individuals who were not notable prior to their transition, this would mean that the only name that appears in their biographies or any content relating to them elsewhere is the name for which they were notable under.
As for why I'm proposing this, recently I created an article about the killing of a transgender teen in the UK. She was very much not notable under her former name, and the article reflects this by only using her post-transition name. However for a short period on 12 February, both The Times and Daily Mail included the killed teen's former name in their reporting, and several days later a few editors tried to use an archived version of The Times' article to add the teen's deadname to the article. While at present we can continue to remove and suppress that as necessary per WP:BDP allowing for BLP derived protections applying for 6 months to 2 years post death, there will come a point where that ceases to be the case. In the case of that article, as well as any other article about a trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to transition, adding their deadname adds no encyclopaedic value. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
While deadnaming the dead can't hurt them individually it can hurt their living friends and relatives. It can also distress other trans people who might reasonably fear similar disrespect after their own deaths.
there's no encyclopedic reason to mention someone's birth name unless it was notable
it reliable sources consider it relevant than it would be notableSomething can be relevant without being notable.
I don't see her birth name in this article and I certainly don't see how it would be relevant.It is not currently in the article because the only current exception under MOS:DEADNAME is that the person must have been notable under their previous name; Isla Bryson wasn't notable under it. It is relevant because reliable sources consider it relevant and include it in their reporting; see my comment below for examples. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
While deadnaming the dead can't hurt them individually it can hurt their living friends and relatives.- if you’re talking about living friends and relatives, perhaps using the new name can also hurt friends and relatives. This effect of hurt to others (whichever name is used) just cancels out. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deadnaming trans people gives the impression that the shape of your junk is encyclopaedically relevant— Mentioning that someone is trans at all gives the impression that the "shape of [their] junk" is relevant. The definition of transgender is someone whose gender identity/expression differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth. Realistically (" more than 99.95% of births"), that means their genitalia. If it wasn't relevant, the person would just be a "man" or "woman", not a "trans man" or "trans woman". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Might the same apply to any name change?Honestly I'd say yes. What the deadname protection from GENDERID does right is that it treats any and all former names as a privacy issue. If a person wasn't notable under the former name, then we don't include it. What it gets wrong is that it only provides that protection to trans and non-binary people. Making this proposed change the standard at MOS:CHANGEDNAME for how we handle all name changes would I think be a huge improvement on how we handle such name changes for everyone else, though given that it would potentially affect a large number of articles a separate discussion and/or RfC would be warranted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link.If the former name is an issue of privacy, then it would only apply to WP:BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
the [trans] person ... asked people not to use that [dead]name for them. And also, by doing so, they make it an incorrect name ...— It's not an "incorrect name" for them for the period of time before they stopped using it - it was their actual name. If a (hypothetical) trans woman was assigned male at birth and named (including on the birth certificate) "John", was enrolled at primary school as John, answered to John, introduced herself as John, then - up until she change her name - "John" was her name. If at 13 she asserts that she is female, calls herself Mary, and all her family and friends do likewise, then "Mary" is her name from that point on, but not before that time. We might agree that she was always female, since birth (and initially "misdiagnosed" as male), but her name - even if it did not match her female gender, and even if she subsequently does not want people to use it (including retrospectively) - was very definitely John for those first 13 years.
a name they used to go by but no longer do is not relevant unless notable(emphasis added). I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the clearly notable birth name of the perpetrator at that article. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
...their birthname will be in the sources which they are easily able to click on.— Not necessarily - Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
...the person's birth name would be exactly the same as their assigned gender at birth. both were given at birth before the person was able to identify themselves and both were never an accurate reflection of that person.— The difference is that (using my example) Mary asserts that she has always been female (although it may have taken a while for her to realise it), but she does not assert that her name has always been Mary. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
for most trans people alive today, their articles, even after their death, are unlikely to warrant delving into the deeply personal circumstances life in the way that is done for historical trans people or victims of crime, so the deadname won't usually be relevant: I think my concern would be in cases where editors feel the deadname is necessary for encyclopedic completeness, similar to how we often include middle names even for people who generally don't use them and when its not part of how they are notably known. Does that reach the level of the DEADNAME being relevant? If not, and there aren't other questions of relevance or notability for the dead name, should DEADNAME still apply? — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
tabloid journalists muckraking for profits or notoriety in a changing world. BilledMammal ( talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
"For [non-recently] deceased transgender people, do not include their former name if it is not relevant."I think that would be an excellent addition to the guideline. I would suggest something like
"...if it is not specifically relevant.", to clearly convey a higher (but unspecified) standard than routine inclusion of a birth name. As you say, there would be some difficult discussions in applying it, but perhaps those discussions would let a more detailed consensus evolve that could subsequently be incorporated into the guideline.-- Trystan ( talk) 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die.If you can't respect dead trans people, then that's a problem. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 20:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Note that "mentioning" a person's name is not the same as "using" it - the latter may be disrespectful, the former is not. We can briefly mention the birth name, while using the post-trans name throughout the article.That is exactly the reasoning to support this change, because editors are trying to say that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to dead people and we can therefore use their deadname throughout. If we remove the "living" qualifier it will be clear that we should only mention the deadname of deceased persons, not use it. –– FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
a former [non-notable] name (a deadname) ... should not be included in any page, ie anywhere at all, thus prohibiting mentions. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
why you think we should mention a non-notable deadname for people who are deceased— For reasons I've covered in previous posts, I think that a person's birth/former name is inherently relevant and encyclopedic, so worthy of mention.
Why would deceased people not be afforded the same respect to the preference of their own name?— It's not about "respect" it's about privacy - MOS:DEADNAME says "Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest". We have a whole page WP:BLP describing the ways we treat living people differently to dead ones. I don't think names are somehow special. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
without specific reasonIdentification, as we would with any other person, trans or not, that changed their name. It's not, on its face, any different than including a maiden name (which we do in many articles), or "real names" for famous people who use stage names (and whose articles are located at the stage name). To be crystal clear: I am not against MOS:DEADNAME for living subjects. But for those who have passed, the potential harm is outweighed by being complete (especially if other policies, like WP:DUE are rigidly followed, and such naming is proportional to the coverage in our reliable sources). To the extent WP:BDP allows for a temporary extension of BLP/MOS:DEADNAME (with
editorial consensus), that ought to be enough. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
She was never notable under that name.This argument has never been persuasive for me. Marion Morrison was never notable under that name, either, but we include it (and have a redirect for it) nonetheless. Likewise Leslie Townes Hope, Donald Yarmy, Cherilyn Sarkisian, Merwyn Bogue, Florencia Vicenta de Casillas-Martínez Cardona (without the redirect; piped here) and many others. The idea that DEADNAME is not something to mention based on pre-transition notability doesn't convince me any. We include encyclopedically the birth names (and for Cher, intermediate names) of notable subjects as a matter of course. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 00:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die.- or at least it shouldn't, particularly the recently dead. But I see no reason why excluding their birthname should be done automatically as proposed. Where there is no good reason to include, it should not be included, but where relevant it should be allowable. This proposal is too broad and may lead to absurdities in our coverage. We should trust to editor judgement rather than imposing a 'one size fits all' rule. I could probably support a less draconian change. Pincrete ( talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
failing to acknowledge a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity— By that logic we should definitely acknowledge the change of name in the article, by explicitly stating that they changed their name. But to say "Mary changed her name" without mentioning what she changed it from, seems somewhat incomplete. Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
why would that mean we need to acknowledge their name change?— Because (according to XAM2175)
failing to acknowledge a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity. I suppose we could acknowledge that they abandoned their deadname without actually saying that they changed it. But saying that "Mary/she abandoned her old name" implies that she changed it, because it's used in that sentence or elsewhere in the article.
If a person is notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia, their birthname is inh[e]rently notable.That seems a bit circular to me. There's all types of facts about a person that we wouldn't include in an article about them, for examples, sometimes because it wouldn't be consistent with summary style. I think the question has to be why is a birth name inherently relevant? I would lean towards thinking that it's often not—it's a mere factoid, no more "inherently" worthy of inclusion than a person's height, weight, children's names, or any such detail. -- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 12:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
inherently worthy of inclusion" because it's a "
basic fact"—what does a "basic fact" mean? Bychance, is it a fact "inherently worthy of inclusion"? "
[I]t'd make no sense for a biography to talk about what happened during the person's childhood but omit the name that they went by at that time!Why? Again, you're saying these things as if they're self evident, but I don't see how they are.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Whilst I'm sympathetic to the proposal, I think @ Sideswipe9th: might be approaching this from the wrong angle. I don't think it's too unreasonable to argue that names are gendered terms for the purposes of GENDERID and as such, we should prefer their chosen name. Indeed, as I've pointed out in previous RMs, the articles for high-profile trans people such as Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner were moved almost immediately on this principle.
However, there are some times where inclusion of a deadname has editorial justification; for example, Caitlyn's athletic career or Elliot's early movie career. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, but neither does Wikipedia include needlessly provocative content. There is a fine line between content being included for being encyclopaedic and being included for the sake of inclusion; for example of a different area where I think we struck the right balance on this, the article for Muhammad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I believe, strikes the balance correctly when it comes to depictions of him.
As such, I propose the following paragraph for inclusion between paragraphs one and two of GENDERID:
Where a person has changed their name for reasons related to their gender identity, it is generally preferable to use their new name in most contexts. Ensure that when their former name (colloquially known as a " deadname") is included, it is done sparingly and is editorially justified.
As it is at the moment, there's actually nothing in the letter of GENDERID that would prevent The Wachowskis being called by their former (and credited) professional name at The Matrix ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), even though we generally agree it would go against the spirit. This would close this hole and formalise the default to preferred names, but provide an opportunity for inclusion of deadnames if (and, I hope, only if) it can be justified editorially (in the case of The Matrix, I think the "credited as" footnote is the right balance). Sceptre ( talk) 17:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion..-- Trystan ( talk) 16:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
In articles on works or other activity by a"? That should broadly prohibit using a deadname for any individual, living or dead. I hope it is a change that could gain a clear consensus, as it is seperate from the more contentious question of when it is appropriate to mention a deadname.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)livingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
Support: There's no reason to include a deadname whether a n is alive or not. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 04:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Should MOS:DEADNAME apply after the death of the subject?
- A: Yes
- B: For a limited period, in line with WP:BDP
- C: No
Currently, the former name of a living transgender or non-binary person can only be added to their article if the individual was notable under it. Should a second exception be added to MOS:DEADNAME for when inclusion of the name is WP:DUE, such as when it is often included by reliable sources?
Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs when their former name is disclosed?
BilledMammal ( talk) 03:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs ...— I think "a risk of harm" is either to restrictive (do you mean "any risk, no matter how small") or too subjective (how much risk?). Some qualification may be required. See also: WP:HARM. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals...?As it currently stands, MOS:DEADNAME applies only to "any person whose gender might be questioned" and/or any "transgender or non-binary person" (as does the verb deadname, typically) but your proposal to "apply to all living" apparently includes all people (including unambiguously cisgender males and females). Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"Should MOS:DEADNAME continue to apply after the subject is no longer covered by WP:BLP? (A) Yes (B) No (C) No, but a different standard should apply."For question 3, I would suggest
"MOS:DEADNAME currenty applies to living transgender and non-binary people. Should this scope be expanded to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs when their former name is disclosed?"-- Trystan ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
If B, then a subsequent RfC could determine the period (which of course would be finite, given the outcome of the previous RfC). EddieHugh ( talk) 14:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)For how long should MOS:DEADNAME apply after the death of the subject?
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)When should a deceased transgender person's deadname be mentioned?
- Only when they were notable under that name (same as for living people).
- Only if it has a specific/nontrivial relevance to their biography as shown by common usage in recent reliable sources.
- Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time.
- Always.
- No guideline (status quo).
Since many RfCs (about many topics) go nowhere if people split between too many options, my suggestion FWIW is to ask a single yes/no question on whether to add a guideline that for dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be excluded if they are non-relevant [or non-notable, or un-due, whatever word we decide to go with]. (Or, to word it a different way: included only if they are relevant/notable/due/whatever.) -sche ( talk) 00:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Possibly option 3 "Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time" should be split into "... a specific period of time" (which will stated in the DEADNAME guideline) and "... an indeterminate period of time, based on per-case consensus, per WP:BDP". I know adding another option is not good, but I think BDP ought to mentioned explicitly, because it's not clear whether it is covered by 5 "No guideline (status quo)". Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Based on my and others' comments above about the need — highlighted by the last RfC and by its closers — to ask something very tailored and without overmany options, my proposal is to ask a single yes/no question along the lines of
Should we add the following guideline to MOS:GID?
Possibly we could include some short neutral explanation (in the framing of the RfC, not the guideline) that This is only about dead people because there is already guidance about living people.
(Anything about changing what's done for living trans people, or for non-trans people, should be a separate RfC.)
-sche (
talk) 00:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
...included only if not including it would confuse the reader. But that's just off the top of my head, there could definitely be other better options. Loki ( talk) 01:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
specifically relevantis kinda a nebulous term, and could lead to many prolonged article talk page discussions over its meaning. If we could clarify what that means more specifically, even if we include that as a footnote in the sentence then I think this could be the simplest way to resolve this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
We currently have five different proposals, from Sceptre, BilledMammal, Maddy from Celeste, -sche, and myself. Each proposal has had some supports and some opposes, which I'll not summarise here, and there does not seem to be a clear best option at least by my involved reading. In order of proposal:
If we are to take only one of these proposed questions to an RfC, which one should we use or take forward for further refinement? And when we've got a final phrasing, where should we hold this RfC? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
We also feel this RfC, by offering several options, made it harder for any consensus to emerge.and made a recommendation that any subsequent RfC on this issue
[framed] the subject very narrowlyon
Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.
extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.While I could argue that my proposal would fulfil that in part, as it would in effect make an implicit indefinite extension of the BLP protections for deadnames, that seems unfair to the two other proposals that fulfil the narrow requirement.
For dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be included only if they. The RfC would then have two questions, the first being a yes/no on adding the proposed sentence, and the second for determining what the period of time after death should be. For the second question, a small number of default options likeare specifically relevantwere notable under that name or a period of [to be determined] has passed since their death
in-line with WP:BDP,
6 months,
1 year,
5 yearsshould be included, along with the option for editors to write in shorter or longer periods should they desire. Doing it in this manner, a suggested addition that extends the BLP protections for deadnames, and a second question that determines for how long, would best fulfil the recommendation from the August 2021 RfC.
As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, only mention the previous name of a deceased transgender or non-binary person when there is some concrete encyclopedic value in doing so? Loki ( talk) 21:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
some concrete encyclopaedic value, do we actually have a policy, guideline, information page, or essay that expands on what that means? WP:NOTEVERYTHING has a somewhat brief note about how we are a summary of accepted knowledge, before going into various NOT examples. I would fear that, by not having an accepted definition of what encyclopaedic value means somewhere, we'd ultimately wind up with the same repeated discussions as if we kept the specifically relevant part of -sche's original proposal. It would also open the door to both good and bad faith versions of arguments like
this is a biography of X, their birth name is relevant. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
some concrete encyclopedic valueis fair. I don't think we'll be able to get too concrete here because it's hard to think of every single edge case. But here are some examples of cases that might be illustrative:
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. ... In articles on works or other activity by aI think an RFC on use has a good chance of achieving a clear consensus and resulting in a positive improvement to the guideline.-- Trystan ( talk) 23:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)livingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
One comment that's partially based on the debate at
Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting and my efforts to determine how this policy would apply to the shooter. A few of the proposals concern this language: "notable under a former name (a deadname)
". But I think there are two different interpretations of that language, and some more clarity might be appreciated:
While I don't want to blend the talk pages, Hale does serve as an example in which the outcomes would be different depending on the interpretation used. Hale was not notable when he identified by his deadname. However, when the incident occurred, his deadname was widely reported—possibly (for example, in the case of the New York Times) because, at the time of the breaking-news reports, it was not clear how Hale identified. ("There was confusion about the shooter’s gender identity in the immediate aftermath of the attack" [17]).-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 23:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.A proposal to remove "living" doesn't do that; if you want to follow its recommendations then I suggest asking
Should MOS:DEADNAME continue to apply after death in line with WP:BDP?
How about an RFC to eliminate the two paragraphs on former names and use the existing policy at WP:BLPNAME, which already addresses privacy and sources? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
When someone has died, the rules change.I've seen several editors express this above, but none have expressed why. What is it about the death of a trans or non-binary person that makes it acceptable to subsequently start including the name under which they were not previously notable? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Surely, under most circumstances where a trans person's status and consequently their birth-name was not at all notable while they were alive, that would continue indefinitely after their deathWhile I can see why it's reasonable to think this, unfortunately it's not true. As I said in my initial post opening this discussion, there are a couple of reliable sources that published the deadname of a recently killed transgender teen from the UK. There are also multiple reliable sources (and numerous unreliable) that have published the deadnames of Laverne Cox, and Rachel Levine, the two named examples for individuals who were not notable prior to transitioning. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
exceedingly offensiveall the time. The only valid argument to exclude the names is for verifiability or privacy, and the latter is governed by BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking over these, my opinion is that we should start with the first two questions (Sideswipe9th and Sceptre's) as separate RFCs; additionally, they don't really overlap or contradict each other, so they can be run as separate RFCs. These are simple, straightforward yes-or-no questions with direct, specific, proposals for wording, which addresses the lack of clarity in the previous RFC. The other three RFCs would only be relevant if Sideswipe9th's RFC failed; if it did, one of them could be held after that, depending on what the tone of that initial RFC looks like. -- Aquillion ( talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned above before I realized the full size of this discussion, I would say that in addition to Sideswipe9th's proposal, the phrasing "transgender or non-binary" is in my opinion unnecessary and this should be broadened to read "If a person was not notable under a former name..." This removes the need for specific mention of deadnames entirely while increasing the privacy of living individuals (and dead individuals, if such a thing is desired.) I also think it's an entirely ridiculous statement to claim that someone's birth name will suddenly become encyclopedic at any point after their death if it was not encyclopedic while they were living. (I do think there is probably more nuance in this situation, on a per article basis, then a hard and fast MOS rule really can account for.) casualdejekyll 22:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
How would the knowledge of the birth name help a reader?— If the reader wanted to more research about the person, in particular their pre-name-change years, then the birth name would certainly help.
100 years from now, will anybody care about the deadname?— People doing any genelogical research will. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Spitballing: what if we ask (in one RfC) a set of agree/disagree Qs about the different levels of inclusion-vs-exclusion which have been suggested? Unlike an RfC of one multiple-choice question "when should names be included?" with overmany choices, here each level of inclusion would have two options (agree/disagree), so for each one it should be clear whether there's consensus for it, against it, or no consensus, without needing multiple RfCs. We'd have to decide how to word each line, and whether it's better to have pairs like 3 and 4 below or to collapse them into one option like "include if and only if" (IMO pairs like 3 and 4 allow people to agree with multiple options better than if the options were "do X only if Y" and "do X only if Z", but collapsing them would be more concise), but the idea is:
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following. Deceased transgender or nonbinary people's former names ("deadnames") should:
1. always be included in their articles.
2. always be omitted from their articles.
3. be included if the people were notable under those names [like for living people].
4. be omitted if the people were not notable under those names.
5. be included if they are specifically relevant.
6. be omitted if they are not specifically relevant.
7. be included once WP:BDP ceases to apply ["two years at the outside"].
(Again, wording can be changed, options collapsed or added, but this is the concept.) This way, it should be possible for people to express and closers to assess where consensus is, e.g. "most people agree with X and disagree with Y". Thoughts? -sche ( talk) 01:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Jane Doeas
Janeinstead
Doein our article prose? Note that for the purposes of this question, any article where we use the forename instead of the surname, regardless of whether or not it's about a trans or non-binary person, would be helpful. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
gendered words that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender identity, I think working something like
For the purposes of MOS:SURNAME, MOS:GIVENNAME, and MOS:SAMESURNAME, refer to any trans or non-binary person with the name that reflects the person's most recent expressed gender identity.into that same paragraph would provide both continuity of guidance for which name/pronouns to use in complicated cases (covering the use case), while also referring to the more specific guidance without needing to repeat it. This would also still leave the second and third paragraphs of GENDERID, which cover the mention case. Ie, only mention the former name of a trans or non-binary person if they were notable under it.
In articles on works or other activity by a-- Trystan ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)livingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
John Doeto refer to a trans woman, while also using she/her pronouns and feminine gendered terminology.
should we add the following sentence [snip] to the first paragraph and amend the fourth paragraph to [snip]. We should probably make another subsection so that we can briefly workshop those changes, and find a smooth way to more neatly integrate it with the existing guidance on pronouns and gendered terms.
Resolving the use issue first would make the mention issue (when to include it) clearerWould it? You cannot use a deadname if you cannot mention it. Would we not need to resolve the mention issue first, before we can resolve the use issue? Or is this a chicken or the egg causality dilemma? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I have concerns that focusing too much on the use-mention distinction could encourage bad actors to try to sneak their way around the current rules. That’s why I proposed the wording “inclusion” and “editorially justified”; it’s basically a “use your common sense” rule. (So, for example: including Caitlyn Jenner’s name, especially in regards to her athletic career, would be common sense, even though she’s alive; including SOPHIE’s, as a trans person who took her privacy incredibly seriously, wouldn’t, even though she’s dead). We already make these sorts of allowances when it comes to nationality; for example, it would be technically correct, but incredibly silly, to describe Willie McRae as “British” outside of talking about his time in the military. Honestly, unless a demonstrable detriment (again, defined in common sense terms) can be shown to the contrary, I’d argue that “just refer to people how they’d prefer” rule is the NPOV treatment (in so much as not doing so is rude at best, and pushing your beliefs on them at worst). Sceptre ( talk) 05:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I’d argue that “just refer to people how they’d prefer” rule is the NPOV treatment (in so much as not doing so is rude at best, and pushing your beliefs on them at worst)Not always. For example if someone describes themselves as Jewish but reliable sources disagree then we shouldn't refer to them as Jewish.
There appears to be universal consensus in the above discussion that we should not use deadnames to refer to trans/nb individuals in wikivoice (as distinct from the issue of when we mention/include them). Does anyone object to clarifying MOS:DEADNAME so that the provisions on using a deadname are no longer limited to living individuals?
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification... In articles on works or other activity by alivingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
This change would not preclude an RFC about when to include deadnames for deceased subjects.-- Trystan ( talk) 12:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
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 gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources." In other words, I think your first point—that we should follow reliable sources as to the most recent (or last) self-identification—is already captured by the policy.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 14:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server)does not encompass names, given the examples in the parentheses and the fact that deadnames are only specifically mentioned in the next paragraph (on living subjects). Still, I'm persuaded by the counterargument—that gendered names are an example of gendered words. And, in the debates I've seen, at least, that argument has consistently won out—any enduring debate (if any) concerns how often (if at all) a birth name should be mentioned. Still, I think the guideline is currently ambiguous, and it fosters making the guideline explicit, as Trystan suggests, would save a lot of needless debate.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason we cannot follow WP:DUE here? For example, are there any articles where mentioning the name would be WP:DUE but we should not mention it? For borderline cases, we can have a guideline that states we should err on the side of not including the name, strongly so in the case of living individuals. We wouldn't need a guideline telling us to prefer sources from after the name change as WP:NAMECHANGES already does that.
It would neatly resolve this entire debate, it would prevent any conflicts with a policy we are forbidden from having conflicts with, and it would help with WP:CREEP. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that for these individuals the inclusion of the deadname is DUE, isn't DUE, or is borderline?It is all of these things at the same time, because DUE is a subjective measure. There is no objective test over whether something is or is not DUE. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
DUE is how we handle every controversial topic in the encyclopedia. The argument that it is fit for purpose for all those other topics but isn't fit for purpose for this one doesn't make sense to me.BilledMammal ( talk) 19:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that including the deadname would be DUE for all of them?As an aside, this particular question is one why I and I suspect several other editors have hesitated on producing any such lists. While there are many editors like yourself who will be asking this in good faith, there are also many editors who will ask it in bad faith. Because of the current anti-trans culture war and moral panic, particularly from the United States, there are editors who edit articles relating to trans and non-binary individuals and topics solely for the purpose of denying self-actualisation and claiming that trans and non-binary people are not who they say they are.
but it shouldn't result in endless discussions and RfC'sPlease look through the talk page history, including both comments on the current live page and its archives, as well as comments that were removed prior to archiving. Even with the current objective version of the deadname guidance, where inclusion is only warranted if the trans or non-binary person was notable prior to transitioning, which Thomas was not, there are endless discussions and edit requests for including Thomas' deadname. Making the deadname guidance subjective based, by tying it to DUE, will result in countless more discussions on it because even if we exclude all of the bad faith editors for conduct problems, every good faith editor defines DUEness differently. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
all of these individuals were not notable prior to their transition— Le Brocq was notable pre-transition under his birth name as "a musician, music teacher and radio presenter. ... as well as for ... numerous charitable efforts". He was also notable under his intermediate names Eddie/Ed Ayres (he changed his surname when he married), including for writing his memoirs about his transition.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
require us to include a deadname that should be excluded. While that is a valid question, and one that I'm know there are examples of that I just can't recall at this time, it's not the only type of article that would be affected by this. Elisa Rae Shupe was, back in 2016, the first person in the US to obtain legal recognition of having a non-binary gender identity. Three years later, she detransitioned, changed her name back to her birth name, and became very prominent in anti-trans political circles and publications with her story being used to push pro-conversion therapy narratives. It was during this period that the majority of sources about her were published. In 2022, she retransitioned, and took on the name Elisa Rae, however because of this the sources that were previously giving her coverage simply stopped. After all, why could anti-trans sources cover someone who made the decision to retransition? Until recently, with the publishing of a large series of leaks of emails that Shupe was party to, no sources covered Shupe's retransition or her name change. Thankfully the current formulation of GENDERID, alongside a request from Shupe to update her article and WP:ABOUTSELF allowed us to use self-published sources (in this case, Shupe's blog) to cover the basic uncontroversial facts that she retransitioned and took on a new name. A straight DUEness based guideline would have prevented this, or at least would have required significant lengthy discussion that could otherwise be avoided. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
An individuals birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included when such inclusion in WP:DUE. In circumstances where inclusion is borderline we should err on the side of exclusion.
Okay. I think an RFC needs to cover three distinct things:
I suspect (hope?) that the first question isn't very controversial, but, for the reasons I mentioned under User Trystan's proposal, I think it should be separated and included. On the other hand, I think the last issue there is the hardest one, and maybe the hardest to answer or even ask about. Certainly, I think any guideline we come up with will have to allow for discretion and will, at best, only serve to guide that discretion.
A few people have brought up WP:CREEP. I think that's, on the whole, a misplaced concern here. I've now seen more than a handful of these debates. It's true, there are differences between them—there are nuances that we probably can't address with a guideline—and we shouldn't try to! But it's also true that many of these debates do hit the same notes, and when those same notes are debated from scratch each time, the discussion of the nuances is actually hindered. In particular, as to non-living subjects, almost every debate ends up devoting a large amount of texts to the issues I mentioned above: In terms of (1) how to principally refer to the subject, (2) whether to use their former name at all, and (3) how (or how often) to use their former name, what are the implications of a large amount of media sources using the former name? It's extremely repetitive, and it doesn't make sense to have that broad of a discussion on each individual page—it's the type of recurring issue that absolutely should be handled by guidelines.
That doesn't mean a one-size-fits-all approach should be used. Most of the proposals leave room for discretion. But if we address these macro, recurring issues at the guideline level, and properly leave room for discretion, we can actually better address the nuances of particular cases.
I've seen a lot of great points made by editors on every side. But I think, to some degree, we're getting lost in the weeds. I think we can narrow down an RFC to a series of yes or no questions.
Proposed RFC Questions:
As to deceased trans persons, should we always principally refer to such persons by their last-used name of choice, as reported in reliable sources?(If yes, we could use Trystan's proposed wording.) (For the historical figure issue, which is often brought up, we could also add a caveat that this guideline is only triggered when a majority of the reliable sources that discuss a person's last-used self-identification agree as to that identification, but think that's implicit)
Should we always exclude the birth name of deceased trans persons who were not notable prior to transitioning?
When a birth name should be included in an article, should that birth name be included as a parenthetical with the page's first reference to the subject (e.g., "Gloria Hemingway (born Gregory Hemingway)?"
After the first reference to a birth name, should every reference to the birth name need to be specifically warranted by context?
I've tried to capture some essence of most of the proposals in these questions. @ Trystan:, obviously the first question is entirely thanks to you. @ Sideswipe9th:, you'll probably notice I took from your proposal to craft the second and (partially) third questions. @ Sceptre:, I'm sure you'll see your proposal in the final question, and if you think it'd be better, I'm happy to switch "warranted by context" with "editorially justified". @ BilledMammal:, you might think I've snubbed your proposal—on some level, I don't blame you. But, as the guidelines exist now, the deadnames of deceased trans persons are not covered. As such, if the consensus is straight-up "no" for questions 2, 3, and 4, I think your proposal wins by default.
Realistically, I think we have a shot of consensus as to question 1 and question 2 (though I'm actually not totally sure which way question 2 will go!). But I think it's worth asking these questions and getting to the RFC, because I think any consensus we do achieve will provide not just more, but better guidance.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 20:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but I would like to see a definite proposal before supporting or opposing, which could leave us in a no consensus situation where we'd need to re-run it again with defined proposals.
Response regarding questions 1 & 2
|
---|
|
Response regarding questions 3 & 4
|
---|
|
agreeing to Trystan's proposal would be the exact same as agreeing to question 1Yes based on implication, but not exactly in practice. Trystan's proposal is a concrete, definite change to the guideline. It's asking should we insert/rephrase the text of the guideline to this other version, yes or no? In doing so it lets editors compare the current version and a specific replacement version when making their determination for supporting or opposing. Question 1 as you've formulated it however is asking if there's consensus for a change, without specifying what form of that change will take. As a result it's a much more open ended question, because that particular change has many different forms.
your proposal doesn't allow for discretion as to persons who were not notable prior to their transitionDo we need much, if any, discretion for trans or non-binary people who changed their names prior to becoming notable? The historical examples that have been mentioned previously, like James Barry and Public Universal Friend wouldn't fully be covered by any version of this, including the current version of the guideline, as their gender identities are unclear in the historical record. I'm trying to think of a modern example where we'd explicitly need such a discretionary statement in the guidance that ultimately wouldn't also be inherently covered by WP:IAR.
Question 3, I think, is fairly non-controversial—it asks, assuming a name should be included, whether the name should be paired with the first reference to the person. I don't know that that many people would disagree with that.True, and it would largely be seeking to codify standard practice. Again though, this is better handled by asking if we should make a specific change to the existing guidance along these lines, as that gives editors something concrete to compare against (ie new and old versions).
(e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server)—doesn't include names. As to your second and third bold points—that does absolutely address names for living trans persons. But this discussion is mostly on how to address deceased trans persons.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 12:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Referring to a trans person by their deadname" has nothing to do with what I said or proposed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
... wrong ... for us to also misgender her. That's probably why that featured article does not contain her deadname— Surely mentioning a deadname ("John Smith (born Mary Smith) ....") is not the same as misgendering ("John started her first job"). Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Are titles capitalised if they come after a name? For example, Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as opposed to Rishi Sunak, prime minister of the United Kingdom. DDMS123 ( talk) 23:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
JOBTITLE is quite clear that titles are generally not capitalised, including when 'a formal title for a specific entity is [not] addressed as a title or position in and of itself.' I take this to mean that we should use 'William, prince of Wales' over 'William, Prince of Wales', as the person rather than title title is being addressed. Conversely, SURNAME uses 'Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester' and 'William, Prince of Wales'.
Which subsection is right, if there is a conflict? A.D.Hope ( talk) 18:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Celia Rose Gooding § RfC on pronouns. — HTGS ( talk) 03:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
In December 2020 the "Opening paragraph" section ended its list of what should be included with:
Today the equivalent text, now called "Opening sentence", reads:
However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph."
Does anyone know if the change of link destination in #4 was discussed? If so where? Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 01:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I was analyzing the guidance about First mention. The Gaddafi first sentence example seems to have excessive clutter needlessly. I think readers come to biographical articles mostly to answer who the person is. The first sentence seeks to answer that in a nutshell. What is the full name of the person is a secondary concern. If this latter is too long it is best to leave it elsewhere in the lead, not in the first sentence. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph.
The reader many times just seeks to answer "who is Gaddafi?" Then the most reasonable answer is concise, easy to read info. In the current form, the reader needs to go through all of this before reaching an answer, Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (Arabic: معمر محمد أبو منيار القذافي; /ˈmoʊ.əmɑːr ɡəˈdɑːfi/; c. 1942 – 20 October 2011), also known as Colonel Gaddafi,....
I tried to make the guidance more flexible but User:DrKay did revert, apparently objecting that the article doesn't have the format I added as an option. I have to note that articles are in constant state of evolution and the Gadaffi example is just an illustration. My added option was an illustration of a format other editors think might be better, including me. I don't think necessarily only the current format needs to be included as if it was a fixed rule.
My addition was Colonel Muammar Gaddafi [pron 1] ( c. 1942 – 20 October 2011) was a Libyan politician, revolutionary, and political theorist. He was born Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi.... It was done with the thought in mind of guidelines about conciseness, readability, and avoiding clutter whenever possible. Also, I added the option instead of replacing altogether the previous example with some other page because in some cases it might be advisable to leave the full name for a variety of reasons.
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
added for section, signing so as not to hinder archiving later — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 21:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why
MOS:SIR, on honorific titles, demands that the title be placed in bold in the first use of the name
? The honorific title is almost never part of the article title, and further: it makes it harder to parse quickly for the reader, especially when the person’s name is already listed in full, with all the many names and nicknames that some biographies begin with.
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchillversus
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
I propose we reverse this guidance, or at least remove it. (Except of course to keep bold full titles for subjects whose honorific titles are part of their article titles. Eg, Sir Samuel Hood, 1st Baronet.) — HTGS ( talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Winston Churchill was no longer Mr Churchill but Sir WinstonWe don't bold-format (or even include) "Mr", so why should we bold "Sir"? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a misapprehension by some that "title" and "name" are mutually exclusive. A "name" is just the word or sequence of words which identify a particular thing, and in the UK at least, a title can be part of a person's name. A knight's legal name under British law is "Sir John Smith", not merely "John Smith". This is fundamentally different to something like "Mr", which is just a social courtesy not forming part of anyone's legal name. The unspoken assumption seems to be the only things "allowed" to be part of someone's name (as decreed by the internet) are given names and surnames, when this isn't how it always works. Take Charles III: "III" clearly isn't either a given name or a surname, yet starting his article "Charles III ..." would be absurd. Or peers, whose titles also form part of their names: "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington" would be rather odd (particularly for someone universally known as "the Duke of Wellington" rather than by his given name and surname). And we allow people to have self-assumed titles used as part of stage names to be treated as part of their name: a self-named Lady Gaga is fine, but if she genuinely held a title she'd have to be "Lady Gaga"? I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. Proteus (Talk) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
in the UK at least, a title can be part of a person's name. A knight's legal name under British law is "Sir John Smith", not merely "John Smith".— It's probably worth noting that explicitly in MOS:SIR. References:
@ Necrothesp and Proteus: Is there a compromise approach you would accept? I think most of us would be happy with phrasing that simply does not require the bold ‘Sir’ universally. Perhaps there is a standard of usage that could be applied? I only suggested the exclusion of those article-titles that do include the honorific-title as a starting point, but there are other ways we could preserve bold in more cases. Otherwise we can simply remove the guidance and let editors decide on a page-by-page basis... though that seems tedious. — HTGS ( talk) 21:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Necrothesp and Proteus: "Sir" and "Lord" (or "Dame" and "Lady") are customarily treated differently from other titles like "Mr.", "Dr.", "Rev.", "Hon.", etc. in that they can be (and often are) used when addressing people in an informal register, by their forename, rather than their surname. They're treated as a more integral part of the name than the others, and bolding them reflects that. Whether they are legally part of the name, whatever that means, or whether it's logical (it isn't) is beside the point. I note also that the opening line of the Britannica article linked above (bolding as in the original) is "Winston Churchill, in full Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill..." In other words, our existing style is compatible both with custom and pre-existing encyclopedic practice. Choess ( talk) 04:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
MOS:ETHNICITY currently reads:
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. For guidance on historic place names versus modern-day names, see WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
The second sentence ("this will be the country... where the person is currently a citizen... or resident") is contradicted by the second-last sentence, "Ethnicity... should not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability..."
I have no scientific way of demonstrating this, but don't over 99% of BLPs and biographies ignore this, and include nationality/ethnicity in the opening sentence. Can we remove the word "Ethnicity" (and the implied "nationality") from that sentence? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
context for the activities that made the person notablewill generally be
the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. In this formulation, either the phrase "in most cases" has to do a lot more work than many editors seem willing to entertain, or the framework of nation-state citizenship ends up being imposed on cases where it does not actually reflect the context for notability.
ethnicity is different than nationality, it is whether or not to treat all articles on the basis, consistent with US political culture, that "nationality" approximates national citizenship or residency. By contrast, from a Canadian perspective, prominent Quebec nationalists are notable in the context of their Quebecois nationality (not equivalent to ethnicity, which may indeed be considerably more complex). Prominent indigenous activists and cultural figures may be prominent in the context of a First Nations national identity (not identical to ethnicity, although recognition of an indigenous identity may have preconditions related to ethnicity). And so on.
context for the activities that made the person notable, nor should it be construed as insisting that "nationality=citizenship(/residency)". Also, the argument that it is important to "identify what nationality people are" in the case, say, of academics where their birthplace differs from their country of residence and where their citizenship and "nationality" are not a matter of public record - well, it seems to me that the presumption that this sort of information ought to be included needs an actual argument in its support, beyond a (seemingly lazy) reading of the first paragraph of ETHNICITY. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox person#Template:Age for a proposal regarding {{ age}} whereby, when a date is unknown, it would change from showing a single number to a range of ages. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The sentence "The sentence seems to contain unnecessary clutter—it's preferable a more readable form.
" is, ironically, missing a word.
-sche (
talk) 05:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This ... could be a hot-button issue, but I think it's one worth settling. MOS:GENDERID currently distinguishes between living persons who were notable under a former name and those who were not. Does "notable" in the MOS:GENDERID context mean WP:NOTABLE or, in effect, "noteworthy"? This isn't a philosophical question: I actually only realized the potential discrepancy when @ Trystan: brought it up at the Cheshire home invasion murders talk page. That article discusses a living person who was convicted for several felony counts (and originally sentenced to death) related to the article's subject—a fairly grisly home-invasion murder. After her conviction, the person in question transitioned while incarcerated. There's no dispute that, per WP:PERPETRATOR, she should not have had her own article prior to transitioning (or, frankly, now). At the same time, the act for which she is noteworthy was committed prior to her transitioning, when she was living under her birth name. So ... should her birth name be included?
Of course, if notable means
WP:NOTABLE—a subject deserving their own article, the answer is no. But I've found that, often, notable as to a content-inclusion question often means, effectively, "noteworthy" (
WP:NOTEWORTHY notwithstanding). For example (and this is currently under discussion),
WP:NOTDIRECTORY says, "Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
" But no one interprets that policy to mean that disambiguation pages can only contain references to persons who have their own Wikipedia article. There are also all sorts of ways content guidelines get around saying "noteworthy":
MOS:TIMELINE says to consider "importance to the subject
"; some policies emphasize that we need a "summary" (see
WP:NOTEVERYTHING,
WP:SUMMARY) (how do you just have a summary? by excluding non-noteworthy info). I don't really have a stake in this—but I think it'd be worth clarifying to make instances (like the above) clear.--
Jerome Frank Disciple 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject(and it itself notes that this is a procedure for proving notability and not a definition of notability). Disco Elysium itself clearly clears this barrier, and many of the articles about the game are also about its main character. We don't always make a separate article in this situation, especially if the character is very closely tied to a single work, but that doesn't mean that the character isn't notable. Loki ( talk) 23:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
But you can't use the lack of a Wikipedia article as evidence of non-notability, especially when they're prominently mentioned in some other Wikipedia article." Yes, perhaps the person in question just hasn't had an article about them written yet, but that's usually not what's discussed in these debates (over DABMENTIONs). (I agree with you that we often don't make separate articles for characters when the character is very closely tied to a single work, but I think most users read that kind of restriction as stemming from WP:N: after all, a WP:PERPETRATOR closely tied to one event is often said to not be "notable" enough for their own article with reference to WP:PERPETRATOR.)
notable for purposes of inclusion in a disambiguation page", which further suggests "noteworthy" is the standard being applied (after all, how can someone be notable for the purposes of a single page? either they meet WP:N or not). To clarify: When I've seen this discussed before, most editors—at least of those who support keeping "notable" within WP:NOT, will say that it only imposes notable "in the colloquial sense", which I'm paraphrasing as "noteworthy".-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I feel like you might be fighting my (real-world) hypo a bit here :) Again, it's usually conceded that the entries are not notable enough for their own article under WP:N. The fact that some MOS:DABMENTIONs might be notable enough for their own article ... and just, by chance, no one has made an article for them is possible, but that's usually not what's debated or discussed. I'm also not sure it's fair to say WP:N is just notable in the colloquial sense and isn't a jargon term. To be clear, WP:N says:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
- It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
- It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
The general notability guideline then gives a sentence and provides specific definitions for 5 of the words in that 1 sentence. You might say that WP:N is an effort to formalize notability in the colloquial sense, but it is absolutely jargony, and it's not really a synonym.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 01:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Loki that notability in the context of MOS:GENDERID clearly means that the subject met WP:N. The wording about notability in MOS:DABMENTION is relatively recent. It isn't, in my opinion, very clear, or a good example of applying the concept of notability in other policies and guidelines. The addition was an attempt to align the DABMENTION guideline with the statement at WP:NOTDIRECTORY that DAB pages should only include notable entries, though that statement is agreed to be contradictory and universally ignored. A better solution would have been changing WP:NOT, rather than attempting to redefine notability for one specific purpose.-- Trystan ( talk) 15:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic...As Loki points out above, WP:1E address people notable for one event, which indicates they are notable, even if they wouldn't normally be given an article.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person is a low-profile individual their former name should not be included...
The RfC over at VPP on the second and third paragraphs of GENDERID has just closed. While there was no clear consensus for change based on the options provided, it seems as though we are closer to a consensus than before we started, and there's a recommendation for further discussion with a narrow focus.
Based on the words of the closer, the consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3
. To save some going back and forth between here and the RfC, in summary option 3 was to never include the deadname of a trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to transitioning, and option 2 was to include the deadname if it would
satisfy the principle of least astonishment. The options for no change, and always including the deadname were soundly rejected. So for this discussion, let's focus solely on finding the middle ground between never including the deadname, and sometimes including the deadname. In short, what is the barrier for inclusion?
Reading through the discussion and closure, I think something like Demonstration of the significance of the deadname in high quality sources as shown through discussion or analysis of the name, and beyond mentions of the name.
seems like it would address the concerns raised. It raises the bar for inclusion beyond a simple majority of sources, which many felt was too low, while also allowing consensus to form for inclusion in a manner that isn't based on
WP:IAR. It also keeps things solely within the realm of
due and undue weight, as it is based on the depth of coverage about the deadname and not solely based on the sheer volume of mentions of it.
If we can find consensus on where the barrier for inclusion should be here, based on the comments made in the just closed RfC, I think we can avoid the need for a future one. However if we must have a further RfC on this, then we need to keep any future RfC on this issue as narrow in scope as possible. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
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.. The closure of the RfC from 2 years ago also had a similar recommendation for further discussion on a narrow topic, however in that case we never actually had that discussion. I don't want to see us stuck in the same situation situation where we don't actually have the further discussion as recommended the closure of an RfC, and so I've started this discussion.
Second breakfast? Elevenses? Luncheon? Afternoon tea? [etc.]Thank you, Pippin! – .Raven .talk 03:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Note/Moment of Inspiration:
User:HTGS suggested this variation on option 2 from the last RFC that might be worth considering: "Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion, but a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources is
". Now, that sentence probably gets at the sentiment I was trying to capture when I crafted option 2, but it disregards
WP:PLA (which quite a few editors thought was inapt) and it makes the preponderance of sources the factor rather than a factor.
But, of course, the closer's finding was that we should thread the needle between options 2 and 3, and I think HTGS's version, while perhaps more articulate, is really just a minor variation of option 2. THAT SAID, I was recently working on a
close request involving
MOS:CAPS, which includes this line: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
" A substantial majority is a higher standard than a mere majority, and the term "only" sets a high bar. Finally, I think we can add one more caveat: that the substantial majority have to principally refer to the person by their former name. I think this is as close as we're going to get to being able to thread the needle. ScottishFinnhishRadish (the closer) also suggested listing an example of a case in which the name of a deceased trans person who was not notable prior to transition should be included. @
Sideswipe9th:, as we've discussed, I think Aiden Hale is the obvious example here—there was an RFC on him quite recently, and a pretty overwhelming majority supported mentioning the name at least once. Additionally, even today, most reliable sources principally refer to Hale by his birth name. So, all this said:
Proposal: If a deceased trans or nonbinary person was not notable prior to transitioning, when should an article mentioning that person include their deadname?
|
---|
If a deceased transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should similarly[1] be excluded unless either (1) a majority of reliable sources use that name as the person's principal name or (2) the person is regarded by reliable sources as having wavered on or otherwise had a unique relationship to their trans identity. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
[1] This is in reference to the previous paragraph, discussing the exclusion of the deadnames of living trans people who were not notable pre transition.
|
Fin.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 01:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusionI think this suggestion is a reasonable fall back if we can't find something more specific, and something that we could tie inline to policy points like WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. However while it raises the bar slightly from the current lack of guidance, I find myself agreeing with Jerome that this is a lower baseline than option 2 from the RfC. I think we should spend some time here trying to find something that better fits the situation the RfC has left us in. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
unless reliable sourcing exists" would be "mere verifiability" though, right? And the preponderance line is basically what option 2 was: We're trying to split the difference between option 2 and option 3, right? If we want to shorten the proposal; we could just excise the first sentence? (I'll do that above and note the change.) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
or if the use of the name is necessary to avoid confusionWhile it's a simple enough proposition on the surface, when you actually try to steelman it as an argument I think it leaves it open to too much interpretation to actually be a useful guideline. There's so many different ways you could define
necessary to avoid confusion, in good faith and in bad, that it would result in endless talk page discussions similar to the situation we currently find ourselves in.
Demonstration of the significance of the deadname, not just that it's verifiable, I think we need to die it to something like WP:DEPTH. Unfortunately DEPTH is part of the SNG for events, and I think if we try to use that we'll get endless questions about why we're using an article notability guideline for a specific bit of content. Is there another shortcut that anyone is aware of, or relevant policy paragraph that we could make a shortcut to that would suffice? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
demonstrated need, starting with something as simple as
they changed their name, we need to know their previous one. Unless there's a specific test we could wikilink demonstrated need to that narrows the phrase beyond a plain reading of the words. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3 .... Another indicator that the consensus is between these two options ....". But you seem to be conceding that the baseline you're proposing is below option 2. In other words, it's a nonstarter.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
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?That to me goes beyond mere volume of mention a deadname in sources, and straight into the depth of discussion in sources about the deadname. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
when a clear majority of sources principally refer to the person by their former name
Clear majority" is a bit ambiguous, but less so than "significant" or "substantial" majority, and, realistically, how often are we really going to get into situations where it's 51% / 49 % ? Having reviewed several of the article debates prior to the RFC, I really can't recall one in which reliable sources were split down the middle. In the case of Hale, for example, it's really more like 90/10. And I don't think we should let the possibility of an edge case discourage us too much. Let's be frank: if there is a 51/49 case ... it's not actually going to come down to editors' views of what constitutes a "clear majority". Additionally, the focus on what sources "
principally refer" to the person by their former name ensures we're not overly emphasizing sources that just mention a former name as a point of trivia.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Christine Jorgensen: a personal autobiographyLoki ( talk) 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Mere verifiability” and “
a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources”. That space was intentional. It sets boundaries that reasonable minds will agree on, but leaves more difficult marginal decisions to the editors who write our biographies. It does feel like editors here keep trying to circle discussion back to “how do we make sure we have a rule we can enforce?” (Or, less charitably, “How to we keep lowly editors from doing what we, the MOS cabal, don’t want them to do?”) We (here) are not a police force. The Manual of Style is nice because we can ensure some good amount of consistency, and avoid arguments over commas and capital letters; it is not here to decide content. (How to refer to people is style; whether to include biographical information is content.) I would be happy with the smallest guidance possible: “Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion of someone’s deadname”. We only really need to tell editors that when a deadname is absolutely trivial—if it has only been mentioned on a personal blog, or in a footnote of a lesser source—then it does not need to be included. And for those who want to roleplay as cops, they will find that guidance will enable them more than you might think. — HTGS ( talk) 02:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I've done a bunch of reading of our policies and guidelines, and have come up with the following:
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.
This builds upon the wording of the closure, that there is a clear consensus that the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest. It sets out two inclusion criteria, 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. Encyclopaedic significance is wikilinked to the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy point, and high quality sources is linked to WP:BESTSOURCES. In the footnote, it includes a link to the close of the RfC where there was a clear consensus that deadnames are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest, and then makes it clear that because of this they are therefore typcially considered minor aspects, which links to the WP:BALASP policy point. This has the clear and intentional effect of tying this guideline to both the What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view policies.
With regards to the closure, this sets the bar for inclusion of the deadname 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 also giving specific policy based guidance on what the inclusion criteria are. Finally it gives three clear examples of application of the inclusion criteria. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hatting my own extended inquiry / dialogue with Sideswipe--
Jerome Frank Disciple 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
"there is a clear consensus that the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest"... a question about whether birth names or former names are of encyclopedic interest wasn't asked in the RfC referenced, so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is open to challenge. As with others, I struggle to understand what "in-depth analysis or discussion of the name" would be (The Izzard example is about the person's stated preferences, not about the names themselves; and Izzard was known as "Eddie Izzard" for a long time when notable, so the name would be included anyway; but then what counts as "transitioning"? Has Izzard transitioned? It quickly gets complicated...). And why "high quality sources" instead of standard "reliable sources"? That slants things to academic discourse, where analysing a person's names, to the best of my knowledge, is not common. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
a question about whether birth names or former names are of encyclopedic interest wasn't asked in the RfC referenced, so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is open to challengeIt may not have been directly asked, but the closer certainly assessed that is where the community consensus lies based on the wider contributions to the RfC. It's important to remember that RfCs are not votes. If you want to challenge it, you'd have to challenge it in the close first, as until it's removed from the closure, it is a safe assumption that it is the consensus.
And why "high quality sources" instead of standard "reliable sources"? That slants things to academic discourseWP:BESTSOURCES is policy, and tells us to prefer
reputable books and articles. In general we are biased towards academic sources, and that is widely considered to be a good thing. However in this context, high quality sources does not limit this to academic sources, reputably published and well researched biographies are also high quality sources. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
It may not have been directly asked, but the closer certainly assessed that is where the community consensus lies based on the wider contributions to the RfC.
...implicitly acknowledged that the inherent encyclopedic value of deadnames was either nonexistent or small enough to be discarded...I don't think this follows. A supporter of Option 2 on the second question could quite reasonably be of the opinion that names are generally of encyclopedic interest, and the names of trans/nb people aren't somehow of less interest than other names, but the social mores around deadnames warrant an extraordinary and limited departure from the default practice of including them.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2", which said that deadnames should be included according to WP:PLA (considering a majority of reliable sources), "
and option 3", which said that such names should never be included."
I'm not liking this established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources
wording, since it will lead to tendentious wikilawyering. Under this proposal, the clearly notable deadname of the
Nashville school shooter would've been excluded from the article from the get-go, and editors who try to "
WP:IAR" to include the name would've gotten reverted and pointed to the MOS.
Some1 (
talk) 00:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The complexities of Hale's article make it, in my mind, something that is best handled by IAR, because the vast majority of biographies and content that will be subject to this guideline are nowhere near as contentious.(collapsed convo above)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to be a downer but I don't like the proposed wording. I would take a different approach and just talking about the increased sensitivity of gender transitions causing a need to have extended privacy concerns that would be longer and more strictly enforced than the normal privacy concerns of non-notable names. So, for example, we could recommend defaulting to the maximum of two years after death instead of sooner, per WP:BDP:
The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends...
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It is also clear from the responses that always including the prior name, or assuming the prior name is of encyclopedic importance is soundly rejected by the community.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable way of expressing what there was consensus for, as indeed the closer says above. Ideally, I'd like to find even clearer wording than "in-depth analysis or discussion", but given that we've been trying to find such wording for months (and in a broader sense, years), I think we should avoid letting the pursuit of perfect wording prevent putting decent wording in place. (Perfectly wikilaywer-proof wording probably doesn't exist, anyway.) -sche ( talk) 03:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
As there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for or against inclusion, and as discussion has otherwise died down, I've now launched an RfC on this proposal over at the Village Pump. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The third paragraph is confusing unless you word it
something like this to make it match the phrasing on the second paragraph. That way If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name...
is followed by If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name...
. I suggest using that as a base for the extended privacy wording.
Cuñado ☼ -
Talk 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
onlyin Cuñado's version. The same issue of the old wording setting a limit on inclusion (ie, you can only include if condition is met), whereas the proposed version mandating inclusion (ie, you must include if condition is met) seems to exist with this proposed change. This is something that might need to be discussed in more detail (ideally separately to the discussion above) before a change can be made. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
only, which is a major part of the point of the policy. A lack of notability under the old name is intended to be automatic exclusion; if this proposal intends to change that (which would be a substantive policy change) we'll need another discussion about that specific point and almost certainly another RFC, since I can't see it being uncontroversial.
Onlyin that paragraph is a load-bearing word, so to speak. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname),
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly".
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. For example:
....
If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name (a deadname), different guidance applies to different contexts. On the person's main biographical article, their former name should be included in the lead sentence. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
....
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis....
(and, unless the sources discuss the name change in detail apart from the mere fact it happened, nowhere else in the article). This is to match this change to Sideswipe's proposal above. Loki ( talk) 19:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
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 as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.[ emphasis added
@ Starship.paint:: I realize there was a consensus that IAR could apply to edge cases in the RFC, but I—with some hesitation—reverted your explicit addition of IAR [23] because I think it perhaps gives undue weight to IAR. As I understand, IAR always has the possibility of applying to almost every policy (save legal-related policies), yet we don't go around each policy/guideline saying "remember, in edge cases, WP:IAR can be considered". Why here?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Generally, those supporting the stricter wording acknowledge that there will be occasions where additional uses of the former name will be necessary and aren't actually absolutist about enforcement of the MOS.But, I do not trust that all editors of the community will avoid being absolutist in the enforcement. A reminder is warranted so that editors cannot insist on being absolutist. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
… former names may be used …- how does this relate to pronouns? No mention of pronouns was mentioned at all. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Some concerns were raised by those opposed about possible scenarios where the new language could be an issue, but those in support rebut those concerns by pointing out that IAR and consensus at specific articles should be sufficient to handle edge case. Have I misrepresented this? starship .paint ( exalt) 14:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@
ScottishFinnishRadish: Solicit closer’s opinion. You mentioned in finding consensus for Topic 1 that Some concerns were raised by those opposed about possible scenarios where the new language could be an issue, but those in support rebut those concerns by pointing out that IAR and consensus at specific articles should be sufficient to handle edge case
. Are the following sentences consistent with what you wrote? (Option A) For edge cases only, former names may be used if a local consensus develops. and (Option B) For edge cases only, former names may be used per WP:IAR if a local consensus develops.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
There's an ambiguity under MOS:PEOPLETITLES: "Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context, except in the lead sentence of a biographical subject's own article." This could mean either
Largoplazo ( talk) 10:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Alright, so, the current RFC over at VPP appears to be split about 50/50 right now. While that is a lot of support, it's not looking like it will reach consensus: the current proposal appears to have failed to get the support of almost any Option 2 voters.
Several oppose votes suggest an alternative based off the presence of the name in reliable sources, so I propose:
For a deceased trans or non-binary person that was not notable under their former name, their former name should be included if and only if it frequently appears in reliable sources about the subject's primary source(s) of notability. Sources that merely document the existence of the former name but which could not be used to establish notability (birth and death certificates, court records, social media posts, etc.) are not enough for inclusion by themselves even if they unambiguously are reliable for basic biographic facts.
Names that should be included should be in the first sentence of the lead, introduced with "born" or "formerly".
- From Leelah Alcorn:
Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
Alicorn's main source of notability is her suicide, and the public outcry over it. Her gender identity is mentioned often in news stories about these topics; however, her former name rarely is.- From Public Universal Friend:
The Public Universal Friend (born Jemima Wilkinson; November 29, 1752 – July 1, 1819)...The Friend's primary source of notability is their ministry. In sources about their ministry, the Friend's birth name is often used (especially regarding their early life) even though the Friend had not been notable under that name.
Thoughts? Questions? Revisions? Loki ( talk) 03:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interestis not enough, because that provides exactly no guidance on what conditions make the former name become of encyclopaedic interest. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Numerically, supporters the stricter interpretations held the plurality, but with insufficient support to overcome the concerns and objections of the other respondents., and from a side discussion on the close
If I could have said There is consensus for option 2.8, figure it out, or if I was in a position to create the necessary language, I would have.(said by ScottishFinnishRadish) and
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.(said by Barkeep49).
if it frequently appears in reliable sources about the subject's primary source(s) of notabilitysets it too low. If my proposal is felt to be a 2.9 or 2.95, this is closer to a 2.5.
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?To use the language of this proposal when asking those questions, how frequently is "frequently"? Is 50%+1 sufficient? And how does "frequently" take into account emphasis and source quality?
Names that should be included should be in the first sentence of the lead. While it's certainly standard practice across many, but not all biographies of trans and non-binary individuals, I do find myself convinced by what Adam Cuerden has said, in that this will overemphasise the former names. I think this sentence would be better if it was more simply
Names that should be included should be introduced with "born" or "formerly", as that leaves it up to the local consensus at the article level to decide where is the best placement location in the context of the specific article.
in-depth analysis and discussionfrom my proposal to
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources. It gives us a higher barrier than just verifiability, and it takes into account emphasis and source quality. I also think that it's important that we should reference back to the close of recent RfC on this, as well as to specific policy points like WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:BALASP, which underpin this guideline. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
JFD Proposal
|
---|
|
substantial majority"), and the idea that not saying anything is less ambiguous than saying something is one I doubt (we can't quantify "in depth discussion," either—these things are standards, not rules). Moreover, consider the number of circumstances in which, say, the resolution issue actually would come down to something like "well we have 50% ... but do we need 50.1%?????" There's not a single page I can think of where the sources were that evenly divided. Also, given that the proposal has shifted to sources that principally identify the person by one name (a much higher bar), a lower % is called for (though I'd stress that even this lower % would still capture fewer sources than asking if 50% merely mention the name). After all, if a rough majority principally identify a person by their former name, then, frankly, the name should probably be included, because someone searching for the person would likely be thrown by its absence.
I know some people have labeled me "the opposition", but here is a serious proposal that I think will address most of the issues raised so far, and also avoid this section being endlessly litigated. It's a new logical flow to the section.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Proposed MOS:GID section
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a living person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of:
Given the sensitivity and personal nature of gender transitions, information that could reveal a gender transition should be given the maximum censorship allowed under WP:Biographies of living persons, including continuing to exclude it for 2 years after death by default, regardless of editorial consensus (See WP:BDP). Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. If you see such information anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. When removing the information, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting Oversight. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, or two years have passed since their death, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion. When the living individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person.
In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used. |
Public figures, where multiple reliable third-party sources have documented the information". Now, perhaps the next paragraph hedges, but at the very least you're embracing a standard over what was previously a rule—and that expands the instances in which a living trans person's former name could be included, no?
... information that could reveal a gender transition ... should not be included in any page ... If you see such information anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it— That effectively makes it impossible to discuss the matter, if "any page ... anywhere on Wikipedia" includes Talk pages. I know that Talk pages are subject to BLP, but forbidding editors to even discuss the topic (since the existence of any such discussion "could reveal a gender transition") seems a bit extreme. Consider the case where an editor decides that an existing source is not reliable enough, or that there aren't enough of such sources. They are now required to delete all mention of the transition from the article, and cannot even ask about it on the talk page, or give any hint as to why they did it. If I notice the edit and raise the matter on the (article's or editor's) talk page to discuss it, the same editor would then be required to delete my post asking about it, with no hint as to why. Does WP:BRD now stand for Blackout, Redact, Deny? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
puts non-notable gender transition along with "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.There is a fundamental difference between "reveal a gender transition" and "reveal a phone number etc". My actual phone number, address, bank account number is private/personal/secret, but the fact that I have a phone, address, bank account number is generally not considered a secret - it's presumed that everyone has them. However if I were non-publicly transgender, the mere fact that I am transgender is the secret, not just the "details" (male-to-female, female-to-male, something-else) of the transition and my old/dead name.We could, for example, openly discuss on the talk page whether someone's date of birth (also included in BLPPRIVACY) should be included in their article, without actually disclosing that date. However we can't discuss whether someone's gender transition should be mentioned without implicitly disclosing the fact that there was one. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@
Kornatice: and I split over the capitalization of "Florida governor Ron DeSantis"/"Florida Governor Ron DeSantis". Konatice said it should be lowercased (I think because the official title is Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis), accurately pointing out that the table includes "US president Richard Nixon
". But ... while Konatice is absolutely right ... I think the problem is that the table is wrong—not just externally wrong but internally inconsistent.
First, let's start with the text rules, which say to capitalize positions.
- When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
- When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
- When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
Now, it was my thought that the first bullet controlled. But Kornatice—consistent with the Nixon example—reads the third bullet as limiting the first bullet: and thus, we should not capitalize "a formal title for a specific entity ... [that is] addressed as a title or position in and of itself ... and is not a reworded description:"
. I have to admit, I'm pretty decent at grammar, but that third bullet throws me for a loop. Does "in and of itself" apply to title and position? Anyways ... regardless:
First, I'm not sure that's the rules are internally consistent: note that the first bullet says "President Nixon" should be capitalized ... but "President" is arguably a reworded description (shorthand) for President of the United States.
And, second, I can't help but think that the colon (which I left in) is very important there. The colon proceeds the table. And, notably, there's something a little funny about the table: Every item in the left column—showing capitalization—is not a title immediately followed by a name—it's a title that's the object of a verb."Richard Nixon was President of the United States.
"; "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016.
"; "Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792).
"
On the right column, we get a little more variation: titles that are the objects of verbs ("Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom.
") AND titles that exist independent of the name they precede—not functioning as adjectives but as subjects ("The French king, Louis XVI, was later beheaded.
"). The only example where a name immediately follows and title function is the "US president Nixon
" example. Now, what's weird about this example is that it's also not consistent with the column titles at the top of the table. The left column title is "denoting a title", but the right column title is "denoting a description". But that's a semi-baffling choice of words if the example is correct. In "Florida governor Ron DeSantis
" or "US president Richard Nixon
" ... both "Florida governor" and "US president" are literally being used as titles ... so it's a little strange to say they're denoting a description instead of a title.
I want to further add that not capitalizing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be inconsistent with ... every other style guide I'm aware of? (Not that we're bound by those style guides, just food for thought.) Based on that, I'd suggest modifying that third bullet to:
- When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is connected to the subject via a linking verb and addressed as a title or position in and of itself, so long as the title is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
- Jerome Frank Disciple 02:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Mitterrand was the French president. This is the example used for the case of not capitalizing an office or title.
Mitterrand was the French president."—the title is the object of the verb ("was"). As such, the first bullet point does not apply to it, and it fits the reword I suggested. The key question here is whether the third bullet point is meant to limit the first bullet point—I think it's fairly clearly not meant to.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
when followed by a person's name to form a title" is the controlling description there—note that "
considered to become part of the name" is only listed after "
i.e." ("that is"). You can't substitute "i.e." for "if and only if". (Also, how is "Florida [G]overnor Ron DeSantis" not part of the name but "President Richard Nixon" is?)
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis), but if the title is set apart from the name in some way, then it's lowercase (
Ron DeSantis, the governor of Floridaor
the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis). — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 19:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is connected to the subject by a linking verb, so long as the title is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
Barack Obama (D-IL) was elected president of the United States.) or this NYT story ("
Joseph R. Biden Jr. was elected president of the United States on Saturday ....").
Stray thoughts
|
---|
|
During
Folly Mox's recent (very welcome)
RFC on link repetition, which successfully challenged the assumption that Wikipedia articles are read from top to bottom like a regular article
(because nobody reads Wikipedia like that) and changed the policy on duplicate links from one-per-article to one-per-section,
Bagumba wondered if that change Would [...] trickle over to
MOS:SURNAME
as well. That question was tabled for possible discussion here.
So, let's have that discussion, because OMG yes it should! (IMHO) A repeated frustration for me, when reading articles, goes like this: (Note: The names are made up, but the frustration is real.)
On December 5, 2017, Hall released a statement condemning the attack.
Now, the obvious question here is, "Who the hell is 'Hall'!?" Oh, OK, I go back three entire sections to find out that the article's referring to Georgina Hall, then-Mayor of Bowling Green.
We can do better than that. At least once a section, any figures mentioned in the article should probably be fully re-contextualized. Even if someone does read from top to bottom like a regular article
, over that kind of distance it's really easy to forget who these people are, when they're referred to only by their surname. Writing "Mayor Hall" or "Mayor Georgina Hall" the first time she's mentioned in each section costs us little, and makes for more readable articles.
Heck, when something is vital to our understanding of their role — like our fictional Ms. Hall's Mayorship — I'd even consider supporting a policy that it should be included every time they're mentioned. When a person mentioned in an article is relevant solely or primarily due to their position, including that context ("Mayor Hall" rather than just "Hall") each time they're mentioned feels prudent. FeRDNYC ( talk) 08:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
when something is vital to our understanding of [a person's] role ... it should be included every time they're mentioned), but as guidance rather than hard rule. I agree it's frustrating to find oneself in the situation described as a reader, but I'd be weary of making re-contextualising-on-every-use a solid policy lest it cause articles to become stilted or take on a patronising tone. Better it should be encouraged, but with reasoned deviation permitted. XAM2175 (T) 10:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Mayor Halland
President Zelenskyyare probably how I'd personally handle later section mentions, with or without linking as common sense indicates. So in general I'd put myself on team "allow, but don't mandate", but it would be nice if a specific change to the guidance text were proposed. Folly Mox ( talk) 20:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
After names were explicitly added to the first sentence of MOS:GID, the guideline has become rather confusing; see Talk:Eddie Izzard#Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023. Currently it says we should use a name consistent with the most recent expressed gender identity, when I'm pretty sure the intent was that we should use the name(s) the subject most recently identified with. This leads to confusion where, like in the linked thread, it can be argued that because a nonbinary subject approves one masculine name, they can also be called by another name because that is also masculine. Thoughts? -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 10:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
„In the case of multiple complementary or contradictory preferences that have been recently expressed, either together or at the same time, articles should use only one set of name(s) and pronouns for internal consistency. Which set that is should be decided on a case-by-case basis, prioritizing the naming convention under which the individual is notable or reported on. [This priority is secondary to the individual‘s preferences and only applies in cases of ambiguity in their preferences.]“
I use both she and they pronouns". In that case, the discussion seems to have focused on (1) how to determine Gooding's preference (with most users relying on which pronoun was listed first in the twitter bio) and (2) how to best avoid ambiguity (with many users supporting "she" suggesting that "they" should be subordinated by default). Oddly, few users suggesting going by what most reliable sources used (though perhaps that's because the Twitter announcement postdated most reliable sources about the person, so the question turned on recency).
If such a person's most recently expressed identity is unclear (or the person has simultaneously embraced multiple identities), articles should be consistent about pronoun usage and which name is treated as the person's principal name. These determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis.
I use both she and theytweet, their social media profiles listed she/they. At some point after the tweet it was changed to the current order of they/she. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If a person's most recently expressed gender identity is unclear (or the person has simultaneously expressed multiple identities), articles should be internally consistent with regards to the name that is treated as the person's principal name and the pronouns that are used to refer to them. These determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Complex and ambiguous cases should be treated on a case by case basis, but articles should be internally consistent as to a person's principal name and pronouns." I'd like to see what others have to say about this, but I don't have a problem with it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
complex or ambiguous case. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
While the above section seems to chiefly concern the persons with, borrowing language from Actualcpscm, "complementary preferences" regarding their names, I think Maddy also brought up a semi-distinct issue that can be addressed fairly easily. I suggest we remove "gender" from the phrase "gender self-identification" in paragraph one. I made that edit here, but it was reverted with a "get consensus first" message. I haven't seen anyone oppose, but I figured this separation will give them an opportunity to do so.
The paragraph in question already applies only to those "whose gender might be questioned" (though that could maybe be better phrased). Because "names" was added per the rfc, there was a possibility of some ambiguity: If a trans man originally had a masculine name (but still changed it), should we principally refer to him by his birth name, since that would be consistent with his most recent expressed "gender self-identification"? ... I think almost everyone here would say "no": Given the RFC's thematic focus on deadnaming (and the fact that such a person's birth name would still be a deadname), I think that's the most reasonable understanding of the community's position. Removing "gender" addresses the issue.
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 as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The current policy is to use they/them when someone uses neopronouns, which is very confusing because one of the main reasons people have to use neopronouns is that they want a gender neutral pronoun but are uncomfortable being called they/them. I think the policy should be to use whatever pronouns are requested, with the exception of satire. Example of satire: when Michelle Malkin said her pronouns are "u/s/a". Afroswordguy ( talk) 09:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
closed word class— what an utter "phantasy".
Extended content
|
---|
NYT doesn't routinely (or even at all so far as I've seen, and I've been looking for some time) actually use neopronouns; they just happened to have published an opinion piece about them
[28] (and publishing articles about stuff, whether the publisher agrees with it or not, is kind of what newspapers exist for). Fox News (of course) attacked them for it.
[29] NYT strategy has been to avoid using pronouns at all in cases of subjects who use neopronouns (and the publication was predictably attacked for it by activists
[30]). Time actually did use neopronouns in one piece (can't find any evidence of later ones) and caught criticism for it, which was reported on by Daily Mail
[31] (which says "a co-founder of Wikipedia" was among the critics, which I would guess refers to Larry Sanger since it sounds out-of-character for Jimbo). Irish Times published something similar
[32]; I've not run into any major reaction material about it (which kind of surprises me due to Ireland's majority Catholicism). NBC News published some more straightforward reporting on neopronouns and they
[33] (and notably used techniques like repeating the surname, and using they, rather than actually using the neopronouns in the publication's own voice). Other mainstream newspapers have published what amount to counter-essays (e.g.
[34],
[35] (pushback from a civil liberties expert), and this one
[36] which indicates push-back within the LGBTQIA+ community itself (though this one is a regional not national paper). A more neutral piece
[37] from a regional NBC News affilliate covers the long history of neopronouns, which go back further than people think; the take-away from this is that attempts to institute them since the 19th century have failed. It notably also shows that even close family members of TG/NB people have lasting trouble with pronoun changes. BuzzFeed News does not use neopronouns
[38], and quotes
AP Stylebook as the "authority" for why: "[Do] not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and are unrecognizable as words to general audiences." That is certainly the main WP concern. (I don't own the current edition
[39], so I don't know if AP has changed on this in the interim.) Speaking of AP, their newswire article
here addresses neopronouns without recommending them and says "They are not widely used and are unfamiliar to many people, but they do offer the benefit of grammatical clarity" versus singular-they (but WP editors already have years of practice at using they without producing confusing constructions, so we don't care about that last point, which from a linguistic perspective is extremely dubious to begin with, since there is no basis for interpreting the function or nature of a word that is not recognized as a word!). It also notes that GLAAD and NLGJA both recommend to "use the pronouns that people request" (i.e. probably including neopronouns); this is telling: both are activistic organizations, and AP is defying them, despite otherwise being often over-eager to adopt "progressive" language-reform ideas. This was published after the current edition of AP Stylebook so it probably has not changed on this matter (next edition comes out in 2025 or maybe late 2024). All that said, dredging up competing examples of "what some newspaper or news style guide is doing" is rarely actually useful to do in MoS discussions, because MoS is not based on news style, as a matter of policy (
WP:NOT#NEWS, "Wikipedia is not written in
news style"). However, exploring this at least demonstrates a few things: mainstream journalism is not broadly jumping on the neopronoun bandwagon, beyond just observing it as a phenomenon, and brief forays into that territory tend to result in controversy (which most news publishers that are not far-right or far-left try strenuously to avoid).On Harvard University: What I'm finding is a short backgrounder
[40] on pronouns including neopronouns, which they tellingly refer to as "personal gender pronouns" (i.e., it is a matter of
idiolect as I've said elsewhere); but the page's purpose is simply "a reference that provides basic working definitions to facilitate shared discussions"; it is not a policy that Harvard is officially going to write with neopronouns or make students use them. The links on that page that go to other Harvard resources don't help your case; they don't advise neopronouns. The one
here says "Commonly used pronouns include: she/her/hers, he/him/his, they/them/theirs" without any mention of neopronouns. Other links there just go to external organizations, most of them activistic about the question. Harvard's workplace inclusivity policy
[41] has a section on pronouns, but it does not address neopronouns. Their "Gender Identity and Pronouns" page
[42] makes no mention of neopronouns. Their Office for Gender Equity surprisingly has no hits for the word "pronouns" other than staff bios' declarations of particular indiviudals' preferred pronouns
[43]. Their "Equity, Diversity, Access, Inclusion, and Belonging" pamphlet
[44] mentions a couple of neopronouns, but says nothing that can be interpreted as a policy to use them by the university or to enforce their use by students or faculty. Their Employee Resource Groups subsite, which includes the Harvard LGBTQ+ Faculty and Staff (Queer Employee Resource Group), has no hits for "pronouns" or "pronoun" at all
[45]. Their "Creating Gender Inclusive Learning Environments for Transgender and Nonbinary Student" presentation
[46] mentions they several times, and mentions the existence of neopronouns without advising anytihng about them (and includes phrasing I think some people here would object to: "non-binary genders (e.g. so-called xenogenders, which do occur albeit infrequently, or neopronouns)". A page on "Creating an inclusive environment for transgender and gender-nonbinary teens" never mentions pronouns
[47]. After pretty exhaustive searching, I can find no evidence at all to suggest that Harvard is some bastion of neopronous usage. And as with news style, WP isn't based on some particular academic institution's style anyway, and MoS was not written from any of their style guides (notwithstanding that Chicago Manual of Style is published by the U. of Chicago; it's a style guide for public use, not an internal university style guide).
|
a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anywaystrikes me as unnecessarily pointed and derisive. XAM2175 (T) 17:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway" is derisive. We don't need drawn out versions of calling people snowflakes. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Things might be different if English adopted a set of near-univerally understood additional pronouns, but this clearly is not going to happen, and even if it did, a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway.I suggest that this could be read as you passing judgment on trans and NB people in bulk, because their gleefully coining yet more pronouns would frustrate a resolution to the issue that you believe would otherwise be satisfactory. In such a reading, the actual meaning you've subsequently given –
that people enjoy and take pride in their self-identification and activism activities– is entirely absent; replaced by something that can be read as far more derogatory, more of a cheap drive-by shot at a group of which it could appear that you disapprove.I note with some disappointment that your response to this suggestion appears to echo that which on a previous occasion lead to no small amount of contention within the community and resulted in your publishing this lengthy explanatory essay, in which – amongst a certain number of polemical points on the same lines as your responses above – you do ultimately acknowledge that you failed to consider that your audience might not interpret your writing and understand your meaning and intent as you yourself did.I would further note that @ Locke Cole also appears to have interpreted your original post as being negative in nature, as EvergreenFir and myself did. The major difference, however, is that he appears to believe that the negativity is not only defensible but perhaps even appropriate, and at the very least good enough to act as a COATRACK for his feelings on GENDERID as a whole. That he seems to view such a derisory generalisation as being proportionate in countering what he describes as a
[disruptive] WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalityfrom a handful of
new/recent users hereis somewhat concerning. XAM2175 (T) 21:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
quick, appositive phrase mentioning their pronounsfor neopronouns at their first instance and seems to imply that it's OK to use them. The Canadian Government's language portal recommends use of neopronouns, following the guidance of the individual who uses them, even when unfamiliar.
writers should follow the personal pronoun of individuals they write about, if individuals' pronouns are known, which seems inclusive though it doesn't explicitly mention neopronouns anywhere. I don't have access to the current edition of the APA Publication Manual, however a supplementary entry on their website endorses use of singular they because
it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender.
Extended content
|
---|
5.48 says singular they is common but informal and is "only lately showing signs of gaining acceptance in formal writing", but: "When referring specifically to a person who does not identify with a gender-specific pronoun, however, they and its forms are often preferred." Also "In general, a person's stated preference for a specific pronoun should be respected." The section mentions the existence of "gender-neutral" (specifically) neopronouns, without naming any of them, but does not advise for or against them. (That is rather odd, honestly, until one finds a condemnation in a later section, but then it gets weirder, with what reads like an "un-condemnation" a section later). Section 5.255 ("Techniques for achieving gender neutrality") is even longer that 5.48. In summary it advises (as mutual alternatives): omit the pronoun; repeat the noun; use a plural antecedent to eliminate the need for a singular pronoun; use an article instead of a pronoun; use one; use relative pronoun who[m]; use imperative mood ("A lifeguard must keep a close watch ..." – not applicable to WP per
WP:NOT#ADVICE); use the phrase he or she "in moderation"; revise the sentence to avoid personal pronouns entirely. Oddly, it never mentions repeating the name (usually surname), a technique we use frequently. Section 5.256 is also fairly long; advises avoiding it, of course ("with very limited exceptions", acknowledging sotto voce that a very small number of TG/NB people prefer the term); says to avoid clumsy constructions like (s)he and (wo)man; says to avoid neopronouns: "Clumsy artifices like ... genderless pronouns have been tried—for many years—with no success. They won't succeed. And those who use them invite credibility problems." Also says anybody and someone often don't work; reiterates that they/their have become common in informal usage but are not fully accepted yet [2016] in formal writing, especially for cases where the gender is unknown (rewrite instead), but here actually advises its use for subjects who explicitly identify with they/them. This passage can also be read as directly contradicting 5.255 in advising again that "such preference should generally be respected", right after mentioning both declared singular-they yet also "or some other gender-neutral singular pronoun". It'll be interesting to see if they resolve this direct conflict of advice in the next edition (but I would not hold your breath; there are outright factual errors in CMoS that have persisted since at least the 12th edition!).If MLA doesn't address neopronouns, then it doesn't. There can hardly be any issue in English usage that is more fraught with debate than this question; to a large proportion of English-speakers, neopronouns don't actually constitute pronouns or English at all. So, if MLA was meant to include neopronouns, it rather obviously would have been explicit about it.The UAlberta thing is not a university style guide, it's a "Community" section blog post by one of their librarians, and is clearly activistic in intent, as is clear from its introduction. And it mischaracterizes the Chicago position, so I don't trust it on the MLA or APA material either without reading them in detail myself. It says "it is always appropriate to use any pronouns for an individual when it is known" [sic] and "This can include common pronouns, as well as newer pronouns (also known as neopronouns)." But we already know Chicago is self-contradictory on the matter and that MLA doesn't address neo-pronouns at all. Of ALA, this piece says that guide says to use they "when referring to someone whose gender is unknown", which is not an endorsement of neoprouns. So, this is clearly not a reliable source on usage, for several reasons; if this person were writing such material at Wikipedia, we would revert their changes as original research that badly distorts the source material.The UIndiana piece is another student-librarian opinion piece, not a university style guide. While it does not appear to directly mischaracterize the advice in major style guides, it leaps to examples of using neopronouns as if they had been recommended by the cited sources, which they were not (and just gives two of them, implying they in particular have wide acceptance, which is not true). It correctly [as far as I know – I don't own the current APA] summarized that Chicago, MLA, and APA admit of sigular-they when gender is unknown, and even gets right that MLA and Chicago both consider it "informal". Anyway, like the other library post, this one is clearly not even intended as a style guide but is a summary (reasonaly accurate in this case but not the other) of other style guides we already consult, so not evidentiary of anything.The USYD material is an actual style guide, not for an entire institution but for "library-created content". It's an in-house booklet. It is also activistic, in aligning with the notion that not using neopronouns is "misgendering", an idea that the community at Wikipedia has clearly not accepted, and which isn't reflected in widespread and growing use of singular-they as a neopronoun replacement across English-language writing. It relies heavily on a UNC-Greensboro piece
[48] of uncertain authority at that institution, which is advocacy material of specific (Spivak, etc). neopronouns among the student body. I don't think it's informative for this debate, as it doesn't reflect anything like a broad cultural consensus but is trying to engineer changed local behavior.
|
"Clumsy artifices like ... genderless pronouns have been tried—for many years—with no success. They won't succeed. And those who use them invite credibility problems."I find it kinda shocking that such a strong genuinely activistic statement bordering on ridicule is in this styleguide. It's one thing to say something like "genderless pronouns are unfamiliar to most and should not be used in academic writing", but to say that any attempt at using them won't succeed is very gatekeepery, and to say that any
who use them invite credibility problemsis the sort of statement that would bring a style guide into disrepute.
Are you fatigued of talking about MOS:GENDERID? Here is a proposal to rewrite the section, which has languished into a poorly worded, somewhat illogical, and confusing mess. It needs to be clearly aligned with policies, reorganized for clarity, and address the various concerns about a social issue that is central to culture war in the west without pissing off everyone. This reorganization will honestly reduce the churning of numerous RFCs and endless debate. I know this because the ONLY reason I'm here is I glanced at it one day and was surprised at how far it deviated from standard policy, so decided to stick around and work on it. If it is reasonably worded and addresses the concerns of most trans-activists, I think it will stop attracting people to change it.
I appreciate
BilledMammal's and
Loki's attempts above, but I took the wording from BLP of multiple reliable third-party sources
because multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person
uses "high quality", and it's not well defined on Wikipedia.
On the question of academics and changing names of older publications, I would guess that such a thorough attempt to expunge the former name would make it drop below the threshold of inclusion. And, well, WP:KISS.
Proposed MOS:GID section
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, information that could reveal a gender transition should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should always err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person.
In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used. |
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence.should be clarified: if a name is mentioned in an infobox and/or in an article lead, it should also be mentioned in the body of the article. Additionally, pre-transition names are often included in the leads, to help with readers who may have only heard of a person pre-transition, to avoid confusion (e.g. at Chelsea Manning). This is a relatively minor concern, though, so I would still support this over the status quo. Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
|
In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion.— I think I get what you're going for, but this is hard to parse.
"former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value.
It was written, it feels, based on a very stereotyped understanding of trans-ness (viz., all trans people are binary and want their one true gender affirmed by having their pre-transition life discussed as little as possible) at a time when trans people were far less visible than they are now. However, I have some pretty large reservations about what has been proposed here that lead me towards opposing this as currently written. Going through this a paragraph at a time:
Any information related to the prior gender of a personmean? A plain reading of the sentence seems to imply that where a person was not notable prior to transitioning, but for whom being trans or non-binary is a large and relevant part of their personal identity, we would be unable to say that they are trans or non-binary in our articles about them. This seems to take the scope of the scope of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the current text of the guideline, and apply it to all aspects of a trans or non-binary person's gender identity, and not just their former name. I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, because otherwise this seems like it could be used for gender identity erasure of trans and non-binary individuals.
clearly expressed their consent to share the informationeven look like in a reliable source? Are there any articles you have in mind where this exemption that wouldn't currently be met by the current text of the guideline? Is there any evidence that you can point to that would suggest this is a more respectful way to handle
information that could reveal a gender transition should not be usedas I do for the second paragraph. What exactly does this mean? A plain reading of this would mean that for any individual who does not meet one of the four exemptions, we cannot mention in their article that they are trans or non-binary. As before, I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, because it again seems like it could be used for gender identity erasure of trans and non-binary individuals.
Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote.is a narrowing of the current guideline? It removes the current exemption where if a person prefers their former name to be used for past events, we can currently use it. I also agree with Tamzin that the
respectful extra mentionsis hard to parse, and could do with a re-write.
When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition.should be removed. Tamzin has succinctly covered why it is unnecessary and unwise. The example for this paragraph is fine, as it's taken directly from the current text.
When looking at just the current examples in GENDERID, this means that we would now be allowed to include the former names of Rachel Levine and Laverne Cox., there is a good case to be made for including the former name of Rachel Levine. We don't need to shoot down any change just because it's a departure from the status quo or past consensus; that does not make any sense.
Disagreeing with the changes because they're a departure from the current guideline isn't really a strong position to take?It is when the current guideline was formed through a series of strong consensus discussions based on exact wordings (typically RfCs, see MOS:GIDINFO). A proposal to streamline the existing guidance, without changing the scope of it is far more likely to get handwaved through a discussion like this. However a proposal that is fundamentally changing parts of the scope of the guidance, especially in a way that it would alter some rather long standing consensuses, is I'm afraid going to be a lot more contentious. To try and do both a streamline and change of scope at the same time seems foolhardy, given how slow the community as a whole likes to take when updating policies and guidelines in general.
anyone who is publicly trans or non-binary would pretty clearly fall under exemption twoWould they? The exemption states
clearly expressed their consent to share the information, which in my experience is actually quite rare in a reliable source. Often you'll see a sentence like "X is trans/non-binary/genderqueer", but not with any clear sign that X actually consented for that to be included in the source. Of course there are times when you'll have an interview where X states "I am...", which could be read as a clear sign of consent, but that is not always the case. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
To try and do both a streamline and change of scope at the same time seems foolhardy, given how slow the community as a whole likes to take when updating policies and guidelines in general.If we're gonna change the scope, might as well do a full rewrite to clean things up. Despite all the discussions, it's clear many aren't happy with the status quo, and it has many issues.
Despite all the discussions, it's clear many aren't happy with the status quo, and it has many issuesEhhhh. While I could certainly identify a handful of editors in the two most recent RfCs who are dissatisfied with the scope of the current guideline, those seem to be in a minority. I would hesitate on drawing conclusions on the dissatisfaction of the guideline from the editors who are only contributing here, as it would be a form of selection bias. A talk page like being a natural place for those who are either seeking clarification on how to apply a policy or guideline, or those seeking to change a policy or guideline, to congregate.
"public figure" ... (another very nebulously defined term around here)Yeah, the lack of clarity on how we define a public figure is causing issues in more areas than this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Trying to synthesize the overall general support for Cuñado's rewrite with the critiques I and others have given, my ideal approach would be this, which I feel better separates the policy considerations from the stylistic ones, allows for local consensus where the latter is concerned, and in relatively few words gives broad guidance for non-BLPPRIVACY-related deadname issues that will still prevent gratuitous usage:
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources.
Do not include any information about a living person that would violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. Information about a living person's gender transition (including the fact of the transition itself, any former names [" deadnames"], and medical information) is considered private if the person is a private figure or the information does not appear in high-quality reliable sources, unless the person has voluntarily disclosed this information.
Even when information about a living person is non-private, or when information concerns a deceased person, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Former names are not inherently of encyclopedic value, especially when the person was not notable prior to their transition. Articles must not give undue emphasis to these or other aspects of a transition, erring on the side of exclusion and, where information is included, avoiding unnecessary repetition. Sources that mention such information in passing, or purely for sensationalist reasons, should be given little weight.
When mentioning a transgender or nonbinary person in a context prior to their transition, use their current name, unless they have a preference otherwise; on articles other than their biography, their previous name can be given parenthetically or in a footnote if necessary to avoid confusion. Citations should generally not be modified, but the person's current name may be given in a note or via piped link. However, in no case should an article link a person to a pre-transition identity if that connection constitutes private information.
If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering.
- Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.
Obviously this would require consensus at WT:BLP too, but first I'd like to get a sense for if this is something people here would support. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 18:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
However, in no case should an article link a person to a pre-transition identity if that connection constitutes private information.I'd like if we could link or mention outing here, as that better explains the severity behind this requirement.
Responding to several comments above:
pre-transition names are often included in the leads, to help with readers who may have only heard of a person pre-transition, to avoid confusion- There was an oft-repeated concern in the last two RFCs that inclusion of a former name ends up with it in the first sentence with an elevated prominence. Not requiring it in the first sentence is an important part of the compromises going on. It's actual placement is up to editorial consensus, and this draft just says that it doesn't have to be in the first sentence.
The point is not to conceal that someone has transitioned at all, the point is to conceal a piece of information that could be wielded by malicious actors.- There is certainly a contingent of people who have transitioned and don't want it known that they are transgender. They want to pass as the new gender. For those cases, the fact of transition is a private matter that they don't want pointed out publicly, so we should maintain a higher bar for inclusion, just like the former differently-gendered name.
I would like to see a note to the effect of "Sometimes some information about a person's transition will be public, while other information will be private."- Added below.
generally reliable sources have been known to include details' of people's transitions for reasons of sensationalism- Added note below.
respectful extra mentions...- Deleted below.
In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names.- I changed "under a pre-transition name should use" to "under a pre-transition name may use". I think that wording fits with this being the MOS and offering style ideas. The alternative was to make it more wordy and maybe overprescriptive.
some difficulty in hiding the information- Deleted below.
The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph should be made last overall- Moved below.
public figure exemption- I think the claim of 'public figure' being undefined is bogus. BLP has a section on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and there is the BLP-attached essay WP:Who is a low-profile individual that has a long list of examples and definitions of "high-profile" individuals. A public figure is someone who: has a multitude of reliable published sources, actively seeks out media attention, has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable media company, is self-promotional... there are more descriptions on that page.
I don't quite understand exemption 4- This does two things: it says that the lingering privacy concerns described at WP:BDP should default to the maximum of two years in the case of GENDERID, and it raises the bar for inclusion to the same as living public figures (multiple reliable secondary sources). If a notable transgender person has a biography but doesn't meet any exceptions, their page doesn't mention their former name. Two years after they die, the bar for inclusion is higher than normal facts about their life. The last two RFCs failed to gain support partly because they lacked a coherent argument based on policy and failed to address why the information is excluded and how WP:BDP relates to the question.
guidance about people whose notablity is due to pre AND post transition- if that means people whose notability post-transition is not enough to pass GNG but pass with coverage pre- and post-? I think that would mean they were not notable prior to transition and is covered.
The second paragraph I find objectionable... I hope I'm reading this incorrectly- Clearly this is not an attempt at "gender identity erasure".
I have some pretty large reservations about what has been proposed here that lead me towards opposing this as currently written.- I also disagree with parts of the proposed re-write, but I compromised and drafted something that will satisfy the most amount of people. If there is not consensus for the draft, I'll take it to RFC, where I'm pretty confident it will pass.
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #2
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, information that could reveal a gender transition should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [a] When the individual meets one of the exceptions, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should always err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Sometimes, some information about a person's transition will be public, while other information will be private. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the claim of 'public figure' being undefined is bogusThe exact definition of public figure is taking up much editorial discussion over at WT:BLP right now, in relation to the scope of WP:BLPCRIME. A lot of editors are using a particularly expansive definition of it that doesn't entirely mesh with how reliable sources would define the term.
The last two RFCs failed to gain support partly because they lacked a coherent argument based on policy and failed to address why the information is excluded and how WP:BDP relates to the questionThat doesn't match with the discussions in the most recent RfC. Only four editors, including both you and I, even mentioned BDP. The primary opposition to the proposal, as noted in the closure, was that the barrier for inclusion was set too high. Even in the RfC before that, only 5 editors mentioned BDP, and only two did so in order to oppose a change from the then current lack of guidance. The other three editors who mentioned it supported removing the word "living" from the current text of GENDERID. SMcCandlish's suggestion above that we should be analysing in detail the most recent RfC to figure out roughly where the consensus lies, so that we're not repeating the same discussion and going off on a different tangent altogether, is a good one, and even a quick analysis of it would suggest that a BDP based exclusion criteria is a non-starter.
If there is not consensus for the draft, I'll take it to RFC, where I'm pretty confident it will pass.That would be inadvisable when we have another draft that is being worked on concurrently. It would also be inadvisable given SMcCandlish's advice on in depth analysis of the most recent RfC to try and figure out roughly where the consensus lies. I'm pretty confident that this proposal would not pass at this time, because the community's consensus is elsewhere. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Public figureI think you're really stretching for a criticism when this explains it and the phrasing is already used in BLP.
That would be inadvisable when we have another draft that is being worked on concurrently.that's not feedback on my proposal.
SMcCandlish's adviceyes, they gave me good feedback that I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate. I thought the desire of maintaining the dignity of trans people would include allowing a living (or recently deceased) person the presumption of wanting details of their transition kept private unless they share it themselves. You interpreted my draft as "gender identity erasure", which was a surprise. If this is really about the deadname, then the exceptions could apply to deadname only. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This proposal shifts us to a more common-sense-based approach that acknowledges the importance of subjects' dignity and not giving undue weight. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Made a few changes based on conversation above, including:
Mainly it was shortened, and reduced in scope to focus on the former name and not other details of gender transition. Feedback is most welcome.
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #3
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, [a] with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [b] When the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words...to
Refer to any person with the name and gendered words...without much of an issue here. A person doesn't need to be trans or non-binary to need or want to say "Hi my name is X and my pronouns are Y/Z".
A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname)...would read better as
The former name (deadname) of a transgender or non-binary person.... I don't like the weakening though of making it just a privacy interest, as the current version of the guideline states that it's a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name. Is there a reason for this change?
multiple high quality reliable sourcesand some extra wording that takes into sensationalism (it's late and I can't wordsmith that right now). There's all manner of marginally reliable sources that include sentences like "Jane Doe was born John Doe", and the sheer volume of those sources alone shouldn't be an inclusion criteria when high quality sources do not do this. I know there's a footnote B somewhat along those lines, but in context it looks like footnote B only applies to individuals who don't meet the 4 exemptions you're proposing.
Refer to any person with the name and gendered words...I have to disagree on this one. I only proposed changing "questioned" (current) to "unclear" because of a comment about the current wording sounding strange. Most people (like 99%) do not state their preferred names and pronouns and there is no ambiguity on their gender, so it makes more sense to start the section saying, in the least offensive way possible, that this is for those whose gender is unclear or out of the ordinary.
a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name- I don't know what this means. There is no privacy concern about a person's current name.
the public figure exemption needs to be stronger- I thought about this for awhile and reviewed several policies. The same wording could be used for this and the deceased example. There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources. The closest you get is WP:RS referencing "high-quality mainstream publications", but I don't think that would work here because it is contrasting those to scholarly sources. Keep in mind my draft phrasing of "multiple reliable sources" is directly from BLP, and the MOS should not be making policy. The best I could come up with from policy is to say "multiple reliable, neutral sources". Neutral is well described in policy and allows the exclusion of low-quality, opinionated, or questionable sources. I think that gets to the spirit of excluding sensational reliable sources.
the BDP issue- this is a change that I think needs to go to RFC. We won't agree on this talk page.
Most people (like 99%) do not state their preferred names and pronouns and there is no ambiguity on their genderHard disagree. One of the first things that is said when you are introduced to someone you have never met (either by yourself or a third party) is your name. In modern contexts, this often also includes your pronouns, if they're not inferrable from words said during the introduction, for example
Have you met Jane Doe yet? They're/She's new here and working on X project. And lets not even touch on how many people include their pronouns in their email footers and social media bios.
There is no privacy concern about a person's current name.Yes there is. WP:BLPNAME covers the most common privacy concerns over names. As for the rest, consider it as two complementary clauses;
a privacy interest separate from their current nameand
a privacy interest greater than their current name. The first clause is easy, you simply evaluate the privacy concerns separately from their current name. The second clause likewise is pretty straightforward, when evaluating the privacy concerns, you need to do so at a level beyond that at which we would normally include a person's name.
The same wording could be used for this and the deceased example.Maybe, if written correctly.
There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources.Huh, I could have sworn WP:HQRS redirected to a specific section of WP:RS that defined it. That aside, from looking elsewhere I'm not sure if the lack of definition is a problem. The text at WP:EXCEPTIONAL states that
any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, though footnote 4 sadly only gives some philosophical reasons for why we require strong evidence. WP:BLP contains multiple mentions throughout to both "high-quality sources" and "high-quality reliable sources", linking to WP:SOURCES. WP:MEDRS likewise contains mentions throughout "high-quality sources" and "high-quality reliable sources" without definition. The closest we seem to get right now is the WP:BESTSOURCES section of WP:NPOV, but even then it mentions "high-quality sources" without defining it. I question then if this lack of definition for the term is a problem that we need to concern ourselves with. Yes it would be exceptionally helpful if it was defined somewhere, but given that core content policies use the term without defining it suggests that such a definition may not be necessary.
The best I could come up with from policy is to say "multiple reliable, neutral sources". Neutral is well described in policy and allows the exclusion of low-quality, opinionated, or questionable sources.It is, but it's also the subject of considerable and frequent debate at an article level. "Is this source baised against/towards [article subject]?" is the sort of question you'll see variations of frequently, especially in contentious topic areas like gender and sexuality,
this is a change that I think needs to go to RFCWhy do we need an RfC to datamine the results of the two most recent RfCs? Why can't we put a pause on the BDP point for now, and just start a separate discussion (either as a subsection or new discussion here, or on a dedicated page) where we can compare notes on those RfCs to find out what people have already said, and from that see if we can distil something that might stand a very strong chance of being accepted? Yes it will take us a little time and effort now, but it will save us a lot of time and effort later, and afford us a fair degree of community good will. Maybe at the end of that process a BDP based clause will be the right option, or maybe it'll be something else that no-one here has yet put forward. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
In modern contexts, this often also includes your pronouns- no, it almost never does. A person's gender is almost always extremely clear from their chosen appearance and that is expected and understood to be sufficient in nearly all social contexts. A standard that would require people to explicitly say "my gender is male and my pronouns are he/him" would send the vast majority of people (and even more historical individuals) into a genderless they/them category, which is far more offensive and misgendering than anything else.
Refer to any person with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources.would result in sending
the vast majority of people...into a genderless they/them category. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this might happen?
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear...- I have to agree with others that the scope of this MOS should be clear in the intro. We're talking about a special case and I think the question here is whether "unclear" is better than "questioned".
There is no privacy concern about a person's current name.- I see what you mean now. The examples are of names who are not the subject of articles. As in, suspects in crimes who don't need to be named, names of family members of a notable person, loosely or uninvolved low-profile persons, etc. I think the current wording ("separate from and greater than a current name") just sounds confusing and doesn't really add anything useful. This is MOS/biography, of course the current name will be mentioned.
There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources.- This was one of the sticking points at the last RFC. I agree with your assessment that it is used enough in policies that it can probably be used here safely, but it will have the same problem that you describe defining what is "neutral". I could support either wording but I lean toward "multiple reliable, neutral sources".
Why do we need an RfC?- There is a high level of fatigue on this subject and the reasons seem to be that a local consensus on this page, where gender-activists are overrepresented, will probably not create something that will win consensus at Village Pump. The last two RFCs had a fairly biased setup and seemed to disregard the magnitude of creating an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED in the MOS, without a tie-in to BLP. I would be thrilled to work out a local consensus for a re-write, but I have been described as "the opposition" and even the most basic good-faith contributions have been blocked at every step. Prove me wrong.
Why can't we put a pause on the BDP point for now?- Think of it another way. The last two RFCs tried to extend the censoring of former names to deceased people indefinitely. There was no consensus, BilledMammal's attempt to work something in got reverted, and the MOS went back to excluding the former names of living trans people, leaving the rest to BLP. BLP allows censorship of reliably-sourced information about living people, but the policy does not apply to people confirmed dead, with the only exception for recently deceased, and allows that protection to gradually fade after death, the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. So given the concern, why would you not support the MOS saying that on this subject, automatically extend to the maximum of two years? Would you rather some cases be six months? Your moonshot to extend it indefinitely failed twice, and anyway, the MOS is not the place to make such a policy.
The last two RFCs tried to extend the censoring of former names to deceased people indefinitely.This sentence is a perfect example of why we need to review the last two RfCs in detail. While it is true that one of the options in the first RfC would have extended the protections (please stop calling this censoring, it's not censoring) afforded to living trans and non-binary individuals indefinitely (specifically, topic 2 option 3), that was not the case for the second RfC. The second RfC laid out a set of inclusion criteria for deceased individuals that was complementary to the existing guidance on living individuals, and in doing so allowed for the former names to be included when either they met the specific test for deceased individuals, or for individuals whose former names we could include when they were alive.
a reasonable summation of how [they] read the consensus. With the benefit of hindsight, I clearly made an error somewhere in that assessment, and that the community's consensus set a barrier for inclusion that wasn't quite as high as what I proposed. However making that error does not negate that making such an analysis is a good and necessary thing.
a local consensus on this pagewould immediately be invalid as any proposal we come up with should first and foremost be based on what was said during the broad consensus discussions. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The examples are of names who are not the subject of articles.Not quite. See WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, both of which advise us to avoid creating a biography on an individual who is only notable in the context of a single event. It's also inaccurate to say that this is only for criminal suspects. It also covers individuals whose notability is connected to any other controversial or non-controversial event.
Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the name- how about "Individuals who have shared the name publicly" or something along those lines? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
At no point will an article be written based upon what the subject consents for us to write about them.Actually the BLP policy already provides several clauses where an article subject can request the removal of information, which would include non-consensual publishing by reliable sources.
If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.WP:BLPNAME urges caution for article subjects who are discussed primarily in connection with a single event, along with a strong presumption in favour of privacy for the family members of article subjects. WP:BIOSELF states that if an article subject finds that an article contains personal information or potentially libellous statements, they should contact the oversight team so that it can be evaluated and suppressed as appropriate. And yes, per the Foundation's website content that is reliably sourced can still be libellous, especially when it is subject to link rot, and we can be compelled to remove it. And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE provides for non-public figure article subjects to request deletion of articles about them. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Individuals who have made the name public and not expressed a desire to conceal it.or
Individuals who have made the name public post-transition. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
human dignity and respect for personal privacyare both reasons for the policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the nameto
Individuals who have made the name public post-transition. The wording here could still be improved, but shouldn't be over-prescriptive.
where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the nameto
where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the namein #3 and #4. I could be convinced that "high-quality" could go here instead of "neutral", but I think this will get the most agreement from the wider community. "Neutral" focuses on excluding low-quality sources and is better defined.
If local consensus is in agreement, I think this change is ready to go on the MOS.
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #4
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, [a] with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [b] When the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Deceased individuals, where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name. Editors shouldn't have to wait at least two years to include a notable former name of a recently deceased individual. That just seems like delaying the inclusion of encyclopedic information for the sake of delaying. Some1 ( talk) 23:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. If we say "Deceased individuals, where..." then it would become a range of time case-by-case based on consensus. The suggetion here is to default to the maximum privacy range of two years in the special case of former transgender names, so it isn't re-hashed on every page. With that background, do you still think it should change? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
default[ing] to the maximum privacy range of two years. Personally, I don't think a re-write is needed; MOS:GENDERID as it presently stands is fine as is. Adding a sentence about living transgender and non-binary people who are open about their former names/who have made the name public post-transition would be a nice addition to the MOS though. Some1 ( talk) 00:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Refer to any person who is transgender or non-binary, or whose gender might be unclear...Otherwise, the implication is that all trans/nb individuals have an unclear gender, which I don't think is the intention.
became a parenthas always annoyed me, as it feels very awkward. I suggest
had a childas the more natural recommended text.-- Trystan ( talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Sean Connery fathered a childor
Sean Connery became a parent, but it could well say
Sean Connery had one son, without any implication of him giving birth.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Edit - I changed the fourth exception in the proposal to Deceased individuals, where...
. I think it was actually in the interests of people trying to exclude former names, but it was perceived as the opposite. Now the privacy provided to living individuals extending after death would range from 2 months to 2 years depending on the case and consensus.
Cuñado ☼ -
Talk 15:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Some of the discussion on the previous drafts appears to be going in circles. Repeated objections to the third and fourth points have not been reflected in previous drafts. So, I've written my own draft with some of the changes that have been repeatedly proposed, as well as fixing some other weaknesses I noticed in previous drafts:
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #5
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, [a] with the exception of:
When the individual was notable prior to transition, the former name of a transgender or non-binary person should be included somewhere in the lead of their article to avoid confusion from readers who are unaware of the individual's transition. Usually it should be included in the first sentence, but in some cases where the risk of confusion is low, it may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article, to avoid giving it undue prominence. After this one time, it should not be mentioned again. When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated, or a deceased individual's name has been included in multiple reliable sources, it can be mentioned in the same situations that any other name could be. However, be aware that former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value, and therefore the name still should only be included if there is a compelling reason to do so. Do not give the former name undue weight or overemphasis. If the appropriate weight is ambiguous, lean on the side of mentioning it as infrequently as possible, up to and including not mentioning it at all. In either case where an exception applies, articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnotes. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [c] Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Specifically, I've:
Loki ( talk) 05:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In the case of public figures... BLPs should simply document what these sources say,
there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures, and
names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. Without BLP, we would always include former names if properly sourced. Because of BLP, we require a higher bar for inclusion. The justification for removing the former name is for personal privacy, and we can't use the MOS to create a more restrictive policy. An elected official is a public figure, and if they have a former name that is documented in numerous reliable and neutral sources, it should be on Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you have an example?Consider pretty much any actor who retires. During their career, when they are appearing in film or television frequently, or press junkets promoting their latest production, they are unquestionably public figures. But after they retire, unless they stay otherwise active in public life by transitioning to another role, they stop being public figures. Sure you might hear from them once every so often, typically when one of their well loved productions has an anniversary, sequel, or reboot, but are they still a public figure when they're living quietly at home?
have been widely published by reliable sources, not former names (and this guidance isn't specific to public figures either). There's no instruction about former names other than the instruction for miscellaneous personal info (which is to say, it should be removed). Loki ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
exercised some editorial judgement, however slightactually mean in practice? How do you define a source that has exercised editorial judgement? Is this something as general as the source publication having an editorial policy and team, or is it something else entirely? Do you have any examples of this in practice so we could see what it looks like?
When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated. I'm concerned that this doesn't properly differentiate between someone who acknowledged their former name once or twice when first coming out, and someone who later distanced themselves or otherwise refused to acknowledge their former name. Would this not lead to the inclusion of deadnames that we currently exclude because they were not notable under that name, like for example Nicole Maines (see this November 2020 RfC for why we currently exclude the name)? Or are we seriously considering consent for dissemination a one-and-done thing that cannot be revoked at a later date?
articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name.... Is that not softer than the current guideline? The current guideline text is a lot more definitive, use their current name unless they prefer to be credited under their former name for past events. The implication that I get from the text in the proposal is that using their current name is optional in all cases, whereas the current text is optional if the person prefers it. To better fit with the current text, I think this would be better phrased as something like
articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnotes, unless they prefer their former name be used for past events(changes in italics). Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated, or a deceased individual's name has been included in multiple reliable sources, it can be mentioned in the same situations that any other name could be. However, former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value, and should not be given undue weight or overemphasis. If the appropriate weight is ambiguous, lean on the side of mentioning the name as infrequently as possible.
After this one time, it should not be mentioned againas it's in clear violation of how leads are supposed to work. There should not be content in the lead that is not also contained in the article body, and this goes for names as well. Elli ( talk | contribs) 01:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
should not be mentioned againis very clearly how the guideline works now, so no, I'm not removing that. You'd need a strong consensus of editors to overturn that. Mentioning the former name only in the lead is how every article about a trans person notable before transition on Wikipedia is currently worded. See for instance Chelsea Manning, whose deadname we mention once in the lead and thereafter only in quotes, or The Wachowskis, whose deadnames are mentioned in the lead and thereafter only in quotes.
is very clearly how the guideline works nowThe current MOS doesn't require that a former name be mentioned once, only in the lead. For example, Caitlyn Jenner and Elliot Page's former names are included in the lead, but also in the Early life section of their respective articles. At least for deceased trans or nonbinary people, there's no consensus for including language about how often a former name can/should be used, see the RfC from two months ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1158982243#Topic_3:_How_often_to_mention_deadnames?_(MOS:GENDERID_3rd_paragraph*) Some1 ( talk) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Should "Rabbi" be used in running text ( here, for example)? Or just the individual's surname, as is the norm? I strongly assume it's the latter and that the recommended action is to remove "Rabbi", just wanted to confirm and check to see if there's been any discussion regarding this already. Mooonswimmer 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly added the following to MOS:DEADNAME:
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing significant coverage of the person.
I understand that some editors will want stricter restrictions than this, and I understand that some editors will want looser restrictions than this. However, I believe the former group will consider this an improvement over the status quo, and I believe the latter group will recognize that if this went to RfC it would get consensus.
Hopefully, this is an acceptable compromise that will allow us to avoid yet another RfC, at least for now. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
central to the notability of the subjectThe issue with that is I'm not certain what it means; at least WP:SIGCOV is somewhat well understood. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I think if anything such guidance should be for everyone if it is good guidance.Personally, I would have no objection to expanding this to all bios; if reliable sources don't consider a name relevant, why should we? BilledMammal ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there precedence including the wording " "high quality" reliable sources"? I mean, reliable sources are reliable or not.My understanding of their comment was that it was focused on a different aspect of the paragraph than what your comment was focused on; if I misunderstood their comment I apologize, but I am certainly not moving any goalposts. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
David Eppstein has now
reverted, saying Some restriction like this may be appropriate but pushing your SIGCOV-fetish into MOS goes too far
.
To try to address this, I've changed the wording to:
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
This still requires that the source contains more than a passing mention, but it omits the reference to SIGCOV that David found so objectionable. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
much of their academic publication record happens to be under their deadname, our guidance already licenses mentioning the deadname because the individual's notability is unlikely to be derived wholly from post-transition publication. In most NPROF evaluations, notability is far more a cumulative measure than what we use in any other guideline; in my opinion, if someone could not have established an NPROF pass without pre-transition publications, the deadname is DUE even if they wouldn't have met notability criteria before adopting their new name. But if their publication record was strong enough to pass NPROF post-transition and it was too weak to pass pre-transition, then exclusion of the name may be warranted according to the RfC close. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person, or if the person published multiple reviewed works under the name.
multiple reviewed worksis the correct line to draw, but we can work on that; would anyone object to the general principle? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
much of their academic publication record happens to be under their deadnameSo this is an interesting point. Many academic journals, such as everything published by Springer Nature, SAGE, Elsevier, Wiley, PLOS.one, now allow for names to be changed on previously published works without any corrections note being added to the paper. This is in line with the current COPE ethics guidance on name changes, which states that correction notices for name changes
are not appropriate in all circumstances however, particularly in the case of transgender, non-binary, and/or gender diverse (hereafter shortened to “trans”) authors because of the potential trauma caused by the continued circulation of their previous names and the risks to which disclosure of their gender identity subjects them.
If such a person happens to be transgender (I know of multiple notable examples, not all of whom say anything about that in the article) are we to be entirely forbidden from mentioning it?I would ask back, how are we going to verify the name change through an academic's publication record if their publication record for the duration of their career only contains papers published in their current name, even for works published years or decades prior to changing it? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
high-quality reliable secondary sources containing non-trivial coverageof Jessie .
Those citations are in other works that are not going to retroactively cite the same publication under a different author nameThat's not entirely true. If you check the policies I linked all of them cascade changes through DOI metadata to update citations in the works of other authors. Now if you're looking only at a print or PDF copy of the journal or paper, that was printed or generated at the time the paper was originally published or at any point prior to the name change, then that copy will obviously contain a citation to the person's former name. However if you're looking at the same journal or paper, either through the journal's website, or a PDF copy that is generated after the name change, then the citation in the paper will contain the new name only. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under their former name or if their former name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
their birth or former name should be included in the lead sentence(emphasis mine to highlight objectionable point) is too strong, in that it mandates inclusion if the criteria is met. The May/June RfC closed with a consensus 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.and
the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used.
may be included, as this would still provide guidance for what the inclusion criteria is without mandating inclusion if that criteria is met. I realise this is different than what I suggested for the just closed June/July RfC, however for that version I felt as though the inclusion criteria was high enough on their own that they would cover this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
should be included, it's
should be included ... only if. Or to rephrase,
should only be included if.
May be includedfeels very much too weak to me. By the rejection of the "never" option in the previous RFC, we've already agreed that there are some cases where we should include a previous name. And if we're going to have those cases, I want to know what they are rather than having to argue about it every time. WP:IAR is still a thing for really extraordinary cases but I don't want to have significant ambiguity about the typical case. Loki ( talk) 15:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
should be included...only if [the conditions are met]. In other words, we are mandating inclusion when condition is true. In programming language that is
if (A == true || B == true) { /* include name /*} else { /* exclude name */ }
. Even if we move the only earlier in the sentence, we are still mandating inclusion by saying should only be included if [conditions are met], because the emphasis is on the should and the conditions. It does not allow for a local consensus to form for exclusion of the name, if the conditions are otherwise met, short of invoking WP:IAR.
may be included...only if [the conditions are met]we're not mandating inclusion. We're still providing the same set of positive inclusion criteria for when a previous name could be included, while also leaving it open within the letter of the guideline for local consensus to form around exclusion of the name should that be felt necessary based on the circumstances specific to each article. The only significant change is that we stop just short of mandating inclusion. In my mind, that isn't weaker, because the same criteria for inclusion must be met before a name can be included. It just allows for a little more editorial judgement on whether or not inclusion of the former name would or would not improve the article. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
should be included in the lead sentence
IMO, notable deadnames of deceased trans people should be included in the lead, but non-notable deadnames of deceased trans people should be in the Early life section (if they have one).
Some1 (
talk) 18:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
if the name is documented in multiple high-quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the personthen it
should be included in the lead sentence. Any former names of deceased transgender or non-binary persons' that don't meet that criteria can still be included in the article, just not in the lead. That's my interpretation of that one sentence anyway. Some1 ( talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
SnowRise has now
reverted this, saying I'm sorry BM, but 1) this is substantially the same language advanced at the recent
WP:VPR discussion, with massive community input, that failed to gain consensus. And 2) GENDERID is about the last MoS section where
WP:BOLD is well-advised, especially in these circumstances. Please wait a while and attempt another go at consensus if you wish, but this feels like an effort to back-door in non-consensus language, and feels borderline TE, IIAH.
borderline TE, I note that I strongly opposed the VPR proposal, on many grounds. I don't believe any of those grounds apply to this proposal. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Now I believe BM was acting in good faith in doing so, but it was a questionable call, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, when that edit was reverted, they should have come here to discuss. Instead they chose to edit war an (again, substantially similar) version into the policy/style guidance. That is out of process, so I reverted it.
"I really don't like all these WP:ASPERSIONS, and I think if your only argument is that we're reverting you and you don't like it, that means you have no actual argument for excluding that content."
"I was nowhere near 3RR (I haven't edited this page at all in over 24 hours..."
"...and I reverted you to restore text that was status quo and had consensus."
"The basic fact of the situation is that we have an RFC with a very strong consensus for language like this."
"We don't currently have an RFC with consensus on specific wording, but there's no reason to think we'd need that: consensus on the talk page should be all that's necessary."
"So reverting it was inappropriate: if you object to it, you need to come in and discuss.
Yeah, and then you had a more recent and even larger RfC which found no consensus for language even more precisely similar to the language you are edit warring to include here.The proposed wording here changes the requirement from a deadname itself receiving multiple pieces of SIGCOV to the deadname being mentioned in multiple pieces of SIGCOV. Most opposes were specifically opposing the former wording rather than opposing the whole idea of restrictions on deadnaming dead transpeople (which had already received consensus in the earlier RfC where deadnames in this context were deemed to be "not inherently encyclopedic" and "must be avoided to some undetermined extent"). JoelleJay ( talk) 06:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
based on my analysis of the previous RfC and the support expressed for this option among those who opposed that proposalThis is the first time you've alluded to having done an analysis of the previous RfC. As such, could you elaborate on this please? How did you reach the text of this proposal? Where there any other alternative formulations were considered and ruled out during the analysis, and if so what were they and why were they ruled out? Beyond the specific questions that were asked in each RfC, are there any proposals that your analysis would consider doomed from the outset? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
given that in the previous RfC many who opposed the wording there expressed support wording like what I have inserted, and I believe I've alluded to it elsewhere as well. I reached the text of this proposal by considering the discussions during that RfC, and found that JoelleJay's suggestion was particularly convincing to editors involved in that discussion and so heavily based my proposal on it.
Beyond the specific questions that were asked in each RfC, are there any proposals that your analysis would consider doomed from the outset?I could think of dozens, but I don't think it is very useful to discuss doomed proposals unless someone actually proposes them.
I understand that some editors will want stricter restrictions than this, and I understand that some editors will want looser restrictions than this. However, I believe the former group will consider this an improvement over the status quo, and I believe the latter group will recognize that if this went to RfC it would get consensus.), and I proposed it on that basis in the hope that we could avoid yet another formal discussion - but as I said, if editors insist on it needing to receive formal consensus then I will open an RfC on it. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
In the end, my position is that this is a proposal that is all but certain to receive consensus if brought to a formal discussionI would like to agree with this, however I need evidence to do so. I ask because there's at least one other competing view on how to interpret what was discussed at the RfCs. While I'm opposing that one currently, I have to ask why is that one a less accurate reading of the community consensus than yours? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Individuals who have been deceased for at least two years, where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the name).
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources), the primary reason I didn't base it on that was that there was no chance it could be implemented as a WP:BOLD edit; it is almost identical to the proposal rejected in the previous RfC, it shares the issues that proposal had, and it was opposed by too many editors in that discussion including myself. For those reasons I also don't believe it would receive consensus even if a formal RfC was opened on the topic, and I suspect that even opening an RfC on that topic would be controversial and invite accusations of tendentious editing. Further, if we are going to open another RfC on this topic it shouldn't be for yet another highly controversial proposal; it should be one that most of the community can get behind and produce a clear consensus for. (Regarding the closer's reference, I read that as referring to all the alternatives, including JoelleJay's, but reasonable minds may disagree.) BilledMammal ( talk) 02:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The closer specifically stated: "Several comments argued that a variance on the proposed change would be far more preferable (and obviously could be the subject of a subsequent RFC), but consensus doesn't clearly support that version (yet)." and "Of course, further discussion/consensus can (and probably will) help address these points and/or alter wording.", but going in and trying to push through these changes via a discussion that preceded that one is out of process, and this is getting to be a tiresome way of seeing BilledMammal and other editors joining him conduct business on here. Those controversial changes should never have been made without discussion, and I am reverting them back to the status quo. Just because they didn't get noticed for 7 days is no excuse. Huggums537 ( talk) 06:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
I've updated this version to address comments made above. If there are no further issues with it, I am hoping we can get an informal consensus to include it rather than wasting more community time with an RfC; do any editors both oppose this change and believe there is a chance it wouldn't be approved in an RfC? BilledMammal ( talk) 01:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
...multiple reliable and secondary sources...to
...multiple reliable and neutral sources.... This will implicitly avoid the issue of biased and sensationalistic sources, while also maintaining some degree of source quality per the rest of the text. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
..multiple reliable, neutral, and secondary sources..., which combines all three and that way we avoid both the primary source and sensationalistic source issues entirely? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
"...containing non-trivial coverage of the person.". I strongly urge that we don't endanger the potential benefit of that wording (and our best chance yet to fashion together a community consensus at last here) for a highly irregular use of a term that already has a distinct and more or less polar-opposite meaning in policy. I very much respect your effort to bring the disparate sides of this issue together here, but adding this word is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm certain of it. Much better to stick with "secondary" which has a precise, actionable, applicable meaning under existing policy that directly aligns with what we want it to say here. SnowRise let's rap 23:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
we are not meant to be judging or evaluating the conclusions of sources in any way (whether that pertains to bias or factual accuracy or any other element of their claims) in individual casesYes we are. Part of our role as editors is in figuring out what the neutral point of view on any given topic is, and NPOV straight up tells us that
A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources(emphasis added). There is no way to determine whether an article is or is not NPOV compliant without assessing the sourcing used against all of the reliable sources on the topic and accounting for their biases in doing so.
Lastly, I don't think this language has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of passing community scrutiny.That's fair, and I'm not going to belabour this any more than I already have. I've made a suggested tweak that I think would improve the draft and whether or not that tweak finds consensus prior to bringing this forward (if necessary) is not something I'm going to lose sleep over either way. But please, don't say that NPOV tells us not to do something that it explicitly tells us to do. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view."(emphasis added)
"...containing non-trivial coverage of the person."That's also the language that most substantial increases the burden here, and it's also likely to keep out the kinds of primary sources that you are concerned with, as I read it, because these sources contain no real substantive "coverage" but rather just routine clerical data. But I don't necessarily think we need to drop the "secondary" either; I'd argue it is much more useful, clear, and functionally dispositive than "neutral". SnowRise let's rap 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
multiple ... sourcesfor
a majority of ... sourcesor at least
a plurality of ... sources. As written, the standard is just two reliable secondary sources, and while in cases where there isn't a lot of coverage I think that's fine, in the case where a subject has received a lot of coverage and most sources don't use the former name, just two sources may not really be a convincing argument to use it in practice.
the entire British media is not neutral on this topicIf the entire media of a major nation with freedom of the press is not neutral on this topic then I would suggest no media is neutral on it, which does demonstrate the issue with adding a “neutrality” clause.
Hi, I've noticed there's a filter or something called "possible MOS:ETHNICITY violation" in Wikipedia's code. How does it work? Does it for example avoid edits consisting in the removal of demonyms from an article? If so I'd like to propose an addition. But firstly I'd like to know what does it do. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 21:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this page should be
split into pages titled
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. (
discuss) |
Split Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. Currently the topic is a WP:FORK between the two. Being a subtopic in MOS:Biography perpetuates forked discussions, forked manual-of-style-guidance, prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature and accessing this policy discussion, and floods disinterested wiki policymakers with a high-barrier-to-entry inaccessible discussion. We already have about 100 conversation threads identified for this and it is unsustainable to center them here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. I fail to recognize negative consequences of this proposal; if anyone sees any then please state them.
prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature. I am not sure whether there are other stakeholder communities this could be referring to, and if not, then the question remains that once this change is made, would there will be appropriate balance in resultant discussions, instead of a local consensus? starship .paint ( exalt) 04:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION.Some1 ( talk) 11:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW it's already the case that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to deadname people.If it's WP:DUE, then it does. If there are
losing argument[s], then it's because you're witnessing editors willingly choose to violate the non-negotiable status WP:NPOV enjoys and it's a shame because our ability to cover topics neutrally is a deeper concern than helping someone trying to stop a streisand effect (or put a genie back in a bottle, etc, etc) over something that not all of society agrees with (as evidenced by reliable sources). Of late, the arguments for change are boldly running straight through WP:RGW and are disruptive with the non-stop proposals/threads/debates and it grows tiring. If someone had told me 3-4 years ago I'd be on Wikipedia arguing about transgender topics, I'd never have believed them. And yet here I am, because apparently we're trying to change Wikipedia from being a follower of sources to being an encyclopedia that picks and chooses which reliable sources to ignore or acknowledge. And that's the most dangerous thing to come out of this to me in my decades of being here. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.And I don't think it's a point of view (and it doesn't really matter what I think here), our sources do. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Why [do] you think a person's name (or in this case former name) is a point of view on a topic?, I cited the exact wording from WP:NPOV that addressed your question. As to the rest, I'll leave you with WP:RGW which addresses what's happened here far better than I'm capable of. — Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
factoid, you'll need to let the folks who came up with WP:AT and the various Wikipedia naming conventions that their work was all for nothing. But this is all basic writing: who someone is (their name) is as important as what they've done, where they did it, and the why of what happened. This is all very academic. I won't be re-quoting NPOV since apparently the words don't mean anything to you, but it's all right there. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Ordinarily when we discuss DUE, we are asking and answering questions like "does [insert label] apply to this article/?" or "what does current academic research state about this topic?" or "is this theory disputed and by whom?" This is so that whenever we're answering those questions, we're always following whatever the mainstream view on a topic is.
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to(emphasis added, the "several ways" provided are just a sampling and not an exhaustive list)
the depth of detail(a name is a "detail" that sources may go into depth on, omitting such a detail when reliable sources report it runs afoul of DUE)
[...] the juxtaposition of statements(our sources may list a "deadname" near a subjects current name, deviating significantly from that would again run into NPOV concerns). — Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons. Loki ( talk) 03:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
this will reduce the number of eyes on this section— I don't think the number of watchers should affect where a guideline goes. It's either about content or style (or both, as Blueboar pointed out), and its location in the guideline/policies structure should be dictated by its scope, not by how many people chose to watch it. Anyone can watch or subscribe to anything - we don't hide our policies and guidelines. If anything, it should be easier to find and watch if it is in a sensible place, matching the scope of the guideline/policy. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
[t]here are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipediaand focuses on avoiding the loss of information ( MOS:SAID is a good example of this). - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Based on the consensus that seems to be forming around the split, here is a proposed wording for a paragraph in BLP, so that the MOS is for style and not making content policy.
Proposed paragraph for
WP:BLPNAME
|
---|
For the special case of the former name of a transgender or non-binary individual, it is reasonable to assume they would not want the name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure. Any inclusion must be supported by multiple reliable and neutral sources. [a]
|
Proposed MOS:GID
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person should only be included if the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure (See WP:BLPNAME). The former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
consensus that seems to be forming, whaaaat? No jumping the gun, please. Crossroads -talk- 00:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
There's also the matter of what status it should have if it's moved out of the MOS.That's easy. GENDERID is already a guideline, and is regularly enforced as such at both content and behavioural noticeboards. As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity.
while the NPOV conflict remainsWhile this has been going on, I've re-read every formative discussion on the text of the guideline (ie those that were on the text of the guideline or lead to changes of it, and not application of it). In doing so I discovered that NPOV concerns have been raised by a handful of editors in total, across the hundreds contributing to the various discussions. The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
GENDERID is already a guidelineIt's a style guideline and part of the manual of style. It is not a traditional content guideline.
As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity.This would not be parity, but a promotion by fiat unless it was accompanied by a community conversation that showed support for such a promotion.
The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this.NPOV is non-negotiable, whether a community of editors supports something is irrelevant. If you want to split it off and promote it, you'll need to address these issues or face the reality that it will likely fail. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.I'll note that WP:SATISFY is an essay. We'll go with the policy here. But we won't be sacrificing our neutrality on the altar of WP:RGW just because a vocal minority (the small group here) wishes it so. The community decided the principles of NPOV are above consensus decision making, and likely rightly so if the conversations here are any indicator of how quickly some groups are willing to set aside our neutrality in the name of "feeling good" or some misguided desire to "respect" people in a way that society (and more importantly, our sources) have not. There is genuine real-world progress to be made on these issues, but Wikipedia cannot be the "leader" of change that some here seem to be pushing. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
If you propose that we move to BLP to exclude all former names unless they were notable under the previous name, it would fail.Outside of IAR, we already exclude all former names unless the person was notable under the former name. Moving the relevant parts to BLP for something we already have a long standing consensus for and have been doing routinely for years is much easier to do than adding wholly new exemptions or moving and adding new exemptions.
I'd like to get feedback on this proposal before taking it to VPP. Assume a preamble and option to oppose all.
Option 1 - Expand
MOS:GENDERID to deceased
|
---|
Add this paragraph to MOS:GENDERID: For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person. |
Option 2 - Move content restriction to
WP:BLPNAME with normal privacy exceptions, and revise down
MOS:GENDERID
|
---|
Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, it has been widely published by reliable sources, or it may be reasonably inferred that the individual does not object to the name being made public. [a]
Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup: Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Option 3 - Move content restriction to
WP:BLPNAME with only exception for notability, and revise down
MOS:GENDERID
|
---|
Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name. [a]
Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup (same wording as Option 2): Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Would it help to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other optionsPerhaps, though that particular clause might just be better handled as a separate RfC, or as a separate question within one overall RfC. I'm not entirely sure that the drafting of that text has reached a conclusion yet and I wouldn't want to pre-empt it by placing a non-final version of it in here. The alternative would be to wait until that process and this process has finished and we have finalised text for all of the options/options. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
use their current name as the primary nameand
may use their current name as the primary name
In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names.Which resulted in the change to "may use their current name" addressing works published under pre-transition names. In another example,
even if it does not match what is most common in sourcesis redundant and unnecessary. You have the right to oppose all of my efforts, but you can't insist that it
cannot be brought forward to an RFCwith specious complaints. Due to this topic having a history of WP:GAME and WP:ADVOCACY by WP:ACTIVISTs (as noted in numerous RFC comments) I don't expect 100% agreement on this page but I welcome any feedback to make it a better proposal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise- this is redundant to the "Refer to any person" in the previous sentence, and the "unless they have indicated a preference" is just obvious. It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writing, not scope of guideline. Even though it's not my preference, I can put it back in to build unity.
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.- 1) this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographies, 2) it's in scope for removing in the spirit of moving content criteria out of the MOS, 3) also obvious given many relevant content policies.
use their current name as the primary nameto
may use their current name as the primary namefor pre-transition publications. This was not my idea but I was incorporating a recommendation from Tamzin:
In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names.Nobody opposed this until now. As I've been reading hundreds of RFC comments over the last 3 months, proposing drafts and soliciting feedback, I'm trying to get the best version forward. Similarly, the change in the first sentence from "questioned" to "unclear" was a result of feedback from Jerome Frank Disciple and SMcCandlish on this page.
In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)".This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated. See WP:KISS. If you think it's important, please propose a better wording. This is a style example and has absolutely nothing to do with scope. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writingThe content that refers to is part of the Manual of Style. It makes sense for style guidance to be a part of that text.
this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographiesPer the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO
This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles. All biographical content, regardless of whether it's in a biography or any other article is subject to MOSBIO.
Nobody opposed this until now.I cautiously opposed it on 24 July. However that is separate to the reason I'm opposing it now. The reason I'm opposing it now is because it represents a significant departure from the current scope of the guideline, by adding a new exclusion criteria to GENDERID. We should not be launching an RfC that alters both the scope and location of the guideline at the same time. Do one of those two actions, and do that one action well. Now if it was only that change of scope that was being discussed, I would be somewhat more inclined to support it, but I still think it has issues that require further wordsmithing.
This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated.Possibly, and given the widespread shift in academic journals with regards to allowing for silent retrospective name changes for trans and non-binary authors this might even be (partially) outdated. That said, removing it again represents a significant change in scope of the guideline, in this case by removing guidance on how to handle source author name changes in citations. However saying this is a style example is again irrelevant, because this is referring to content that in options 2 and 3 will be remaining in MOSBIO. And as I've said above, MOSBIO refers to all biographical content and not just biographical articles. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise- If I hear wider support that this is important I'll include it. Again, not a scope change.
the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO- you win! I'll add it back in to the MOS text.
may use their current name as the primary name- nobody opposed this particular change until now, and the change was in drafts #2,3,4, and 5 above. The link you gave of you opposing it is just some general opposition to Tamzin's draft (#5). Perhaps some wording along the lines of "...unless they have a preference otherwise" would be in order, but I don't think it is very consequential whether we use "should" or "may". The proposal is clear that we assume privacy concerns unless the individual says otherwise, so that would override the "should". If I hear wider support that this is important I'll change to "should".
In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)".- Please propose a better wording. Both sentences look like they were formed by committee. To me at least, it's not clear what situation it's trying to address, or whether the "author is notable" refers to the new or former name. Try writing like you're explaining it out loud.
Question 1 - Wording for deceased individuals
|
---|
Which of the following paragraphs should be added to the guideline on referring to trans people?
|
Question 2 - Location of the guideline
|
---|
Where should the main guideline on referring to trans people be located?
|
Questions 3 and 4 - Exceptions
|
---|
Which of the following reasons should require mention of a trans person's former name in the lead of their article? (You may select more than one.)
Which of the following reasons should allow mention of a trans person's former name in their article? (You may select more than one.)
|
The person's former name has been widely published by reliable and secondary sources, based on WP:BLPPRIVACY
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.However, I am still hoping we can avoid an RfC on that question. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
RfC has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on GENDERID in BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that Loki's presentation of the issues, divided among three potential proposals, looks to have a the requisite levels of simplicity and clarity to my eyes, and has taken the feedback of the above discussions into account, regarding what we can predict from the last two RfCs and how ambitious the new proposed wording can be while still standing a decent chance of capturing community consensus. The advocates for increasing the privacy protections of trans individuals as biographical subjects have adjusted their approach, and I am hopeful that those with strong NOTCENSORED conerns among the respondents of the next RfC at VPP will also give some ground in light of / as a result of the extra level of preparation and tailoring that went into this language.
As such, I'd like to read the room and see if we are good to go on this in the coming week or so, pending some additional tweaks to the precise language? (For example, do we want to leave the inquiries of Q3/Q4 open-ended as they stand now or propose precise language?) If there is support to propose this soon, I think the following timeline is most advisable:
I appreciate this puts us potentially more than three months out before all of this gets resolved, but there seems to clear consensus above not to run all of these inquiries concurrently, and that may well be for the best (and ultimately save a lot of time and effort) in the long run. Incidentally, my thanks to everyone for pulling together and trying to meet in the middle after a tumultuous start to this series of discussions. Thoughts? SnowRise let's rap 01:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
My preference would be include somewhere between 2 and 4 options that represent different points within the range, which gives the best chance at community consensus.I would strongly oppose that. We have tried multiple ambitious RfC's, and they have done nothing but exhaust community patience. We need to run with a single conservative proposed wording, that is guaranteed to get community consensus. My wording has broad acceptance, even if some editors think it is too strong, and others thing it is too weak. Let us use that, and if down the line we find it is not strict enough we can look at a modifications to address specific issues that are raised. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Also presenting a single option will almost certainly be perceived by some as an attempted fait accompli (even though that is not the intent) and will get opposition on that basis alone (even if the same people would pick that option from a list).Honestly, I doubt that - most policy proposals have a single option with editors !voting either "support" or "oppose", and I've never seen anyone oppose a proposal on that basis.
near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3), but not enough overall to gain consensus. This is why in the second RfC the barrier for inclusion was set very high, as it was to try and respect that consensus, but clearly that failed because it was too high.
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name should be included in their main biographical article only if...and then present a series of options that complete the sentence, eg
multiple, reliable sources,
multiple, secondary, reliable sources,
multiple high-quality reliable sources. Editors then contributing to the RfC can then chose which combination of options how restrictive or non-restrictive they feel this part of the guideline should be.
How should complementary or complex preferences with regard to gender expression and identity be handled? This applies to article subjects such as Conchita Wurst or Trixie Mattel, where the article contains information both on the person and their stage persona(s), as well as to articles like Eddie Izzard, where the subject's expressed identity does not clearly indicate how they should be referred to under MOS:GID. [a] In such cases, should the article text:
A. Refer to the subject with only one set of pronouns throughout the article
OR
B. Refer to them variably?
Note relevant discussion in the GID inclarity section above. Actualcpscm ( talk) 10:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no single “right” answer to this question. A LOT depends on the expressed desires of the subject of the article… which means we often have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, per Blueboar but in general, refering to someone variably within an article is a recipe for confusion IMO. The drag artists ( Conchita Wurst and Trixie Mattel) have some justification since the articles are ostensibly in the name of the character, rather than the artist, but even so, the articles seem needlessly confusing, both whether the article itself is actually about a performer, or the drag persona they created and in the use of pronouns (the character or creator could be referred to by name throughout). Pincrete ( talk) 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
unambiguously [gender]-identifying first nameis a fallacious construct. To step outside this culture for a moment, whenever one of the teachers I worked alongside in China would hear from another teacher the name of a student they didn't know, the first question was always "boy or girl?" Leaving aside the obvious gender-binary cultural blinders, even the idea of an unambiguously gender-identifying first name is unknown is some settings.And for a counterexample from Western culture, one of the easy ways people in our department at grad school used to suss out whether some student was actually familiar with the secondary literature or had just read a few articles here or there would be to bring up Michael Nylan, now the most prominent active Han dynasty historian in the Western world, and see if the student misgendered her based on assumptions about her first name.I'm sorry this got rambly and ranty, and I appreciate that the people initiating these RfCs are doing so in good faith to protect and respect notable people who are similar to me in a vulnerable way that makes us visible minorities wherever we go. But what I'm feeling instead is that the image being presented to the wider Wikipedia community is that trans people are delicate to the point we need a constant flow of RfCs to head off any possible affront no matter how minor or unintentional. When people address you with the wrong pronouns, you remind, forgive, and have patience. It takes a while to learn, but people are learning. The ceaseless pushing on these topics is a road to resentment, not consensus.Apologies for the feelings. It's been a wholeass week over here. Double apologies to everyone who has their pronouns tattooed on their knuckles and gets tilted about pronouns on the daily (although I doubt the person I'm thinking of reads anything in the Wikipedia_talk: namespace). Folly Mox ( talk) 04:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
complex / complementary gender expression, rather I have a "don't give a fuck" approach which means I don't mind any personal pronouns. But even in that, the same issue arises as described by Actualcpscm. I don't think we have enough BLPs that would require us to create a uniform policy and AFAIK we've been able to self-regulate well enough. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
MOS:ETHNICITY covers several useful situations for how to refer to the nationality or ethnicity of a biography subject in the lead section. However, there is no guidance on whether duress can be a factor in determining a person's nationality. At Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, there is currently a riveting discussion regarding how to refer to Sergei Bortkiewicz' nationality and/or ethnicity in the lead section. Even if these questions are mooted by other factors, the question of duress may still relevant to many biography subjects who have lived in the middle of geopolitical conflicts, especially if they lived in occupied territories. @ Mzajac raises an interesting concern regarding Bortkiewicz: "His own comments have to be interpreted in his cultural and historical context: in the Russian empire one could get in serious trouble for publicly acknowledging Ukrainian as a separate national identity so it wasn’t done, and the name Ukrainian wasn’t universally used as an ethnonym until after the revolution (in Austro-Hungarian Ukraine, Ukrainians had referred to themselves as Rusyns, Rusnaks, or Ruthenians). This coloured the way people from there referred to themselves and others, and the way the rest of the world referred to them."
To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity? 169.156.16.220 ( talk) 23:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity?No extent, because that requires WP:OR. Instead, we should just follow the sources; if the sources describe Bortkiewicz as Russian, we describe him as Russian. If the sources describe him as Ukrainian, we describe him as Ukrainian. If the sources are conflicted, we reflect that conflict. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)I really don't think this two-editor pissing match, about a content dispute at an article, needs to continue on this guideline talk page. Most of this is turning to behavioral complaint, which belongs in userspace or at a noticeboard. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I got sucked into this rabbithole topic by User:Mzajac/Michael's comment, because Bach and Beethoven and Vivaldi get rather less controversial anachronistic ethno-nationalities in the lead paragraphs, while Mozart and Haydn get into historical/pseudohistorical and politicized Godwin-converging Talk battles. There's even a Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article (entirely SYNTH imo). If you browse the archives of any such bio's Talk page they raise the same basic points: nationality, ethnicity(s), language, citizenship, residence, and self-identification are all different concepts that may vary in different contexts at different times in the subject's life. An appropriate RS may indeed cover such a topic in some detail. But if it's only mentioned as a throwaway line in a bio -- "Bach was born in X. The precocious young German did Y." -- is that really a suitable source that a historian has staked out a position on the subject's ethnicity, especially if the historian provides no footnote for that singular nominalization? I hear way too often the entirely false mantra that "an RS is an RS". Tldr: maybe editors here who say it suffices to adhere to reliable sources are correct, but I have yet to see editors consistently understand what reliable sources are, especially when tribal lines are being drawn. If something like duress is even remotely an issue, then I'd be shocked if editors ever agree to put any positive ethnicity or nationality anywhere. SamuelRiv ( talk) 04:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:BOLD, "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section." However, the guidance at MOS:SIR is, "The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." In cases when the title of the article does not include the honorific, this is contradictory; not knowing that MOS:SIR even existed, I've been conforming articles to MOS:BOLD.
I'm not clear why "sir" should be different than any other honorific in terms of the use of boldface; shouldn't it only be in bold when it's part of the article title? If in fact it's the consensus that "sir" is an exception, shouldn't MOS:BOLD be updated to reflect that? ~ T P W 15:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Equivalently, in the article Ruth Westheimer includes
Karola Ruth Westheimerand later
Dr. Ruth. An alternative route to the same result is that Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill and Dr. Ruth are both redirect pages.
Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webberwould look strange if we unbolded the "Baron". Other examples of titles that are bolded include Mother Teresa's (among others)
Saint Teresa of Calcutta.
Captain Sir Thomas Moore. I have no idea... Mgp28 ( talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
We're having a discussion at Sia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about if/how to introduce per MOS:LEGALNAME why we refer to her as Sia throughout the article. She has not changed her legal name to her mononym. This is similar to the examples in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use: Aaliyah, Selena, and Usher; where only Selena has an introduction, "known mononymously as Selena" in the first sentence.
Is there a general consensus to prefer an introduction over none? - Hipal ( talk) 20:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There’s currently a discussion going on at RfD regarding the redirect {{ R from deadname}}. One of the potential outcomes is the creation of a new rcat.
During the discussion so far, an editor has raised potential BLP concerns, so it would therefore be good to hear the opinions of editors experienced in this area. I’ve linked the discussion below — any editor who wishes to take part may do so.
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Template:R from deadname
All the best, user:A smart kitten meow 09:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:Requested moves has consistently interpreted the "Initials" section as also applying to names of fictional characters.
An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless:
- the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and
- an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person.
In such a case, treat it as a self-published name change. Examples include k.d. lang, CC Sabathia, and CCH Pounder.
starship .paint ( RUN) 13:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the ethnicity section needs more elaboration. There are missing gaps in the policy; how do we reference people that lived in empires? How do we reference people that lived in abstract geographic regions in past times when no political entity existed? It wouldn't make sense to remove any ethnic/geographic reference from the lede.
Checking a number of Wikipedia biographies reveals this inconsistency: Niccolò Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei would be Florentines instead of Italians; Thomas Aquinas would be Sicilian instead of Italian; Jesus would be Roman instead of Jewish; Aristotle would be Chalcidian/Macedonian instead of Greek; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would be "Roman Holy Empirer" instead of German; Maimonides would be Almoravid instead of Sephardic Jewish; Saladin would be Abbasid instead of Kurdish; Muhammad would be identified as having been born in the Hejaz instead of being Arab.
A new paragraph should be added along the lines of: "Persons who lived under empires and persons who lived in abstract geographic regions in pre-modern times, can be referenced by their ethnicity or by mentioning the geographic region if this supported by a majority of sources as a notable identification." Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability...
if relevant to notability— Bagumba ( talk) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I found this discussion via " Margherita Gonzaga, Marquise of Ferrara", which I'd arrived at from a search for the term "in modern day Italy". It seems to me that using "modern-day" (or "modern day", or simply "modern") in this way often leads to absurdities. Earlier today I learnt that " Capsian [neolithic] culture was concentrated mainly in modern Tunisia"; previously, that "Etruscan was the language of the Etruscan civilization in modern day Italy", and that the Third Punic War "was fought entirely within Carthaginian territory, in modern northern Tunisia". Elsewhere, I learn that the Gothic language was "preserved and transmitted by northern Ostrogoths in modern-day Italy".
I'm old-fashioned, and quite British, but is it really acceptable to use "modern" or "modern-day" like that? There are no Ostrogoths in modern-day Italy, the Third Punic War was not fought in modern Tunisia, and the Etruscan civilisation died out long before modern Italy was thought of. Margherita Gonzaga was born in Mantua, and Mantua is now in Italy, but she wasn't born in modern Italy, or in modern-day Italy. Doesn't the Manual of Style have anything to say about this? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 23:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
First, I agree with User:Makeandtoss that the ethnicity section needs clarification. That is evidenced, among other things, by two disputes that I am mediating, and I don't usually mediate two disputes about the same class of issue at the same time.
One of them, Marco Polo, really does involve whether you can refer to medieval Italians as Italians, and the specific questions are:
I think that the answer to all three questions is yes. In particular, Italy was a geographic region, and a part of the Roman Empire, long before the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed. I think that we need a statement to that effect somewhere, because the issue keeps coming up.
The second dispute is more controversial, and has to do with Sergei Bortkiewicz, a composer who was born in what is now Ukraine, which was part of the Russian Empire at the time. Since blood is being spilled as I write this, we clearly need to be ready to deal with disputes about persons born in what is now Ukraine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I started a Village pump (proposals) discussion regarding the problem of anachronism in the articles, considering that the articles are uneven in this regard. If there are sources that speak differently about a historical person, I don't think we can use that argument alone ie only RS argument. Because with the will of most editors and some sources if there are any, we can have anachronistic information in the article. Thus, for a certain Roman emperor, we could put information in the article that he was the Italian emperor. The key problem is that we do not have any guidelines regarding anachronism in the articles. If you want to discuss this problem, feel free to join. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rule_that_will_cover_anachronistic_informations_in_the_articles
Mikola22 ( talk) 07:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there agreement that the MOS can be left alone? Do we need to formalize anything, such as that we should state what the majority of reliable sources say? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
A specific question that recurs from time to time has to do with people born in the region of Italy between 476 AD and 1860 AD, who are often referred to as Italian, but also often the subject of arguments because there was not an Italian state. Should we specifically discuss either a rule that this characterization should be avoided, or that this characterization is permitted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor consolidation merge - Idea to merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into MOS:TM, leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from MOS:NAMES. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Quite a while I posted on the person infobox template talk page to ask about this. I checked back again just now and saw my attempt at a discussion disappeared but an identical one is there now from another editor. Someone suggested to try here. The template doc says to only include this parameter when "the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." However, it appears this is inconsistently enforced and honestly it seems extremely objective and in some cases difficult to prove. The prime example is Michael Jackson. Can we honestly and truly say one of the best selling and most popular artists of all-time's cause of death had significance to his notability? The death itself, absolutely. But the actual cause? Not necessarily. He's the only one I can come up with that's a good example but I'm sure there's others. People like Tupac Shakur, John Lennon, that were murdered and had their legacies live on partially due to how they died makes sense. Elvis had his for the longest but it was recently removed (I've since added it back). I'm looking to either change this silly having "significance for the subject's notability" rule or make it a little more clear as to what exactly this means. There's a single editor I will not mention by name that has been on a tear over the last couple of years of removing death cause parameter, sometimes for articles that have had it up for years (like Elvis).--Rockchalk 7 17 05:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
MOS:INITIALS reads:
With initials, it is not necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. For example, H. P. Lovecraft has that title, H. P. Lovecraft appears in his infobox, and his lead sentence just gives Howard Phillips Lovecraft ... was an American writer ..., without "explaining" to the reader what "H. P." stands for.
Would this also apply for people with "Jr." in their name, for example, D. J. Hayden, whose full name is Derek Sherrard Hayden Jr.? — Bagumba ( talk) 08:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't need to add DJ here if it's obvious where it comes from. — Bagumba ( talk) 00:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
...case where someone is habitually called D. J. as short for "Derek Junior", so it's really a form of hypocorism (as WP broadly uses that term, to include shortenings), not a nickname like "Spanky"...: I think many might stumble on the nuance between a nickname and hypocorism to determine whether to quote or not, or simply mix this up with MOS:INITIALS. — Bagumba ( talk) 00:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect MOS: SURNAME has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: SURNAME until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I've done one of my periodic "guideline overhaul" jobs [63], that should not result in any substantive changes (no new style rules or deletion of or meaning change to existing rules), but with a lot of cleanup:
I don't think any of this will be controversial, but of course feel free to raise an objection if I've broken something (or just go fix it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Just look at this talk page. Look at the archives. JOBTITLES is constantly discussed. Not even people familiar with MOS understand it. Alternatively, pay attention to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors: the most common point of contention there is capitalization because mere mortals cannot wrap their minds around what JOBTITLES is trying to say. It is absurdly convoluted, to the point that it does not reflect either academic and journalistic usage or government usage.
To illustrate, this mumble is the only correct way to capitalize per MOS:JOBTITLES:
John F. Kennedy was President of the United States. He was the president of the United States from 1961 to 1963. Before he became president, Kennedy served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The President served at the height of the Cold War. In 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated.
We will all be spared the eyesore of apparently random capitalization as well as the incessant questions about the intention of MOS:JOBTITLES if we just adopt the style that is almost universally used in academic and journalistic writing, namely:
John F. Kennedy was president of the United States. He was the president of the United States from 1961 to 1963. Before he became president, Kennedy served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The president served at the height of the Cold War. In 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated.
Only capitalize job titles when preceding the person's name. That's it. No "when not in plural", "when not preceded by a modifier", "when not a reworded description" and all those other conditions that make MOS look like a computer code. Just do as academic and journalistic style guides do.
So, to spare us yet another unproductive discussion about this, I beg your answer to two questions:
Thanks and bear with me. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
tqb}}
of what the current guideline wording is, and another showing what the proposed wording would be, so people don't have to try to compare text in two different browser windows and whatnot. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestions for simplifying the existing rules, which would be in line with a few style guides. But a lot of capitalization will still look weird and inconsistent since in the end we're at the mercy of the articles. SamuelRiv ( talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)JFK was the president of the United States. He was elected to the office of the President of the United States. (Note that President JF Kennedy should not be confused with President of Ireland JF Kennedy or the president of Kennedy, Ireland, which maybe exist at some point.) On his best days as president, President (of the US) Kennedy wore silly hats with his crayon-drawn personal presidential seal on them {not the official seal of the president of the United States or the Great Seal of the United States -- but the one emblazoned on his pajamas nonetheless}. The first lady that JFK married became his first lady for his presidency, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, who would be seen to embody the Office of the First Lady and the public role the first lady of the United States should take.
Following on the suggestion above to workshop specific reivsion ideas, and drawing on Surtsicna's sound idea to "just adopt the style that is almost universally used in academic and journalistic writing", I will propose [this is workshopping, not an RfC!] that the way to fix MOS:JOBTITLES to be easy to remember, and more importantly to produce less reader-confusing results, is to simplify it down to something like:
... They are capitalized only in the following cases:
- When they are directly attached to a person's name (with no modifiers, including an ordinal number or a definite or indefinite article, and no intervening interpolations, including punctuation), and are not descriptive re-wordings.
- Even then, do not capitalize them if they are commercial jobs (chief operating officer) or are non-unique, non-administrative governmental roles (sherrif's deputy, building inspector, but Chief of Police, Minister of Finance).
- When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office ... [keep existing examples].
Then eliminate the third extant bullet point and the table that follows it, this material being almost the entire source of confusion and strife. (Honestly, I think the second item, about use of a title as a name substitute, could also go, but some people are probably in favour of retaining it.)
Also remove the now-redundant "Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles ...." sentence below the list. Alternatively, keep this line but remove the simpler but stricter indented sub-bullet from the proposal above.
If we used this replacement material in the sectional introduction, we could possibly also pare down the material that follows into more concise sets of examples of what to do and not do, and spend less verbiage on covering various types of titles. But the main point is eliminating the material causing confusion and impractical complexity.
The current wording, for comparison
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan. The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it. Note that for "president of the United States" or "prime minister of the United Kingdom", the name of the country remains capitalized even when the title is not, as it is always a proper noun. When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs). [Subsections follow on various title/role types.] |
To be clear, this proposal would completely eliminate the weird "half-way" provision that is confusing people, the notion of capitalizing:
This is something many people have had difficulty parsing, and there is no question that the results are confusingly inconsistent for readers. The long-contentious examples like:
would all become lower-cased to match:
It would also eliminate the confusing conflict between:
All of this would also be consistent with our move to writing, e.g., "president of the United States" at the article on the title ( President of the United States), moving "List of Lord Mayors of London" to List of lord mayors of London, etc., etc. (though there are a few straggler articles still at over-capitalized page titles).
This would mean writing "Micaela, countess of Paris," instead of the style " Micaela, Countess of Paris," that presently dominates in articles on people with nobility titles, due almost entirely to the preferences and activities of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (and technically against the guideline even as it currently stands). If we didn't want that result, then "including punctuation" in the above wording could be replaced perhaps with "other than a comma conventionally placed between the name and the title". But I think it would actually be better to use lower-case here for increased consistency and less confusion potential. It will be weird to have text like "Foo Bar, 7th Baron of Elbonia, met with Baz Quux, the prime minister of Kerblachistan", which also has the WP:NPOV problem of treating people with noble titles as somehow better and more important than everyone else, even when their notability and relative social stature are actually lesser that those of the other, non-ennobled, party.
This proposal is obviously moving in the direction of less not more capitalization, because this site (like Chicago Manual of Style and others) is "down-casing" where possible, using lowercase as the default which should only be diverged from when necessary. In particular, the guiding principle here is the lead of MOS:CAPS: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." All of our guideline sections that apply capitalization need to descend from this principle and not contradict it. Consequently, WP should not be capitalizing titles except when they are directly attached to names as if they've become part of the name, because that is the only situation in which usage across English-language writing consistently applies capital letters to them, and even that is becoming less common with corporate and low-end governmental role titles. (And the argument can maybe still be made to keep things like "the Queen" when Elizabeth II is the specific referent.)
PS: It used the wording "directly attached to a person's name" rather than "followed by a person's name" to account for cases of titles (mostly from other languages) that are post-nominal in position. It is not a reference to constructions like "Micaela, countess of Paris" which has a parenthetical title divided from the name by a comma.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
She is Marjorie Roberts Professor of statistics and chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and a professor in the National Center for Supercomputing Applications.In this case the Marjorie Roberts Professorship does not appear to be attached to the department of statistics, hence the choice to use lowercase for the first "statistics"; the second "professor" is just an ordinary English-word job title hence lowercase. I'm hoping the answer is no intended change to this capitalization, but you can see that "Marjorie Roberts Professor" is a job title, is not grammatically attached to the person's name in the sentence (as the name does not even appear), and yet is capitalized. A literal reading of this proposal would seem to imply that in such sentences we should write "marjorie roberts professor" instead, a nonsensical outcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
somehow better and more important thana chief executive officer seems contrary to the NPOV position you are advocating.
Sincere thanks, SMcCandlish, for taking this up. I strongly believe that we should propose removing the second point as well. Surely we have had enough of this neither-here-nor-there attempt at a style. We should take the opportunity to go all the way towards matching this guideline with well-established modern practices. "The Queen" vs "the queen". "The President" vs "the president". "The Professor" vs "the professor". "The Bishop" vs "the bishop". Wikipedia is the only publication that I know of that makes an exception for titles "used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office". This produces text that looks internally inconsistent. We have "the queen" in one sentence and "the Queen" in the next for reasons that are unclear even to most editors, let alone readers. I also find it jarring to have to use "the King" when writing about a historical figure when all the books I am citing use "the king". I do not think we have a valid reason to retain this. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Titles of office-holders. In certain cases and certain contexts these are virtually proper names of persons: HM the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The extension of this principle depends on the context: the President (of the USA, of Magdalen College, Oxford, etc.). Similarly, the Bishop of Hereford, the Dean of Christ Church; and in a particular diocese, the Bishop, or within a particular cathedral or college, the Dean (referring to a particular individual, or at least a holder of a particular office: the Bishop is ex officio chairman of many committees). But in contexts like when he became bishop, the bishops of the Church of England, appointment of bishops—such instances are better printed in lower case, and the same applies to other office-holders.
Apart from certain elementary rules that everyone knows and observes, such as that capitals are used to begin a new sentence after a full stop, for the initial letter of quoted matter (but see punctuation), and for proper names like John Smith (with rare exceptions like the idiosyncratic e. e. cummings) and those of the days and months, their present-day use shows wide variation from one publishing house to another, and even within the pages of the same book, newspaper, etc.
Possible wording
|
---|
Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director should be in lower case: François Mitterrand, president of France. They are capitalized in two cases:
|
MOS:GIVENNAME clearly overrides Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#People with the same surname (currently MOS:SAMESURNAME), but we don't have an entry to recommend usage for the Meitei people, typically from Manipur. See Talk:Licypriya Kangujam#First name/second name where it's unclear what to choose. Any advice, preferably based on good sources, would be welcome. Boud ( talk) 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
For non-Western cultures that have different namving conventions, substitute for "surname", in "use just the surname", whatever portion of the name would be conventionally used in that culture for references to a person in a semi-formal register. [examples here]"Culture-specific usages" = MOS:GIVENNAME a.k.a. MOS:PATRONYMIC. And obviously that section needs expansion to cover more cultures (possibly even a split-out to a sub-page after significant development; back in 2018, I loosely proposed centralizing this sort of thing at what is now WP:Categorization/Sorting names, or having some kind of shared transclusion or something between that page and an MoS page – see Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Archive 10#A point needs clarification into guidance instead of non-guiding observation (and tacit approval) of conflict) – but in several years there has been no progress yet in this direction. It would take significant RS research. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
For non-Western cultures that have different naming conventions, instead of "surname" in the recommendation "use just the surname", use whatever portion of the name would be conventionally used in that culture for references to a person in a semi-formal register. [For example, Abiy became prime minister in 2018, per the Eritrean/Ethiopian convention; other examples here]Boud ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at
Talk:Isla Bryson case § Reverted edit over the language we use to describe a person’s pre-transition gender: “while a man”
or “when she was a man”
or similar, vs “while presenting as a man”
or similar. While this is both an ideological and a personal question, it seems that it might be helpful for the MOS to either proscribe or permit such wording.
…Alternatively, if we don’t feel like wading into that quagmire, it might be nice to guide editors towards using language as is used by the subject themselves, or, where no evidence is found, to avoid either philosophical attitude, as seems to be the interim solution at that article (and the one I personally think works best). — HTGS ( talk) 04:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
It'd be easiest just to write "before his/her/their [gender] transition"Yup. And that is what the article says, specifically
prior to Bryson's gender transition. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Regarding this edit that was reverted. There is an obvious conflict with the original wording and the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, which states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
There are already guidelines and policies covering former names and privacy concerns, which is why I added links to the section. Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names? Consensus doesn't get to override policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names?, is to be found in the many community processes linked at MOS:GIDINFO.
Hi. I am a non-binary person. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on transgender and nonbinary people (MOS:GI) and I really think they should be changed. Why does it specifically say only a living person gets the respect of being referred to by their preferred pronouns?
If a person's preferred pronouns were known why should they not be respected in death? It is high time to update these guidelines. Errlane ( talk) 10:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
(I noticed this on the MOS:GIDINFO page, but the content is transcluded from here)
As of this writing we offer two examples of "don't include the former name if not notable", both written in green (indicating this is how to write things):
First off, the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say: The first article begins "Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) is an American actress and..." Green text should IMO be reserved for the actual words we want to teach readers to use. Plus, wouldn't it be better if the example actually contrasted what to write with what to not write (which is why we'd use a made-up example)
Why not use a made-up example, and why not write (in green) the exact phrasing we want readers to adopt:
Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.
My question is: why did the community decide to not use this style of examples?
CapnZapp (
talk) 07:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nobody is discussing pronouns. Both I and the GENDERID is discussing whether to mention the former name. My example clearly shows how to write and how to not write it.
I'm saying that this...
(obviously switching to a made-up example so we can show the incorrect way of doing it; illustrating what we're telling users NOT to do) ...is much more easily understood than whatever the current text's examples is trying to say. Unlike the current text it avoids text you're not supposed to write (in other words, no they don't contain "the exact phrasing that users should adopt"), doesn't begin with a "From" (that I don't understand the purpose of), and extremely clearly illustrates both the green do and the red don't.
That I chose Jane Doe as my example name, and my choice of example nationality, "job", and pronoun, is entirely irrelevant and beside the point. CapnZapp ( talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
For example (feel free to write better explanatory text; copying bits from reply above just to illustrate):
When pretransition name is a "birth name" (example from Laverne Cox):
When it is not (example from Rachel Leland Levine):
When pretransition name is not notable (fictional example):
(do not include non-notable pretransition name at all)
CapnZapp ( talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
"one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not". The value in those particular examples, as I suggested above, is simply to underline the fact that there is no single formula mandated in this branch of the decision tree, either. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Do the multiple examples help understand this better?As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Late in the previous discussion, a point was raised: shouldn't CHANGEDNAME point to GENDERID?
And so it does (very last line). However, note the word "living" in the current text. Does GENDERID apply to living subjects only or equally to deceased subjects? We afford greater protections to living bio article subjects, is GENDERID one of these?
If the answer is "yes only to living" then GENDERID needs to make this distinction. If the answer is "no; to all" the above line at CHANGEDNAME needs to be edited. (To be clear: I have no opinion either way, I just want to point out this possible discrepancy)
CapnZapp ( talk) 06:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Out of no where this format à la "Austrian and American" comes to counter the long established tradition of the hyphen! Goodness gracious ;)
Where and when has this format been decided all of a sudden? Synotia ( talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors, regardless of whether or not they are used attributively (Aboriginal Australians, Asian American studies, Black British people).
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.
Consider an individual such as Amber McLaughlin (born Scott A. McLaughlin). McLaughlin was executed for the murder and rape of a woman, committed while living as male, only transitioning to female while on death row. You will find a number of other cases of individuals who have transitioned post-incarceration for heinous crimes, although this is the only case (thus far) which has ended in execution. McLaughlin's notability is due to committing heinous crimes; although the primary source of notability is only for being executed for them, being executed for a crime can't really be separated from the crime itself (especially in a case such as this, in which nobody–to my knowledge–is suggesting this was the execution of an innocent person). (Technically MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to McLaughlin, since it only applies to living persons–but I'm trying to raise a broader point here than just that one individual case.)
Here are some arguments why MOS:GENDERID should not apply in such cases:
Note, I am only suggesting we should carve out an exception for heinous crimes such as murder, rape, child abuse, etc, not for less inherently abhorrent offences. Such an exception would not apply to e.g. Chelsea Manning, since whatever your view on her criminal convictions, few would seriously suggest they are on the same level as rape or murder. I was thinking about filing an RFC on this topic, but thought it would be better to raise it informally for discussion first. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Per EddieHugh's request, below is proposed revised text based off what consensus here was showing, but edited to address their concerns.
When a living transgender or non-binary person's former name is not notable, that name should not be included in the article. For example:
When a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under theirpretransistionpretransitionname, that name should not be included in the article.
For example:
- From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
- From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
- Avoid:
Not notable, do not use:Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under theirpriorformer name, that namemayshould be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce thepriorformer name with "born" if they were notable under their birth name or "formerly" if notable under apriorformer professional name, stage name, or pseudonym. For example:
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, that name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
- From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
- From Elliot Page, notable under
priorformer professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...
Thoughts, objections, concerns? CapnZapp, Newimpartial — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before.above I hope to have helped made sure this change didn't fly under the radar. (Unlike you Trystan I don't mind the change, but then again, I don't have a strong opinion either way). CapnZapp ( talk) 07:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
introduce the name with "born" or "formerly":. MOS:BIRTHDATE says
Birth and death labels are included only when needed for clarity. When given, use full words, whether immediately preceding a date or not:(which is referring to writing out "born" instead of using "b."). Examples may not be "rules", but they demonstrate the proper application of the rules to help aid in understanding them and almost every time a birth name is used in the examples when the person is known by a different name, "born" is used to mark the birth name. The only exception is MOS:NEE says specifically, when a birth name is given for someone who's changed their surname,
Editors may denote this [the birth name] with "born" ...or, if the surname change is due to marriage, né or née may be used instead of born. (The conditional may is used here because of the exception for when né/née might be used instead.)
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." — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 18:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Any further thoughts/concerns/edits, or does this look good to deploy? Clean (hopefully) final version (with the existing, unchanged preceding) below ... CapnZapp, EddieHugh — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:17, 6 February 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. For example:
- From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
- From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine ( /ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
- Avoid: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
- From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
- From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...
Comment - I don't blame you for not knowing the tedious background, but many editors would regard your change to the final intro paragraph, from should only be included if
to In the case of .... should be included
as substantive and, given the background, even as requiring its own RfC. (The former only sets limits on inclusion, while the latter positively mandates inclusion when the condition is met - at least, that is how many of us read that policy language.)
Newimpartial (
talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
User:Tcr25, I have concerns about Rachel Levine being used as an example above. She was an academic researcher into eating disorders pre-transition, and published a number of articles in medical journals under her birth name. Obviously pre-transition she was a lot less notable than now, but I'm not sure she was entirely non-notable – and I think that's a rather different situation from someone like Laverne Cox, who as far as I am aware was a complete nobody pre-transition. A person might be interested in Levine's academic career/research/publications, and a person who wants to pursue that interest would need to know what name she published much of her work in that area under. By contrast, a person's reasons for knowing Cox's birth name couldn't be anything other than interest in celebrity trivia. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that discussion seems to have died out on this, I've moved the stable version of the examples and intro text to the MOS page. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
MOS:CONTEXTBIO doesn’t make mention of sex (or gender), but it seems like there would be no reason not to treat it the same. We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”, except in cases like “first woman to win a Nobel Prize” (and so on). Am I missing something, or is this sort of consideration so obvious to be CREEPy? — HTGS ( talk) 04:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”— but we do categorise them ( Category:Women's association football players, Category:Women scientists) and thus we should define them as such. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
… is a New Zealand) so a carveout for trans bios would be fine by me. Eg, a footnote like “femalerugby union player
for trans individuals this guideline may not always apply”. But I do feel that CONTEXTBIO's current wording (
gender … should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability) would cover it well enough for the good judgment of good editors. — HTGS ( talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you need to avoid Bill Gates III? ErceÇamurOfficial ( talk) 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, an extra paragraph was added to
WP:JOBTITLES in this
, likely a response to a dispute I had with the editor over applying JOBTITLES to position leads following the use of "The". There was no discussion over this paragraph so unsure whether it is against consensus or a worthy inclusion. Or simply put, can such addition be checked, it seems to be a rewording of the third point above the examples table but excluding the exceptions, does this paragraph now argue that it should be capped even after using "the" or "a"? Third point above, stated it can be capitalised when it is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article)
.
Dank
Jae 00:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
These need to be discussed. The current wording is STABLE. Changing guidelines whilst involved in a dispute related to those guidelines (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#user:Skyerise) is incredibly poor form. Giant Snowman 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi All, There are numerous discussions going on both on wiki talk pages, via wiki (near) edit wars and within the art-world and in the media regarding reclassifying Ukrainian born persons (artists, chess players etc), current labelled as Russian. This could also impact other persons subject to historic colonial, conquered and other disputed areas. I think we need some clarity and potentially some individual ruling in some cases. So, can someone provide some expert guidance on the MOS.
Example Talk:Kazimir Malevich born in Kyiv, then part of the Russian empire, to Polish parent (does not clarify where they were born), studied in Russia, calls himself Ukrainian, was part of a Russian school (style of art, not educational)
Cheers 2404:4408:638C:5E00:75C2:43D3:364F:F481 ( talk) 05:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
would be more informative, less contentious, and remain consistent with guidance. I don't know if a similar formulation would help for the other discussions you mention. -- Mgp28 ( talk) 13:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Kazimir Severinovich Malevich (23 February [O.S. 11 February] 1879 – 15 May 1935) was an artist in the Ukrainian avant-garde...
Could some outsiders please comment on what is the proper way to introduce Christopher Columbus (1451—1506) when taking into account WP:MOSBIO? On the talk page there's been a year-long continuous discussion over whether Columbus should be introduced as 'Genoese' or 'Italian', which are the two most frequently used adjectives in literature. There is a general consensus that Columbus came from the Republic of Genoa, one of the Maritime republics on the northern Italian peninsula, though his origins are sometimes disputed (see the article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus), and he later moved to Iberia working for the Crown of Castile. There's also plenty of sources that suggest the origins of Italian nationalism can be traced back to the Renaissance which was already underway in Columbus' lifetime. My position has been to introduce him by 'Genoese', and I've tried to impose a middle ground solution by removing nationality altogether, but such edits always get reverted back to 'Italian' instantly. WP:MOSBIO has been introduced to the discussion only recently, but there is ongoing discussion over the proper interpretation, with some even questioning the guideline itself. Machinarium ( talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm interested in reading the discussion that led to Native American citizenships being added to CONTEXTBIO, but I can't seem to find it. Anybody know of it's location? – 2. O. Boxing 07:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
citizenship(as opposed to nationality) is always the relevant framing; it seems to fit better for First Nations but less well for other indigenous groups (Métis, Inuit);
Indigineous peoples, and that link says,
The Indigenous peoples of the Americas are the inhabitants of the Americas before the arrival of the European settlers in the 15th century, and the ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples(bolding mine). That pretty much fits my (and probably many others outside of North America) understanding of Native American; it primarily relates to ethnicity/descent and doesn't relate to nationality or citizenship (that would be American).That being said, I agree with the format used for Wilma Mankiller as it's directly relevant to her notability (and noting the tribe in parentheses is informative), but certainly not for Donna Nelson, a notable chemist. I think any guidance would be more apprirate as a sentence or two in the ethnicity and religion part. Whether or not people view it as ethnicity or nationality/citizenship, it's clear it isn't on the same level as citizenship to a soverign state, which I believe is the spirit of the guideline. – 2. O. Boxing 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
spirit of the guidelineis somewhat at issue here. I see two pieces of relevant text that can be used to discern this "spirit":
In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, and
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
when indigenous people carry their indigineity as a highly visible aspect of their identity, as long as the nationality/citizenship to the relevant sovereign nation is in the first sentence. – 2. O. Boxing 22:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
local decision that the wider community doesn't agree with or recognisethan the UK/FIFA decision to recognize Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as we have discussed at my Talk. I also don't think it is up to Wikipedia editors to decide who are or aren't
sovereign nations, nor am I aware of any basis in WP policy to assign nationality exclusively by selecting among Westaphalian states. That isn't actually what the policy text in question tells us to do, it isn't what our articles do now, and I haven't seen a formal proposal here to change policy and practice to insist that this is what we should do, either.
country, region or territoryis not always a national state, and that it is up to sources not editors primarily to decide which national identities are relevant to a subject's notability. But if there is a strong argument against the inclusion of Indigenous identities in the lead paragraph for biographies where they are strongly emphasized by high-quality sources, I certainly haven't seen such an argument in this section (nor does existing policy provide the basis for one, AFAICT). Newimpartial ( talk) 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
lump Canadian indigenous and American indigenous people together. I do maintain, though, that in both cases national identities have been documented in RS that may be relevant for the lead paragraph of a biographical article. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This edit adding a section on nationality include the referenced phrase. Is there any objection to adjusting that, like the other similar guidelines here, to be explicit about exceptions where the subject still has a strong connection to a previous nation? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 04:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
What I would like to see is a much more explicit policy that, for people for whom the question of nationality is in any way unclear...: Guessing on one's nationality is already covered by WP:V and WP:OR. — Bagumba ( talk) 07:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
misunderstandingyou see. " FIFA nationality" is a strict subset of legal citizenship - it could also be understood as a subset of nationality of occupation. Obviously, nationality of residence and nationality of occupation are distinct concepts. But for people who are notable precisely in relation to a certain form of nationality (e.g., national team membership), should Wikipedia not continue to present this consistently in biographical articles? I don't know what "misunderstanding" you have detected. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
spiritas well. (Moxy's comment above,
Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, is an example of what I referred to in that earlier post as a
gloss, simplifying and transforming the guideline into a principle some editors support but which policy text does not actually stipulate.)
Perhaps the solution is to not use any such descriptions in the intro of BLPs or bios-in-general. GoodDay ( talk) 15:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I seem to have missed it, so could someone point me to the on-wiki interaction that established the consensus that was then documented in the series of edits under discussion above ( [5])? While I see some useful clarification among those edits, I also see a good deal of confusion and an editorial preference to move further away from the sources of BLP articles than any previous consensus or community practice would require. Could someone clarify this, please? Newimpartial ( talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm also interested in finding the discussion that lead to these additions, specifically the Native American example. I found this proposal from November with only one reply from Skyerise before it was added. It's probably worth noting that CorbieVreccan was the one who added the footnote in March 2022. I had a look in the WP:IPNA talk page archives but couldn't find any discussion there. I'm still presuming there's one thats eluding me. – 2. O. Boxing 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Determining 'which' nationality to use in a bio, has at times been a thorny topic. Do we go with "birth country"? The country the person lived in most of their lives? The 'only' determining factor, would be what do reliable sources do, per individual. GoodDay ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Skyerise: Your addition of nationality examples in November had the edit summary: "add examples of presentation of nationality according to the committee-written guidance". For reference, can you provide a link to the old version where these came from, or a link(s) to relevant discussion for the specific wording. Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
In the examples added on 13:05, 15 November 2022, there's two examples for dual nationality that use "and" and discourage hyphenating:
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician
- For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.
- Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor
- This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.
However, these examples were added to the MOS only shortly after they were changed in the respective bios:
These were not stable versions. However, per the policy WP:PROPOSAL:
Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.
Do the changes reflect a standard practice? Are there examples of where this has been followed, prior to the MOS change? It seems to contradict MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES:
For people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when using the combination adjectivally and a space when they are used as nouns, with the first used attributively to modify the second
The changes still might make sense, but I don't think we should rely on WP:SILENCE as consensus for this.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
When describing dead people as they relate to achievements, records and currently-living people, what tense should I use? Specifically, for
Puti Tipene Watene, we currently have “he is the only person to both represent the New Zealand national rugby league team and become a Member of Parliament
” and “He is the great-grandfather of rugby league player Dallin Watene-Zelezniak
” (emphasis added). If there’s general agreement on the right way to phrase these, I think it would be worth adding them to the
Tense section, even if only to guide confused souls like me. —
HTGS (
talk) 10:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
...he is the only person ever to have both represented...and become.... (Conveniently, become is both the present tense and the past participle.) That puts the overt action in the past but is formally in the present tense, which is appropriate because the possibility of someone else doing the same thing has not closed. If the NZ team and Parliament no longer existed, then "was" would be correct. -- Trovatore ( talk) 07:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
At O.G. Anunoby, his full name is verifiably sourced as "Ogugua Anunoby Jr." [7] MOS:FULLNAME reads:
While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials).
However, MOS:JR says:
Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources.
Should "Jr." be included in the lead sentence's full name, if it's not part of the title i.e. WP:COMMONNAME? — Bagumba ( talk) 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
He’s actually Ogugua Anunoby Jr., son of a scholar, brother of a former NFL player.If I understand your concern correctly, editors should not WP:OR that a person legally added Jr./Sr. to their name. I am familiar with David Arseneault Jr., whose WP:COMMONNAME is referred to with "Jr.", but where it's dubious that it's part of his legal name, since he has a different middle name than his father. With Anunoby, his father is not publicly notable, so there's no conflicting evidence that their middle names dont match, and there is no reason to believe "Jr." is dubious. In my experience, people's middle names and suffixes are not commonly referred to in reliable sources, but are generally presented on WP as their legal name if reliably verifiable. While there is reasonable doubt to not include "Jr." as part of a legal name like with Arseneault, I think "commonly used" can be too confused with COMMONNAME, setting an excessive bar, in Anunoby's case. Anunoby's page title should remain without "Jr.", but it seems reasonable that it's part of his legal name, as we would treat a source if it mentioned a middle name instead. — Bagumba ( talk) 04:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
who a person is( WP:LEADSENTENCE). Furthermore, I gave no weight to arguments based solely on a cultural divide between English and Americans.Editors are welcome to contact me through my talk page if they wish to discuss my closure.— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
To bring
WP:POSTNOM in better agreement with
MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I propose that this policy be altered to specifically omit
post-nominal letters from lead sentences.
Per our guideline on biographical opening paragraphs, "the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." Post-nominal letters, many of which are unknown to laypeople, do not do any of those things. If anything, they actually delay a reader from getting to the part of the opening sentence that describes a person's notability.
Instead, WP:POSTNOM would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article. If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited/turned into RfC 00:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing should ever be in an infobox unless it is also in the real text of the article. Infoboxes are a summary, not a replacement. So "move to infobox" is a non-starter. Whether postnominals are lead-worthy is another question, but I think they are. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
They are a part of the name.— No. By definition post-nominal letters "are letters placed after a person's name", so the are not part of the name. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
they are part of the string that you write when you address someone in a formal-enough context— That may be the case, but the lead sentence of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a "formal-enough context". There are many formal forms of address, but Wikipedia is not obliged to use them. For example, in a formal context, one would probably refer to His Majesty King Charles III, President Joe Biden, or The Honourable Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, but none or our articles use those forms in the lead sentence. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
honorific-prefix =
The Honourable
.
Prime Minister of Australia's infobox includes style = ...
The Honourable
[1] (formal)
.
Mitch Ames (
talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)"Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman"[8]...)[9] and would support the removal of post-nominals from the lead sentences of biographies altogether. No opinion on whether they are listed in the infoboxes, although if they are, the post-nominals need to be verifiable (sourced) and discussed in the body of the articles first. Some1 ( talk) 16:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RAan incomprehensible jumble of letters, distracting from the actually important bits at the start of the lede. Where post nominals are actually crucial for the notability of the person (for example, someone notable primary for a Victoria Cross), I'd expect them to be written out as prose. Where they are not, they can be left for the body and discussed there where relevant. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Sauli Väinämö Niinistö (born 24 August 1948) is a Finnish politician who has served as president of Finland since March 2012...or
George Smith Patton Jr. (November 11, 1885 – December 21, 1945) was a general in the United States Army...or
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman, soldier, and writer who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twice..(I'd go as far as arguing that Churchill's lede should move the prime ministership closer to the name, as
soldieris so vague).For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notability. We don't talk, at the start of the lede, about Niinistö's
Grand Master and Commander Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of the White Rose of Finland, or about how Patton has the
Grand Cross of the Military Order of the White Lionor, indeed, about how Churchill was a Knight of the Order of the Garter: those awards and honours are not those people's (main) claim to fame, and they are very high awards indeed.It is even more clear cut for lesser (in this context) awards, such as Churchill having the Territorial Decoration, Patton having the Legion of Merit or Niinistö having nine honorary doctorates. For all these things, appending them — as an incomprehensible soup of acronyms, none the less — to the subjects name in the very first sentence of the article highlights the less important, confuses the reader, and pushes the actual main claim to fame further and further down the article. They are, in my view, given WP:UNDUE weight in the first sentence of the lede.With that out of the way, there certainly are some cases where the honour/award, or rather the action that led to it, is the main claim to fame. These probably include those awarded with e.g. Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor or Mannerheim Cross. But even here, too, the actual post nominal is redundant for the first sentence of the article: we can simply write
Robert Vaughan Gorle (6 May 1896 – 9 January 1937) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross...without any need for the postnominal.And there will be some cases where the honours/awards are sufficiently important, in the context of the person's other accomplishments in life, that they warrant writing out in a subsequent sentence of the lede, but not in the first sentence. The practice of always writing out the post nominals immediately following the name ignores all nuance and considerations of dueness in preference for a notation that is horribly reader-unfriendly and more often than not highlights the (comparatively) unimportant, distracting from the crucial. Ljleppan ( talk) 05:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notabilityturns out to be incorrect and false. For many people in academia in post-nominal-producing countries, in particular, and many of the post-nominals commonly used by those people in those countries, the post-nominal indicates being "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (e.g. FRS) for which membership is an automatic pass of our academic notability criteria. So putting it into the lead has the purpose, for those competent to read it, of clearly asserting the subject's notability. For those not already familiar with these abbreviations, the expanded form of the same recognition should be included later in the article text, of course, just like the expansion of other claims in the lead should be in the article text. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
fellowships, professions, etc.into my argument and explain how the underlying argument regarding dueness and redundancy is affected. Second, fellowships are, in my view closer to honours/awards than professions, and e.g. the first sentence of Fellow of the Royal Society seems to agree. Third, WP:POSTNOM already limits the use of postnominals, excluding
[a]cademic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications, which
should be omitted from the lead, so I don't see the point of going on about professions. W/r/t the MOS and
more specific instructions over the broad, general ones, the MOS is absolutely filled with language highlighting how important it is that the lede is easily understandable. See both paras of MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADSENTENCE regarding clarity; MOS:REDUNDANCY regarding redundancy and MOS:LEADREL regarding due weight. Yes, these are high-level principles, which is precisely the point of this discussion: many members of the community appear to believe the "more specific instructions" clash with the fundamentals, and it is the "more specific instructions" that should be adjusted so as to be in sync with the fundamentals rather than the other way around. PS, reading WP:ENGVAR with fresh eyes, I don't see what part of that this would fall under, as it talks about vocabulary, spelling and grammar rather than dueness of information. Ljleppan ( talk) 06:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
As I said..." Where did you say that? That may perhaps significantly change and clarify my understanding of the argument you are attempting to make.
postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style— no more so than prefixes such as The Most Honourable, ... Her Majesty, His Holiness, etc, which MOS:PREFIX explicitly says should not be included. Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 00:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
If ... everything is going to be excluded then the prenominal stuff like "Sir" should also be dropped— I would support such a change. I've never been a fan of ( MOS:SIR) including "Sir", "Lady" and the like; I don't see that they are any more special than other honorifics.
issues of how do we name articles about people's who's name includes titles, ie William, Prince of Wales— I think they are fundamentally different, in that "Prince of Wales" here is a disambiguator - there are many Williams, but only one Prince of Wales. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
now you are talking about modifying several MOS's (not just 1)— Obviously a separate specific RFC would be required, but there's no reason why we could not modify other parts of MOS (given appropriate consensus). It is not unknown for a proposed specific change to be shown to be a specific instance of a more general change that should be considered.
violating WP:ENGVAR— Several posts have mentioned ENVAR, but I don't think this comes under ENGVAR at all. ENGVAR is about differences in vocabulary, spelling, grammar, date formats, not the importance of honorifics. Can someone quote the specific part of ENGVAR (or Comparison of American and British English) that they think applies here? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The formal style for him is "Sir John Grey Gorton GCMG, AC, CH"or
The formal address for the prime minister is "The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP"(or whatever would be actually correct). Royal folk like Elizabeth II would still have their section like Titles, styles, honours, and arms, since for them, the topic is too extensive for the lede anyway. MOS:POSTNOM should continue to proscribe academic postnoms like "Ph.D" (and MOS:CREDENTIAL things like "Dr."). — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article.), but I'm not seeing a good reason to get rid of them entirely. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
the appropriateness of including a middle name in the lead sentence when the person and RS coverage do not commonly include it.— As with dates of birth, one primary reason for including it is that is part of unique identity. A common way (in formal/official scenarios in real life) of distinguishing between two otherwise identically named people is by middle name, and/or date of birth. I might distinguish between John Henry Smith and John Joseph Smith, or possibly John Smith born 1970-01-01 and John Smith born 1981-02-03, but rarely if ever (possibly in some very specific cases) would I distinguish between John Smith AO, John Smith MBE, and John Smith (with no post-nominals). Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
part of uique identity"? As for middle names, if they are only for distinquishing between two similar things, aren't disambiguators supposed to be used only if necessary? How is that consistent with a 100% (as discussed & defined elsewhere here) stance? Gecko G ( talk) 00:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
don't some of those countries consider postnoms "part of uique identity"?— Not the I'm aware of. It's common (in Australia) to request "full legal name" and date of birth, but I've never had anyone (or any form) ask for postnominals. Even the Australian passport does not have a space for postnominals, suggesting that they are not part of identity for other countries. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I also don't see how one particular countries lack of such a form spot for postnominals means that other countries ... don't use them more.— I'm not saying that other countries don't use them; I'm saying that other countries do not require then as part of official identity. (My original point - in response to "the appropriateness of including a middle name [and/or DOB] in the lead" - was that middle names and date of birth can be part of your unique/official/legal identity, but postnominals are not, hence middle names and date of birth (DOB) are fundamentally different to postnominals.) I gave the specific example of the passport application form because the passport is used by countries other than the issuer. If other countries considered postnomimals to be part of unique/legal/official identity then the passport issuing country would probably include them in the passport (as they include middle names and DOB) because the other countries would want to know about them.
A passport ... contains a person's identity. ... It is typical for passports to contain the full name, photograph, place and date of birth...
minimal International normsof a "person's identity" and thus included on passports - whereas postnominals are not part of those international norms, and not so commonly used to uniquely identify ("disambiguate", in the real world) people with otherwise identical names. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Post-nominals and their full name are essentially in defining the subject in a formal tone.(beyond not agreeing with it from the first principles) is that I don't understand why the same argument wouldn't apply to all other similar components often attached to names, such as academic titles, other honorifics, etc. Our manual of style takes a very strong, almost categorical, stance that these should not be included. Is your position that these standards should be relaxed to allow for further variation base on where the subject hails from? If not, perhaps you could help me see why these particular attachments to the legal name are distinct.As for Akon, I'd actually agree that the first sentence of the lede there is not very informative. In fact, I don't see the name the artist is commonly known with ("Akon") anywhere in the lede, which seems like a rather massive oversight. Ljleppan ( talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
References
Granted, I made up that classification because I don't know what the correct classification is but that is the pith of my question. How should we best handle the pronouns of those that have expressly admitted that they don't care?
For us to not care in the article makes a mess of things and can cause confusion in reading the article.
For us to enforce a pronoun against the expressed desires of the subject seems disrespectful.
Do we litter the article with "(he/she) said" or "s/he said"? Do we default to "they" (despite the desires of the subject)? Padillah ( talk) 13:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
We need to find a better formulation for opening sentences. The first sentence should focus on what makes the person notable… and in most cases the person’s nationality is a secondary characteristic, not what makes them notable. Most people are primarily known for being an academic, or a singer, or a business man (etc)… not an American academic, or a British singer, or a German business man. Blueboar ( talk) 12:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
national identitymeans. Some editors assume that the relevant national identity for BLPS is always, or nearly always, represented by a national citizenship (and this is clearly the case in some instances - such as members of national football teams - where citizenship is directly tied to Notability). Other editors are more interested in following the sources, and the sources will often frame BLP subjects in more varied ways, emphasizing
region or territoryrather than Westaphalian state, and sometimes invoking national identities that may, for example, include Indigineity.
deciding what level of source support is required for inclusion of this information in the lead paragraph: At a minimum, it must be verifiable. — Bagumba ( talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
a German business mancan convey geographic information about the subject as well as just the citizenship/nationality. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.
country, region, or territorydoesn't necessarily equate to
where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. The second part seems to mean almost exclusively Westphalian state, which would equate only to country. There are many cases where the region or territory may be more pertinent to identity and notability than country. See the prior example about Carles Puigdemont or the arguments on this page about Wilma Mankiller and whether or not tribal citizenship trumps Westphalian state citizenship. In some cases, nationality may not be directly relevant to their notability; for example Carsten Höller was born in Germany and apparently still holds German citizenship, but grew up in Belgium, made some of his early notable art in Italy, and now lives in Sweden. Is he a "German artist" because of his passport? An "Italian artist" because of his early work? A "Swedish artist" because that's where he lives? Or is "European artist" a better description absent any WP:RS where he is labeled German, Italian, or Swedish? Even when nationality/citizenship may help explain where a person is/was notable (per TulsaPoliticsFan's comment), is an adjective the best way to do it? For example, John Edward Bouligny's first sentence names him as "an American politician who was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing the state of Louisiana." Is "an American politician" really necessary there? Even if a reader wasn't sure if Louisiana was part of the United States at the time, it's clear he served in the U.S. Congress, so that should clue them to his nationality. In this case "American politician" is also ambiguous because he was elected as a member of the American Party (aka the Know-Nothings). Maybe the party affiliation is appropriate in the first sentence, but then it's not an indicator of his nationality. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 13:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
it is completely within the guidelines to call someone who has taught at Harvard for 20 years an American - even if they were born elsewhere, retain their original citizenship, and are only a permanent resident of the US. In the original discussions, the key was: where did the work for which they are notable mostly occur? If it is predominantly in a single country, that's the context that supported them while they did the things for which they became notable.Per that sentiment, Tumilowicz would be labeled "English businessman" (he presumably became notable in England, where he'd been living for a dozen years).
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, the Dalai Lama would be described as Indian, not Tibetan, which is ridiculous. (Yes, there is conditionality in the CONTEXTBIO statement, but "in most modern-day cases" implies that exceptions will be rare.) People should be described as they describe themselves and/or how WP:RS describe them. Sometimes this will mean a single nationality; other times it may be a regional or ethnic (hyphenated or not) adjective or a more complex phrase. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Nationality is important - it's defining, and the majority of categories are nationality related. Removing from the lede serves no purpose and would result in literally hundreds of thousands of articles having to be amended. It's not an issue. Giant Snowman 19:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
In most modern-day cases.... It's a guideline, not a policy, and even for those WP:IAR always applies. " What about..." exceptions don't preclude a general guideline from existing. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Question is - Can nationality be applied to all bio pages? That's a mighty big task, to get a consensus for an across the board application. GoodDay ( talk) 15:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Where a subject is only - or mainly known in a particular locale,(US or UK for example) and only covered by local sources, addressing a local audience, nationality will often not be mentioned at all - since it will be assumed to be known by that audience. This obviously isn't an indication that the nationality of that person isn't important. I'm inclined to agree with those that say nationality, along with the where and when of birth and upbringing, and similar info is basic biog info - the number of people for whom such info isn't relevant and/or interesting is probably tiny(even if their life develops mainly elsewhere and/or in a different cultural environment). Pincrete ( talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I propose that the nationality examples recently removed be restored. I ask that we break the discussion into two parts: first support or oppose !votes for whether we should include any examples. Second, discussion to resolve the exact wording and presentation of the examples to be added. Accordingly, I've put the most recent version at the top of the subsection. Skyerise ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Nationality examples
Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases). Examples of how to handle historical subjects vary:
The simplest example is someone who continued to reside in their country of origin:
- Daniel Boone (November 2, 1734 [ O.S. October 22] – September 26, 1820) was an American pioneer and frontiersman
The second example is someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country:
- Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992) was an American writer
- Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance.
In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician
- For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.
- Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor
- This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.
Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. Indigenous people's citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names. [a]
- Wilma Pearl Mankiller (November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American ( Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.
Finally, in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted.
- Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance polymath, active as a mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic canon
- Copernicus's nationality is disputed, so it is omitted.
Notes for examples
- ^ For additional guidelines on naming conventions and sourcing Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, see Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities.
The above is a starting point for discussion. Skyerise ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Skyerise ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment - unless explicit consensus is obtained somewhere for Most living people will be described with a single nationality
, the guideline shouldn't be saying that most living people should be described with a single nationality. This is true whether or not editors want to include a list of examples.
Newimpartial (
talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
obvious logic, and it is not really a claim supported in the status quo of the guideline.
single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases).would have the lead for Carles Puigdemont describe him as a "Spanish politician" instead of (as it currently does) "a Catalan politician and journalist from Spain." His identity and notability are tied up with Catalonian independence, not his Spanish citizenship. As others have noted in the myriad discussions and threads here, we should follow WP:RS and shouldn't insist upon a Westphalian state nationality in the first sentence when it may not be the best way to describe someone. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I was looking for more writing on this and found two wikipedia essays that may be helpful. This one ( Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality) is originally from 2007 and seems to have been received poorly. This essay ( User:Mr248/Citizenship and nationality) was written in 2021 as an attempted rewrite of the 2007 essay and I thought was super interesting and may be helpful in building some consensus here. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Daniel Boone There is already a basic example showing "an American" (Caesar Chavez) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples
Remove Isaac Asimov
MOS:ETHNICITY already says: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
, and
MOS:BIRTHPLACE says Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability
However, there may be cases where it is tied to their notability.
Anne Frank, an
WP:FA, reads ...was a German-born Jewish girl ...
Chris Lu, a
WP:GA, reads ...is a Chinese American political advisor...
—
Bagumba (
talk) 08:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Schwarzenegger and Lorre Are there other exisitng examples that show support for "and" over hyphenated dual nationalities? As discussed at #Dual_nationality:_hypenate_or_"and" (above), those two bios were changed within the hour before the MOS examples were added. Also note that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES supports hyphenating.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Nicolaus Copernicus Already multiple examples at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples that do not use nationality.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Jerome Frank Disciple: Please do explain this IMHO unfounded revert. And please note: We also have the Nixon example in the preceding text, which is resumed in the table as well. Hildeoc ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I recently got an edit reverted ( see here) in an article about a university where I changed "Professor" to "professor" in front of a person's name.
I was linked MOS:PEOPLETITLES, which states: "Overview: Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name".
However, the section in "Titles of people" called "Academic or professional titles and degrees" specifically states "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title".
The capitalizations I changed were simply of professors, not people known as "Professor [Name]". I'm wondering if my initial edit was correct here, as I'm a bit confused now. Any help is appreciated, thanks so much! HeyElliott ( talk) 18:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only – without an honorific prefix such as 'Mr.', 'Mrs.', or 'Ms.', and without academic or professional prefixes like 'Dr.', 'Prof.', 'Rev.', etc. – or may be referred to by a pronoun." Given that, under your interpretation, what's the point of MOS:CREDENTIAL?-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
For the subject of biographies, [academic titles] ... should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title." ... Did this mean, essentially, "The subject of a biography should only have an academic title attached to their name if that subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title."? If so, I'm okay with that, and I've made that change, but I think that the wording I used is clearer. If you meant something else or you disagree, obviously feel free to revert me. Third, I don't think your placement made much sense. Why was the new guidance on academic titles (i.e. relationship with the institution discussed) included after the discussion of post nominals, and not in the first paragraph? Also, are you saying the titles should only be used on pages related to the institution? Doesn't that go against the School Project guidance?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Academic and professional titles ([eg] Professor Margaret Doe) should only be added if the person has a relationship to an institution being discussed.), so I just plonked it on the end. I thought it obvious that it should not be relevant to subjects of their own biographies. Please do rearrange within that second paragraph if you have a clearer way to put it.
Post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the subject's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject" ? I'm still a bit confused by the third point there. I'm on the move but I'll come back later and see if I can parse it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! There's a new RFC on MOS:GEDNERID, based on the discussions regarding "next steps" in the above RFC. Link to the village pump discussion. The RFC will capture 3 topics, a broader inquiry than the above RFC, and, as to two of the topics, it will include multiple options. Thanks everybody-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
At present, DEADNAME contains two paragraphs relating to how to handle the deadnames of trans and non-binary people across the project, with one paragraph giving guidance for people who were not notable prior to transition, and one for people who were notable prior to transition. Both paragraphs contain the qualifier that they only apply to living trans or non-binary people, and in practice there is some leeway granted per WP:BDP for a period after death.
Digging into the history of this, the living qualifier was added in October 2020 with the edit summary referencing a post-RfC discussion that's linked at MOS:IDINFO. Upon reviewing that discussion, I came to the conclusion that the living qualifier was added somewhat boldly, and while the post-RfC discussion went on for a significant period of time after it was added, the continued discussion was on whether or not the DEADNAME guidance at the time only applied to article leads.
Could we remove the living qualifier, from the two relevant paragraphs in DEADNAME, such that the guidance applies to all trans or non-binary biographies? In context, this would mean that the text would now read:
If a 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. For example:
...
In the case of a transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
...
Impact wise, for dead trans and non-binary individuals who were notable prior to their transition, this would result in no change. However for dead trans and non-binary individuals who were not notable prior to their transition, this would mean that the only name that appears in their biographies or any content relating to them elsewhere is the name for which they were notable under.
As for why I'm proposing this, recently I created an article about the killing of a transgender teen in the UK. She was very much not notable under her former name, and the article reflects this by only using her post-transition name. However for a short period on 12 February, both The Times and Daily Mail included the killed teen's former name in their reporting, and several days later a few editors tried to use an archived version of The Times' article to add the teen's deadname to the article. While at present we can continue to remove and suppress that as necessary per WP:BDP allowing for BLP derived protections applying for 6 months to 2 years post death, there will come a point where that ceases to be the case. In the case of that article, as well as any other article about a trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to transition, adding their deadname adds no encyclopaedic value. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
While deadnaming the dead can't hurt them individually it can hurt their living friends and relatives. It can also distress other trans people who might reasonably fear similar disrespect after their own deaths.
there's no encyclopedic reason to mention someone's birth name unless it was notable
it reliable sources consider it relevant than it would be notableSomething can be relevant without being notable.
I don't see her birth name in this article and I certainly don't see how it would be relevant.It is not currently in the article because the only current exception under MOS:DEADNAME is that the person must have been notable under their previous name; Isla Bryson wasn't notable under it. It is relevant because reliable sources consider it relevant and include it in their reporting; see my comment below for examples. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
While deadnaming the dead can't hurt them individually it can hurt their living friends and relatives.- if you’re talking about living friends and relatives, perhaps using the new name can also hurt friends and relatives. This effect of hurt to others (whichever name is used) just cancels out. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deadnaming trans people gives the impression that the shape of your junk is encyclopaedically relevant— Mentioning that someone is trans at all gives the impression that the "shape of [their] junk" is relevant. The definition of transgender is someone whose gender identity/expression differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth. Realistically (" more than 99.95% of births"), that means their genitalia. If it wasn't relevant, the person would just be a "man" or "woman", not a "trans man" or "trans woman". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Might the same apply to any name change?Honestly I'd say yes. What the deadname protection from GENDERID does right is that it treats any and all former names as a privacy issue. If a person wasn't notable under the former name, then we don't include it. What it gets wrong is that it only provides that protection to trans and non-binary people. Making this proposed change the standard at MOS:CHANGEDNAME for how we handle all name changes would I think be a huge improvement on how we handle such name changes for everyone else, though given that it would potentially affect a large number of articles a separate discussion and/or RfC would be warranted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link.If the former name is an issue of privacy, then it would only apply to WP:BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
the [trans] person ... asked people not to use that [dead]name for them. And also, by doing so, they make it an incorrect name ...— It's not an "incorrect name" for them for the period of time before they stopped using it - it was their actual name. If a (hypothetical) trans woman was assigned male at birth and named (including on the birth certificate) "John", was enrolled at primary school as John, answered to John, introduced herself as John, then - up until she change her name - "John" was her name. If at 13 she asserts that she is female, calls herself Mary, and all her family and friends do likewise, then "Mary" is her name from that point on, but not before that time. We might agree that she was always female, since birth (and initially "misdiagnosed" as male), but her name - even if it did not match her female gender, and even if she subsequently does not want people to use it (including retrospectively) - was very definitely John for those first 13 years.
a name they used to go by but no longer do is not relevant unless notable(emphasis added). I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the clearly notable birth name of the perpetrator at that article. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
...their birthname will be in the sources which they are easily able to click on.— Not necessarily - Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
...the person's birth name would be exactly the same as their assigned gender at birth. both were given at birth before the person was able to identify themselves and both were never an accurate reflection of that person.— The difference is that (using my example) Mary asserts that she has always been female (although it may have taken a while for her to realise it), but she does not assert that her name has always been Mary. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
for most trans people alive today, their articles, even after their death, are unlikely to warrant delving into the deeply personal circumstances life in the way that is done for historical trans people or victims of crime, so the deadname won't usually be relevant: I think my concern would be in cases where editors feel the deadname is necessary for encyclopedic completeness, similar to how we often include middle names even for people who generally don't use them and when its not part of how they are notably known. Does that reach the level of the DEADNAME being relevant? If not, and there aren't other questions of relevance or notability for the dead name, should DEADNAME still apply? — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
tabloid journalists muckraking for profits or notoriety in a changing world. BilledMammal ( talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
"For [non-recently] deceased transgender people, do not include their former name if it is not relevant."I think that would be an excellent addition to the guideline. I would suggest something like
"...if it is not specifically relevant.", to clearly convey a higher (but unspecified) standard than routine inclusion of a birth name. As you say, there would be some difficult discussions in applying it, but perhaps those discussions would let a more detailed consensus evolve that could subsequently be incorporated into the guideline.-- Trystan ( talk) 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die.If you can't respect dead trans people, then that's a problem. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 20:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Note that "mentioning" a person's name is not the same as "using" it - the latter may be disrespectful, the former is not. We can briefly mention the birth name, while using the post-trans name throughout the article.That is exactly the reasoning to support this change, because editors are trying to say that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to dead people and we can therefore use their deadname throughout. If we remove the "living" qualifier it will be clear that we should only mention the deadname of deceased persons, not use it. –– FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
a former [non-notable] name (a deadname) ... should not be included in any page, ie anywhere at all, thus prohibiting mentions. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
why you think we should mention a non-notable deadname for people who are deceased— For reasons I've covered in previous posts, I think that a person's birth/former name is inherently relevant and encyclopedic, so worthy of mention.
Why would deceased people not be afforded the same respect to the preference of their own name?— It's not about "respect" it's about privacy - MOS:DEADNAME says "Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest". We have a whole page WP:BLP describing the ways we treat living people differently to dead ones. I don't think names are somehow special. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
without specific reasonIdentification, as we would with any other person, trans or not, that changed their name. It's not, on its face, any different than including a maiden name (which we do in many articles), or "real names" for famous people who use stage names (and whose articles are located at the stage name). To be crystal clear: I am not against MOS:DEADNAME for living subjects. But for those who have passed, the potential harm is outweighed by being complete (especially if other policies, like WP:DUE are rigidly followed, and such naming is proportional to the coverage in our reliable sources). To the extent WP:BDP allows for a temporary extension of BLP/MOS:DEADNAME (with
editorial consensus), that ought to be enough. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
She was never notable under that name.This argument has never been persuasive for me. Marion Morrison was never notable under that name, either, but we include it (and have a redirect for it) nonetheless. Likewise Leslie Townes Hope, Donald Yarmy, Cherilyn Sarkisian, Merwyn Bogue, Florencia Vicenta de Casillas-Martínez Cardona (without the redirect; piped here) and many others. The idea that DEADNAME is not something to mention based on pre-transition notability doesn't convince me any. We include encyclopedically the birth names (and for Cher, intermediate names) of notable subjects as a matter of course. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 00:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die.- or at least it shouldn't, particularly the recently dead. But I see no reason why excluding their birthname should be done automatically as proposed. Where there is no good reason to include, it should not be included, but where relevant it should be allowable. This proposal is too broad and may lead to absurdities in our coverage. We should trust to editor judgement rather than imposing a 'one size fits all' rule. I could probably support a less draconian change. Pincrete ( talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
failing to acknowledge a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity— By that logic we should definitely acknowledge the change of name in the article, by explicitly stating that they changed their name. But to say "Mary changed her name" without mentioning what she changed it from, seems somewhat incomplete. Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
why would that mean we need to acknowledge their name change?— Because (according to XAM2175)
failing to acknowledge a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity. I suppose we could acknowledge that they abandoned their deadname without actually saying that they changed it. But saying that "Mary/she abandoned her old name" implies that she changed it, because it's used in that sentence or elsewhere in the article.
If a person is notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia, their birthname is inh[e]rently notable.That seems a bit circular to me. There's all types of facts about a person that we wouldn't include in an article about them, for examples, sometimes because it wouldn't be consistent with summary style. I think the question has to be why is a birth name inherently relevant? I would lean towards thinking that it's often not—it's a mere factoid, no more "inherently" worthy of inclusion than a person's height, weight, children's names, or any such detail. -- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 12:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
inherently worthy of inclusion" because it's a "
basic fact"—what does a "basic fact" mean? Bychance, is it a fact "inherently worthy of inclusion"? "
[I]t'd make no sense for a biography to talk about what happened during the person's childhood but omit the name that they went by at that time!Why? Again, you're saying these things as if they're self evident, but I don't see how they are.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Whilst I'm sympathetic to the proposal, I think @ Sideswipe9th: might be approaching this from the wrong angle. I don't think it's too unreasonable to argue that names are gendered terms for the purposes of GENDERID and as such, we should prefer their chosen name. Indeed, as I've pointed out in previous RMs, the articles for high-profile trans people such as Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner were moved almost immediately on this principle.
However, there are some times where inclusion of a deadname has editorial justification; for example, Caitlyn's athletic career or Elliot's early movie career. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, but neither does Wikipedia include needlessly provocative content. There is a fine line between content being included for being encyclopaedic and being included for the sake of inclusion; for example of a different area where I think we struck the right balance on this, the article for Muhammad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I believe, strikes the balance correctly when it comes to depictions of him.
As such, I propose the following paragraph for inclusion between paragraphs one and two of GENDERID:
Where a person has changed their name for reasons related to their gender identity, it is generally preferable to use their new name in most contexts. Ensure that when their former name (colloquially known as a " deadname") is included, it is done sparingly and is editorially justified.
As it is at the moment, there's actually nothing in the letter of GENDERID that would prevent The Wachowskis being called by their former (and credited) professional name at The Matrix ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), even though we generally agree it would go against the spirit. This would close this hole and formalise the default to preferred names, but provide an opportunity for inclusion of deadnames if (and, I hope, only if) it can be justified editorially (in the case of The Matrix, I think the "credited as" footnote is the right balance). Sceptre ( talk) 17:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion..-- Trystan ( talk) 16:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
In articles on works or other activity by a"? That should broadly prohibit using a deadname for any individual, living or dead. I hope it is a change that could gain a clear consensus, as it is seperate from the more contentious question of when it is appropriate to mention a deadname.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)livingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
Support: There's no reason to include a deadname whether a n is alive or not. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 04:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Should MOS:DEADNAME apply after the death of the subject?
- A: Yes
- B: For a limited period, in line with WP:BDP
- C: No
Currently, the former name of a living transgender or non-binary person can only be added to their article if the individual was notable under it. Should a second exception be added to MOS:DEADNAME for when inclusion of the name is WP:DUE, such as when it is often included by reliable sources?
Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs when their former name is disclosed?
BilledMammal ( talk) 03:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs ...— I think "a risk of harm" is either to restrictive (do you mean "any risk, no matter how small") or too subjective (how much risk?). Some qualification may be required. See also: WP:HARM. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals...?As it currently stands, MOS:DEADNAME applies only to "any person whose gender might be questioned" and/or any "transgender or non-binary person" (as does the verb deadname, typically) but your proposal to "apply to all living" apparently includes all people (including unambiguously cisgender males and females). Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"Should MOS:DEADNAME continue to apply after the subject is no longer covered by WP:BLP? (A) Yes (B) No (C) No, but a different standard should apply."For question 3, I would suggest
"MOS:DEADNAME currenty applies to living transgender and non-binary people. Should this scope be expanded to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs when their former name is disclosed?"-- Trystan ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
If B, then a subsequent RfC could determine the period (which of course would be finite, given the outcome of the previous RfC). EddieHugh ( talk) 14:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)For how long should MOS:DEADNAME apply after the death of the subject?
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)When should a deceased transgender person's deadname be mentioned?
- Only when they were notable under that name (same as for living people).
- Only if it has a specific/nontrivial relevance to their biography as shown by common usage in recent reliable sources.
- Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time.
- Always.
- No guideline (status quo).
Since many RfCs (about many topics) go nowhere if people split between too many options, my suggestion FWIW is to ask a single yes/no question on whether to add a guideline that for dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be excluded if they are non-relevant [or non-notable, or un-due, whatever word we decide to go with]. (Or, to word it a different way: included only if they are relevant/notable/due/whatever.) -sche ( talk) 00:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Possibly option 3 "Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time" should be split into "... a specific period of time" (which will stated in the DEADNAME guideline) and "... an indeterminate period of time, based on per-case consensus, per WP:BDP". I know adding another option is not good, but I think BDP ought to mentioned explicitly, because it's not clear whether it is covered by 5 "No guideline (status quo)". Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Based on my and others' comments above about the need — highlighted by the last RfC and by its closers — to ask something very tailored and without overmany options, my proposal is to ask a single yes/no question along the lines of
Should we add the following guideline to MOS:GID?
Possibly we could include some short neutral explanation (in the framing of the RfC, not the guideline) that This is only about dead people because there is already guidance about living people.
(Anything about changing what's done for living trans people, or for non-trans people, should be a separate RfC.)
-sche (
talk) 00:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
...included only if not including it would confuse the reader. But that's just off the top of my head, there could definitely be other better options. Loki ( talk) 01:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
specifically relevantis kinda a nebulous term, and could lead to many prolonged article talk page discussions over its meaning. If we could clarify what that means more specifically, even if we include that as a footnote in the sentence then I think this could be the simplest way to resolve this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
We currently have five different proposals, from Sceptre, BilledMammal, Maddy from Celeste, -sche, and myself. Each proposal has had some supports and some opposes, which I'll not summarise here, and there does not seem to be a clear best option at least by my involved reading. In order of proposal:
If we are to take only one of these proposed questions to an RfC, which one should we use or take forward for further refinement? And when we've got a final phrasing, where should we hold this RfC? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
We also feel this RfC, by offering several options, made it harder for any consensus to emerge.and made a recommendation that any subsequent RfC on this issue
[framed] the subject very narrowlyon
Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.
extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.While I could argue that my proposal would fulfil that in part, as it would in effect make an implicit indefinite extension of the BLP protections for deadnames, that seems unfair to the two other proposals that fulfil the narrow requirement.
For dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be included only if they. The RfC would then have two questions, the first being a yes/no on adding the proposed sentence, and the second for determining what the period of time after death should be. For the second question, a small number of default options likeare specifically relevantwere notable under that name or a period of [to be determined] has passed since their death
in-line with WP:BDP,
6 months,
1 year,
5 yearsshould be included, along with the option for editors to write in shorter or longer periods should they desire. Doing it in this manner, a suggested addition that extends the BLP protections for deadnames, and a second question that determines for how long, would best fulfil the recommendation from the August 2021 RfC.
As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, only mention the previous name of a deceased transgender or non-binary person when there is some concrete encyclopedic value in doing so? Loki ( talk) 21:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
some concrete encyclopaedic value, do we actually have a policy, guideline, information page, or essay that expands on what that means? WP:NOTEVERYTHING has a somewhat brief note about how we are a summary of accepted knowledge, before going into various NOT examples. I would fear that, by not having an accepted definition of what encyclopaedic value means somewhere, we'd ultimately wind up with the same repeated discussions as if we kept the specifically relevant part of -sche's original proposal. It would also open the door to both good and bad faith versions of arguments like
this is a biography of X, their birth name is relevant. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
some concrete encyclopedic valueis fair. I don't think we'll be able to get too concrete here because it's hard to think of every single edge case. But here are some examples of cases that might be illustrative:
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. ... In articles on works or other activity by aI think an RFC on use has a good chance of achieving a clear consensus and resulting in a positive improvement to the guideline.-- Trystan ( talk) 23:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)livingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
One comment that's partially based on the debate at
Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting and my efforts to determine how this policy would apply to the shooter. A few of the proposals concern this language: "notable under a former name (a deadname)
". But I think there are two different interpretations of that language, and some more clarity might be appreciated:
While I don't want to blend the talk pages, Hale does serve as an example in which the outcomes would be different depending on the interpretation used. Hale was not notable when he identified by his deadname. However, when the incident occurred, his deadname was widely reported—possibly (for example, in the case of the New York Times) because, at the time of the breaking-news reports, it was not clear how Hale identified. ("There was confusion about the shooter’s gender identity in the immediate aftermath of the attack" [17]).-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 23:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.A proposal to remove "living" doesn't do that; if you want to follow its recommendations then I suggest asking
Should MOS:DEADNAME continue to apply after death in line with WP:BDP?
How about an RFC to eliminate the two paragraphs on former names and use the existing policy at WP:BLPNAME, which already addresses privacy and sources? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
When someone has died, the rules change.I've seen several editors express this above, but none have expressed why. What is it about the death of a trans or non-binary person that makes it acceptable to subsequently start including the name under which they were not previously notable? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Surely, under most circumstances where a trans person's status and consequently their birth-name was not at all notable while they were alive, that would continue indefinitely after their deathWhile I can see why it's reasonable to think this, unfortunately it's not true. As I said in my initial post opening this discussion, there are a couple of reliable sources that published the deadname of a recently killed transgender teen from the UK. There are also multiple reliable sources (and numerous unreliable) that have published the deadnames of Laverne Cox, and Rachel Levine, the two named examples for individuals who were not notable prior to transitioning. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
exceedingly offensiveall the time. The only valid argument to exclude the names is for verifiability or privacy, and the latter is governed by BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking over these, my opinion is that we should start with the first two questions (Sideswipe9th and Sceptre's) as separate RFCs; additionally, they don't really overlap or contradict each other, so they can be run as separate RFCs. These are simple, straightforward yes-or-no questions with direct, specific, proposals for wording, which addresses the lack of clarity in the previous RFC. The other three RFCs would only be relevant if Sideswipe9th's RFC failed; if it did, one of them could be held after that, depending on what the tone of that initial RFC looks like. -- Aquillion ( talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned above before I realized the full size of this discussion, I would say that in addition to Sideswipe9th's proposal, the phrasing "transgender or non-binary" is in my opinion unnecessary and this should be broadened to read "If a person was not notable under a former name..." This removes the need for specific mention of deadnames entirely while increasing the privacy of living individuals (and dead individuals, if such a thing is desired.) I also think it's an entirely ridiculous statement to claim that someone's birth name will suddenly become encyclopedic at any point after their death if it was not encyclopedic while they were living. (I do think there is probably more nuance in this situation, on a per article basis, then a hard and fast MOS rule really can account for.) casualdejekyll 22:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
How would the knowledge of the birth name help a reader?— If the reader wanted to more research about the person, in particular their pre-name-change years, then the birth name would certainly help.
100 years from now, will anybody care about the deadname?— People doing any genelogical research will. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Spitballing: what if we ask (in one RfC) a set of agree/disagree Qs about the different levels of inclusion-vs-exclusion which have been suggested? Unlike an RfC of one multiple-choice question "when should names be included?" with overmany choices, here each level of inclusion would have two options (agree/disagree), so for each one it should be clear whether there's consensus for it, against it, or no consensus, without needing multiple RfCs. We'd have to decide how to word each line, and whether it's better to have pairs like 3 and 4 below or to collapse them into one option like "include if and only if" (IMO pairs like 3 and 4 allow people to agree with multiple options better than if the options were "do X only if Y" and "do X only if Z", but collapsing them would be more concise), but the idea is:
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following. Deceased transgender or nonbinary people's former names ("deadnames") should:
1. always be included in their articles.
2. always be omitted from their articles.
3. be included if the people were notable under those names [like for living people].
4. be omitted if the people were not notable under those names.
5. be included if they are specifically relevant.
6. be omitted if they are not specifically relevant.
7. be included once WP:BDP ceases to apply ["two years at the outside"].
(Again, wording can be changed, options collapsed or added, but this is the concept.) This way, it should be possible for people to express and closers to assess where consensus is, e.g. "most people agree with X and disagree with Y". Thoughts? -sche ( talk) 01:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Jane Doeas
Janeinstead
Doein our article prose? Note that for the purposes of this question, any article where we use the forename instead of the surname, regardless of whether or not it's about a trans or non-binary person, would be helpful. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
gendered words that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender identity, I think working something like
For the purposes of MOS:SURNAME, MOS:GIVENNAME, and MOS:SAMESURNAME, refer to any trans or non-binary person with the name that reflects the person's most recent expressed gender identity.into that same paragraph would provide both continuity of guidance for which name/pronouns to use in complicated cases (covering the use case), while also referring to the more specific guidance without needing to repeat it. This would also still leave the second and third paragraphs of GENDERID, which cover the mention case. Ie, only mention the former name of a trans or non-binary person if they were notable under it.
In articles on works or other activity by a-- Trystan ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)livingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
John Doeto refer to a trans woman, while also using she/her pronouns and feminine gendered terminology.
should we add the following sentence [snip] to the first paragraph and amend the fourth paragraph to [snip]. We should probably make another subsection so that we can briefly workshop those changes, and find a smooth way to more neatly integrate it with the existing guidance on pronouns and gendered terms.
Resolving the use issue first would make the mention issue (when to include it) clearerWould it? You cannot use a deadname if you cannot mention it. Would we not need to resolve the mention issue first, before we can resolve the use issue? Or is this a chicken or the egg causality dilemma? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I have concerns that focusing too much on the use-mention distinction could encourage bad actors to try to sneak their way around the current rules. That’s why I proposed the wording “inclusion” and “editorially justified”; it’s basically a “use your common sense” rule. (So, for example: including Caitlyn Jenner’s name, especially in regards to her athletic career, would be common sense, even though she’s alive; including SOPHIE’s, as a trans person who took her privacy incredibly seriously, wouldn’t, even though she’s dead). We already make these sorts of allowances when it comes to nationality; for example, it would be technically correct, but incredibly silly, to describe Willie McRae as “British” outside of talking about his time in the military. Honestly, unless a demonstrable detriment (again, defined in common sense terms) can be shown to the contrary, I’d argue that “just refer to people how they’d prefer” rule is the NPOV treatment (in so much as not doing so is rude at best, and pushing your beliefs on them at worst). Sceptre ( talk) 05:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I’d argue that “just refer to people how they’d prefer” rule is the NPOV treatment (in so much as not doing so is rude at best, and pushing your beliefs on them at worst)Not always. For example if someone describes themselves as Jewish but reliable sources disagree then we shouldn't refer to them as Jewish.
There appears to be universal consensus in the above discussion that we should not use deadnames to refer to trans/nb individuals in wikivoice (as distinct from the issue of when we mention/include them). Does anyone object to clarifying MOS:DEADNAME so that the provisions on using a deadname are no longer limited to living individuals?
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification... In articles on works or other activity by alivingtrans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...
This change would not preclude an RFC about when to include deadnames for deceased subjects.-- Trystan ( talk) 12:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
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 gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources." In other words, I think your first point—that we should follow reliable sources as to the most recent (or last) self-identification—is already captured by the policy.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 14:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server)does not encompass names, given the examples in the parentheses and the fact that deadnames are only specifically mentioned in the next paragraph (on living subjects). Still, I'm persuaded by the counterargument—that gendered names are an example of gendered words. And, in the debates I've seen, at least, that argument has consistently won out—any enduring debate (if any) concerns how often (if at all) a birth name should be mentioned. Still, I think the guideline is currently ambiguous, and it fosters making the guideline explicit, as Trystan suggests, would save a lot of needless debate.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason we cannot follow WP:DUE here? For example, are there any articles where mentioning the name would be WP:DUE but we should not mention it? For borderline cases, we can have a guideline that states we should err on the side of not including the name, strongly so in the case of living individuals. We wouldn't need a guideline telling us to prefer sources from after the name change as WP:NAMECHANGES already does that.
It would neatly resolve this entire debate, it would prevent any conflicts with a policy we are forbidden from having conflicts with, and it would help with WP:CREEP. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that for these individuals the inclusion of the deadname is DUE, isn't DUE, or is borderline?It is all of these things at the same time, because DUE is a subjective measure. There is no objective test over whether something is or is not DUE. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
DUE is how we handle every controversial topic in the encyclopedia. The argument that it is fit for purpose for all those other topics but isn't fit for purpose for this one doesn't make sense to me.BilledMammal ( talk) 19:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that including the deadname would be DUE for all of them?As an aside, this particular question is one why I and I suspect several other editors have hesitated on producing any such lists. While there are many editors like yourself who will be asking this in good faith, there are also many editors who will ask it in bad faith. Because of the current anti-trans culture war and moral panic, particularly from the United States, there are editors who edit articles relating to trans and non-binary individuals and topics solely for the purpose of denying self-actualisation and claiming that trans and non-binary people are not who they say they are.
but it shouldn't result in endless discussions and RfC'sPlease look through the talk page history, including both comments on the current live page and its archives, as well as comments that were removed prior to archiving. Even with the current objective version of the deadname guidance, where inclusion is only warranted if the trans or non-binary person was notable prior to transitioning, which Thomas was not, there are endless discussions and edit requests for including Thomas' deadname. Making the deadname guidance subjective based, by tying it to DUE, will result in countless more discussions on it because even if we exclude all of the bad faith editors for conduct problems, every good faith editor defines DUEness differently. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
all of these individuals were not notable prior to their transition— Le Brocq was notable pre-transition under his birth name as "a musician, music teacher and radio presenter. ... as well as for ... numerous charitable efforts". He was also notable under his intermediate names Eddie/Ed Ayres (he changed his surname when he married), including for writing his memoirs about his transition.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
require us to include a deadname that should be excluded. While that is a valid question, and one that I'm know there are examples of that I just can't recall at this time, it's not the only type of article that would be affected by this. Elisa Rae Shupe was, back in 2016, the first person in the US to obtain legal recognition of having a non-binary gender identity. Three years later, she detransitioned, changed her name back to her birth name, and became very prominent in anti-trans political circles and publications with her story being used to push pro-conversion therapy narratives. It was during this period that the majority of sources about her were published. In 2022, she retransitioned, and took on the name Elisa Rae, however because of this the sources that were previously giving her coverage simply stopped. After all, why could anti-trans sources cover someone who made the decision to retransition? Until recently, with the publishing of a large series of leaks of emails that Shupe was party to, no sources covered Shupe's retransition or her name change. Thankfully the current formulation of GENDERID, alongside a request from Shupe to update her article and WP:ABOUTSELF allowed us to use self-published sources (in this case, Shupe's blog) to cover the basic uncontroversial facts that she retransitioned and took on a new name. A straight DUEness based guideline would have prevented this, or at least would have required significant lengthy discussion that could otherwise be avoided. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
An individuals birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included when such inclusion in WP:DUE. In circumstances where inclusion is borderline we should err on the side of exclusion.
Okay. I think an RFC needs to cover three distinct things:
I suspect (hope?) that the first question isn't very controversial, but, for the reasons I mentioned under User Trystan's proposal, I think it should be separated and included. On the other hand, I think the last issue there is the hardest one, and maybe the hardest to answer or even ask about. Certainly, I think any guideline we come up with will have to allow for discretion and will, at best, only serve to guide that discretion.
A few people have brought up WP:CREEP. I think that's, on the whole, a misplaced concern here. I've now seen more than a handful of these debates. It's true, there are differences between them—there are nuances that we probably can't address with a guideline—and we shouldn't try to! But it's also true that many of these debates do hit the same notes, and when those same notes are debated from scratch each time, the discussion of the nuances is actually hindered. In particular, as to non-living subjects, almost every debate ends up devoting a large amount of texts to the issues I mentioned above: In terms of (1) how to principally refer to the subject, (2) whether to use their former name at all, and (3) how (or how often) to use their former name, what are the implications of a large amount of media sources using the former name? It's extremely repetitive, and it doesn't make sense to have that broad of a discussion on each individual page—it's the type of recurring issue that absolutely should be handled by guidelines.
That doesn't mean a one-size-fits-all approach should be used. Most of the proposals leave room for discretion. But if we address these macro, recurring issues at the guideline level, and properly leave room for discretion, we can actually better address the nuances of particular cases.
I've seen a lot of great points made by editors on every side. But I think, to some degree, we're getting lost in the weeds. I think we can narrow down an RFC to a series of yes or no questions.
Proposed RFC Questions:
As to deceased trans persons, should we always principally refer to such persons by their last-used name of choice, as reported in reliable sources?(If yes, we could use Trystan's proposed wording.) (For the historical figure issue, which is often brought up, we could also add a caveat that this guideline is only triggered when a majority of the reliable sources that discuss a person's last-used self-identification agree as to that identification, but think that's implicit)
Should we always exclude the birth name of deceased trans persons who were not notable prior to transitioning?
When a birth name should be included in an article, should that birth name be included as a parenthetical with the page's first reference to the subject (e.g., "Gloria Hemingway (born Gregory Hemingway)?"
After the first reference to a birth name, should every reference to the birth name need to be specifically warranted by context?
I've tried to capture some essence of most of the proposals in these questions. @ Trystan:, obviously the first question is entirely thanks to you. @ Sideswipe9th:, you'll probably notice I took from your proposal to craft the second and (partially) third questions. @ Sceptre:, I'm sure you'll see your proposal in the final question, and if you think it'd be better, I'm happy to switch "warranted by context" with "editorially justified". @ BilledMammal:, you might think I've snubbed your proposal—on some level, I don't blame you. But, as the guidelines exist now, the deadnames of deceased trans persons are not covered. As such, if the consensus is straight-up "no" for questions 2, 3, and 4, I think your proposal wins by default.
Realistically, I think we have a shot of consensus as to question 1 and question 2 (though I'm actually not totally sure which way question 2 will go!). But I think it's worth asking these questions and getting to the RFC, because I think any consensus we do achieve will provide not just more, but better guidance.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 20:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but I would like to see a definite proposal before supporting or opposing, which could leave us in a no consensus situation where we'd need to re-run it again with defined proposals.
Response regarding questions 1 & 2
|
---|
|
Response regarding questions 3 & 4
|
---|
|
agreeing to Trystan's proposal would be the exact same as agreeing to question 1Yes based on implication, but not exactly in practice. Trystan's proposal is a concrete, definite change to the guideline. It's asking should we insert/rephrase the text of the guideline to this other version, yes or no? In doing so it lets editors compare the current version and a specific replacement version when making their determination for supporting or opposing. Question 1 as you've formulated it however is asking if there's consensus for a change, without specifying what form of that change will take. As a result it's a much more open ended question, because that particular change has many different forms.
your proposal doesn't allow for discretion as to persons who were not notable prior to their transitionDo we need much, if any, discretion for trans or non-binary people who changed their names prior to becoming notable? The historical examples that have been mentioned previously, like James Barry and Public Universal Friend wouldn't fully be covered by any version of this, including the current version of the guideline, as their gender identities are unclear in the historical record. I'm trying to think of a modern example where we'd explicitly need such a discretionary statement in the guidance that ultimately wouldn't also be inherently covered by WP:IAR.
Question 3, I think, is fairly non-controversial—it asks, assuming a name should be included, whether the name should be paired with the first reference to the person. I don't know that that many people would disagree with that.True, and it would largely be seeking to codify standard practice. Again though, this is better handled by asking if we should make a specific change to the existing guidance along these lines, as that gives editors something concrete to compare against (ie new and old versions).
(e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server)—doesn't include names. As to your second and third bold points—that does absolutely address names for living trans persons. But this discussion is mostly on how to address deceased trans persons.-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 12:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Referring to a trans person by their deadname" has nothing to do with what I said or proposed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
... wrong ... for us to also misgender her. That's probably why that featured article does not contain her deadname— Surely mentioning a deadname ("John Smith (born Mary Smith) ....") is not the same as misgendering ("John started her first job"). Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Are titles capitalised if they come after a name? For example, Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as opposed to Rishi Sunak, prime minister of the United Kingdom. DDMS123 ( talk) 23:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
JOBTITLE is quite clear that titles are generally not capitalised, including when 'a formal title for a specific entity is [not] addressed as a title or position in and of itself.' I take this to mean that we should use 'William, prince of Wales' over 'William, Prince of Wales', as the person rather than title title is being addressed. Conversely, SURNAME uses 'Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester' and 'William, Prince of Wales'.
Which subsection is right, if there is a conflict? A.D.Hope ( talk) 18:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Celia Rose Gooding § RfC on pronouns. — HTGS ( talk) 03:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
In December 2020 the "Opening paragraph" section ended its list of what should be included with:
Today the equivalent text, now called "Opening sentence", reads:
However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph."
Does anyone know if the change of link destination in #4 was discussed? If so where? Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 01:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I was analyzing the guidance about First mention. The Gaddafi first sentence example seems to have excessive clutter needlessly. I think readers come to biographical articles mostly to answer who the person is. The first sentence seeks to answer that in a nutshell. What is the full name of the person is a secondary concern. If this latter is too long it is best to leave it elsewhere in the lead, not in the first sentence. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph.
The reader many times just seeks to answer "who is Gaddafi?" Then the most reasonable answer is concise, easy to read info. In the current form, the reader needs to go through all of this before reaching an answer, Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (Arabic: معمر محمد أبو منيار القذافي; /ˈmoʊ.əmɑːr ɡəˈdɑːfi/; c. 1942 – 20 October 2011), also known as Colonel Gaddafi,....
I tried to make the guidance more flexible but User:DrKay did revert, apparently objecting that the article doesn't have the format I added as an option. I have to note that articles are in constant state of evolution and the Gadaffi example is just an illustration. My added option was an illustration of a format other editors think might be better, including me. I don't think necessarily only the current format needs to be included as if it was a fixed rule.
My addition was Colonel Muammar Gaddafi [pron 1] ( c. 1942 – 20 October 2011) was a Libyan politician, revolutionary, and political theorist. He was born Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi.... It was done with the thought in mind of guidelines about conciseness, readability, and avoiding clutter whenever possible. Also, I added the option instead of replacing altogether the previous example with some other page because in some cases it might be advisable to leave the full name for a variety of reasons.
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
added for section, signing so as not to hinder archiving later — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 21:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why
MOS:SIR, on honorific titles, demands that the title be placed in bold in the first use of the name
? The honorific title is almost never part of the article title, and further: it makes it harder to parse quickly for the reader, especially when the person’s name is already listed in full, with all the many names and nicknames that some biographies begin with.
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchillversus
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
I propose we reverse this guidance, or at least remove it. (Except of course to keep bold full titles for subjects whose honorific titles are part of their article titles. Eg, Sir Samuel Hood, 1st Baronet.) — HTGS ( talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Winston Churchill was no longer Mr Churchill but Sir WinstonWe don't bold-format (or even include) "Mr", so why should we bold "Sir"? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a misapprehension by some that "title" and "name" are mutually exclusive. A "name" is just the word or sequence of words which identify a particular thing, and in the UK at least, a title can be part of a person's name. A knight's legal name under British law is "Sir John Smith", not merely "John Smith". This is fundamentally different to something like "Mr", which is just a social courtesy not forming part of anyone's legal name. The unspoken assumption seems to be the only things "allowed" to be part of someone's name (as decreed by the internet) are given names and surnames, when this isn't how it always works. Take Charles III: "III" clearly isn't either a given name or a surname, yet starting his article "Charles III ..." would be absurd. Or peers, whose titles also form part of their names: "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington" would be rather odd (particularly for someone universally known as "the Duke of Wellington" rather than by his given name and surname). And we allow people to have self-assumed titles used as part of stage names to be treated as part of their name: a self-named Lady Gaga is fine, but if she genuinely held a title she'd have to be "Lady Gaga"? I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. Proteus (Talk) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
in the UK at least, a title can be part of a person's name. A knight's legal name under British law is "Sir John Smith", not merely "John Smith".— It's probably worth noting that explicitly in MOS:SIR. References:
@ Necrothesp and Proteus: Is there a compromise approach you would accept? I think most of us would be happy with phrasing that simply does not require the bold ‘Sir’ universally. Perhaps there is a standard of usage that could be applied? I only suggested the exclusion of those article-titles that do include the honorific-title as a starting point, but there are other ways we could preserve bold in more cases. Otherwise we can simply remove the guidance and let editors decide on a page-by-page basis... though that seems tedious. — HTGS ( talk) 21:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Necrothesp and Proteus: "Sir" and "Lord" (or "Dame" and "Lady") are customarily treated differently from other titles like "Mr.", "Dr.", "Rev.", "Hon.", etc. in that they can be (and often are) used when addressing people in an informal register, by their forename, rather than their surname. They're treated as a more integral part of the name than the others, and bolding them reflects that. Whether they are legally part of the name, whatever that means, or whether it's logical (it isn't) is beside the point. I note also that the opening line of the Britannica article linked above (bolding as in the original) is "Winston Churchill, in full Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill..." In other words, our existing style is compatible both with custom and pre-existing encyclopedic practice. Choess ( talk) 04:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
MOS:ETHNICITY currently reads:
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. For guidance on historic place names versus modern-day names, see WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
The second sentence ("this will be the country... where the person is currently a citizen... or resident") is contradicted by the second-last sentence, "Ethnicity... should not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability..."
I have no scientific way of demonstrating this, but don't over 99% of BLPs and biographies ignore this, and include nationality/ethnicity in the opening sentence. Can we remove the word "Ethnicity" (and the implied "nationality") from that sentence? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
context for the activities that made the person notablewill generally be
the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. In this formulation, either the phrase "in most cases" has to do a lot more work than many editors seem willing to entertain, or the framework of nation-state citizenship ends up being imposed on cases where it does not actually reflect the context for notability.
ethnicity is different than nationality, it is whether or not to treat all articles on the basis, consistent with US political culture, that "nationality" approximates national citizenship or residency. By contrast, from a Canadian perspective, prominent Quebec nationalists are notable in the context of their Quebecois nationality (not equivalent to ethnicity, which may indeed be considerably more complex). Prominent indigenous activists and cultural figures may be prominent in the context of a First Nations national identity (not identical to ethnicity, although recognition of an indigenous identity may have preconditions related to ethnicity). And so on.
context for the activities that made the person notable, nor should it be construed as insisting that "nationality=citizenship(/residency)". Also, the argument that it is important to "identify what nationality people are" in the case, say, of academics where their birthplace differs from their country of residence and where their citizenship and "nationality" are not a matter of public record - well, it seems to me that the presumption that this sort of information ought to be included needs an actual argument in its support, beyond a (seemingly lazy) reading of the first paragraph of ETHNICITY. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox person#Template:Age for a proposal regarding {{ age}} whereby, when a date is unknown, it would change from showing a single number to a range of ages. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The sentence "The sentence seems to contain unnecessary clutter—it's preferable a more readable form.
" is, ironically, missing a word.
-sche (
talk) 05:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This ... could be a hot-button issue, but I think it's one worth settling. MOS:GENDERID currently distinguishes between living persons who were notable under a former name and those who were not. Does "notable" in the MOS:GENDERID context mean WP:NOTABLE or, in effect, "noteworthy"? This isn't a philosophical question: I actually only realized the potential discrepancy when @ Trystan: brought it up at the Cheshire home invasion murders talk page. That article discusses a living person who was convicted for several felony counts (and originally sentenced to death) related to the article's subject—a fairly grisly home-invasion murder. After her conviction, the person in question transitioned while incarcerated. There's no dispute that, per WP:PERPETRATOR, she should not have had her own article prior to transitioning (or, frankly, now). At the same time, the act for which she is noteworthy was committed prior to her transitioning, when she was living under her birth name. So ... should her birth name be included?
Of course, if notable means
WP:NOTABLE—a subject deserving their own article, the answer is no. But I've found that, often, notable as to a content-inclusion question often means, effectively, "noteworthy" (
WP:NOTEWORTHY notwithstanding). For example (and this is currently under discussion),
WP:NOTDIRECTORY says, "Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
" But no one interprets that policy to mean that disambiguation pages can only contain references to persons who have their own Wikipedia article. There are also all sorts of ways content guidelines get around saying "noteworthy":
MOS:TIMELINE says to consider "importance to the subject
"; some policies emphasize that we need a "summary" (see
WP:NOTEVERYTHING,
WP:SUMMARY) (how do you just have a summary? by excluding non-noteworthy info). I don't really have a stake in this—but I think it'd be worth clarifying to make instances (like the above) clear.--
Jerome Frank Disciple 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject(and it itself notes that this is a procedure for proving notability and not a definition of notability). Disco Elysium itself clearly clears this barrier, and many of the articles about the game are also about its main character. We don't always make a separate article in this situation, especially if the character is very closely tied to a single work, but that doesn't mean that the character isn't notable. Loki ( talk) 23:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
But you can't use the lack of a Wikipedia article as evidence of non-notability, especially when they're prominently mentioned in some other Wikipedia article." Yes, perhaps the person in question just hasn't had an article about them written yet, but that's usually not what's discussed in these debates (over DABMENTIONs). (I agree with you that we often don't make separate articles for characters when the character is very closely tied to a single work, but I think most users read that kind of restriction as stemming from WP:N: after all, a WP:PERPETRATOR closely tied to one event is often said to not be "notable" enough for their own article with reference to WP:PERPETRATOR.)
notable for purposes of inclusion in a disambiguation page", which further suggests "noteworthy" is the standard being applied (after all, how can someone be notable for the purposes of a single page? either they meet WP:N or not). To clarify: When I've seen this discussed before, most editors—at least of those who support keeping "notable" within WP:NOT, will say that it only imposes notable "in the colloquial sense", which I'm paraphrasing as "noteworthy".-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I feel like you might be fighting my (real-world) hypo a bit here :) Again, it's usually conceded that the entries are not notable enough for their own article under WP:N. The fact that some MOS:DABMENTIONs might be notable enough for their own article ... and just, by chance, no one has made an article for them is possible, but that's usually not what's debated or discussed. I'm also not sure it's fair to say WP:N is just notable in the colloquial sense and isn't a jargon term. To be clear, WP:N says:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
- It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
- It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
The general notability guideline then gives a sentence and provides specific definitions for 5 of the words in that 1 sentence. You might say that WP:N is an effort to formalize notability in the colloquial sense, but it is absolutely jargony, and it's not really a synonym.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 01:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Loki that notability in the context of MOS:GENDERID clearly means that the subject met WP:N. The wording about notability in MOS:DABMENTION is relatively recent. It isn't, in my opinion, very clear, or a good example of applying the concept of notability in other policies and guidelines. The addition was an attempt to align the DABMENTION guideline with the statement at WP:NOTDIRECTORY that DAB pages should only include notable entries, though that statement is agreed to be contradictory and universally ignored. A better solution would have been changing WP:NOT, rather than attempting to redefine notability for one specific purpose.-- Trystan ( talk) 15:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic...As Loki points out above, WP:1E address people notable for one event, which indicates they are notable, even if they wouldn't normally be given an article.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person is a low-profile individual their former name should not be included...
The RfC over at VPP on the second and third paragraphs of GENDERID has just closed. While there was no clear consensus for change based on the options provided, it seems as though we are closer to a consensus than before we started, and there's a recommendation for further discussion with a narrow focus.
Based on the words of the closer, the consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3
. To save some going back and forth between here and the RfC, in summary option 3 was to never include the deadname of a trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to transitioning, and option 2 was to include the deadname if it would
satisfy the principle of least astonishment. The options for no change, and always including the deadname were soundly rejected. So for this discussion, let's focus solely on finding the middle ground between never including the deadname, and sometimes including the deadname. In short, what is the barrier for inclusion?
Reading through the discussion and closure, I think something like Demonstration of the significance of the deadname in high quality sources as shown through discussion or analysis of the name, and beyond mentions of the name.
seems like it would address the concerns raised. It raises the bar for inclusion beyond a simple majority of sources, which many felt was too low, while also allowing consensus to form for inclusion in a manner that isn't based on
WP:IAR. It also keeps things solely within the realm of
due and undue weight, as it is based on the depth of coverage about the deadname and not solely based on the sheer volume of mentions of it.
If we can find consensus on where the barrier for inclusion should be here, based on the comments made in the just closed RfC, I think we can avoid the need for a future one. However if we must have a further RfC on this, then we need to keep any future RfC on this issue as narrow in scope as possible. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
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.. The closure of the RfC from 2 years ago also had a similar recommendation for further discussion on a narrow topic, however in that case we never actually had that discussion. I don't want to see us stuck in the same situation situation where we don't actually have the further discussion as recommended the closure of an RfC, and so I've started this discussion.
Second breakfast? Elevenses? Luncheon? Afternoon tea? [etc.]Thank you, Pippin! – .Raven .talk 03:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Note/Moment of Inspiration:
User:HTGS suggested this variation on option 2 from the last RFC that might be worth considering: "Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion, but a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources is
". Now, that sentence probably gets at the sentiment I was trying to capture when I crafted option 2, but it disregards
WP:PLA (which quite a few editors thought was inapt) and it makes the preponderance of sources the factor rather than a factor.
But, of course, the closer's finding was that we should thread the needle between options 2 and 3, and I think HTGS's version, while perhaps more articulate, is really just a minor variation of option 2. THAT SAID, I was recently working on a
close request involving
MOS:CAPS, which includes this line: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
" A substantial majority is a higher standard than a mere majority, and the term "only" sets a high bar. Finally, I think we can add one more caveat: that the substantial majority have to principally refer to the person by their former name. I think this is as close as we're going to get to being able to thread the needle. ScottishFinnhishRadish (the closer) also suggested listing an example of a case in which the name of a deceased trans person who was not notable prior to transition should be included. @
Sideswipe9th:, as we've discussed, I think Aiden Hale is the obvious example here—there was an RFC on him quite recently, and a pretty overwhelming majority supported mentioning the name at least once. Additionally, even today, most reliable sources principally refer to Hale by his birth name. So, all this said:
Proposal: If a deceased trans or nonbinary person was not notable prior to transitioning, when should an article mentioning that person include their deadname?
|
---|
If a deceased transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should similarly[1] be excluded unless either (1) a majority of reliable sources use that name as the person's principal name or (2) the person is regarded by reliable sources as having wavered on or otherwise had a unique relationship to their trans identity. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
[1] This is in reference to the previous paragraph, discussing the exclusion of the deadnames of living trans people who were not notable pre transition.
|
Fin.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 01:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusionI think this suggestion is a reasonable fall back if we can't find something more specific, and something that we could tie inline to policy points like WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. However while it raises the bar slightly from the current lack of guidance, I find myself agreeing with Jerome that this is a lower baseline than option 2 from the RfC. I think we should spend some time here trying to find something that better fits the situation the RfC has left us in. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
unless reliable sourcing exists" would be "mere verifiability" though, right? And the preponderance line is basically what option 2 was: We're trying to split the difference between option 2 and option 3, right? If we want to shorten the proposal; we could just excise the first sentence? (I'll do that above and note the change.) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
or if the use of the name is necessary to avoid confusionWhile it's a simple enough proposition on the surface, when you actually try to steelman it as an argument I think it leaves it open to too much interpretation to actually be a useful guideline. There's so many different ways you could define
necessary to avoid confusion, in good faith and in bad, that it would result in endless talk page discussions similar to the situation we currently find ourselves in.
Demonstration of the significance of the deadname, not just that it's verifiable, I think we need to die it to something like WP:DEPTH. Unfortunately DEPTH is part of the SNG for events, and I think if we try to use that we'll get endless questions about why we're using an article notability guideline for a specific bit of content. Is there another shortcut that anyone is aware of, or relevant policy paragraph that we could make a shortcut to that would suffice? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
demonstrated need, starting with something as simple as
they changed their name, we need to know their previous one. Unless there's a specific test we could wikilink demonstrated need to that narrows the phrase beyond a plain reading of the words. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3 .... Another indicator that the consensus is between these two options ....". But you seem to be conceding that the baseline you're proposing is below option 2. In other words, it's a nonstarter.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
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?That to me goes beyond mere volume of mention a deadname in sources, and straight into the depth of discussion in sources about the deadname. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
when a clear majority of sources principally refer to the person by their former name
Clear majority" is a bit ambiguous, but less so than "significant" or "substantial" majority, and, realistically, how often are we really going to get into situations where it's 51% / 49 % ? Having reviewed several of the article debates prior to the RFC, I really can't recall one in which reliable sources were split down the middle. In the case of Hale, for example, it's really more like 90/10. And I don't think we should let the possibility of an edge case discourage us too much. Let's be frank: if there is a 51/49 case ... it's not actually going to come down to editors' views of what constitutes a "clear majority". Additionally, the focus on what sources "
principally refer" to the person by their former name ensures we're not overly emphasizing sources that just mention a former name as a point of trivia.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Christine Jorgensen: a personal autobiographyLoki ( talk) 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Mere verifiability” and “
a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources”. That space was intentional. It sets boundaries that reasonable minds will agree on, but leaves more difficult marginal decisions to the editors who write our biographies. It does feel like editors here keep trying to circle discussion back to “how do we make sure we have a rule we can enforce?” (Or, less charitably, “How to we keep lowly editors from doing what we, the MOS cabal, don’t want them to do?”) We (here) are not a police force. The Manual of Style is nice because we can ensure some good amount of consistency, and avoid arguments over commas and capital letters; it is not here to decide content. (How to refer to people is style; whether to include biographical information is content.) I would be happy with the smallest guidance possible: “Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion of someone’s deadname”. We only really need to tell editors that when a deadname is absolutely trivial—if it has only been mentioned on a personal blog, or in a footnote of a lesser source—then it does not need to be included. And for those who want to roleplay as cops, they will find that guidance will enable them more than you might think. — HTGS ( talk) 02:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I've done a bunch of reading of our policies and guidelines, and have come up with the following:
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.
This builds upon the wording of the closure, that there is a clear consensus that the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest. It sets out two inclusion criteria, 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. Encyclopaedic significance is wikilinked to the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy point, and high quality sources is linked to WP:BESTSOURCES. In the footnote, it includes a link to the close of the RfC where there was a clear consensus that deadnames are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest, and then makes it clear that because of this they are therefore typcially considered minor aspects, which links to the WP:BALASP policy point. This has the clear and intentional effect of tying this guideline to both the What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view policies.
With regards to the closure, this sets the bar for inclusion of the deadname 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 also giving specific policy based guidance on what the inclusion criteria are. Finally it gives three clear examples of application of the inclusion criteria. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hatting my own extended inquiry / dialogue with Sideswipe--
Jerome Frank Disciple 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
"there is a clear consensus that the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest"... a question about whether birth names or former names are of encyclopedic interest wasn't asked in the RfC referenced, so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is open to challenge. As with others, I struggle to understand what "in-depth analysis or discussion of the name" would be (The Izzard example is about the person's stated preferences, not about the names themselves; and Izzard was known as "Eddie Izzard" for a long time when notable, so the name would be included anyway; but then what counts as "transitioning"? Has Izzard transitioned? It quickly gets complicated...). And why "high quality sources" instead of standard "reliable sources"? That slants things to academic discourse, where analysing a person's names, to the best of my knowledge, is not common. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
a question about whether birth names or former names are of encyclopedic interest wasn't asked in the RfC referenced, so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is open to challengeIt may not have been directly asked, but the closer certainly assessed that is where the community consensus lies based on the wider contributions to the RfC. It's important to remember that RfCs are not votes. If you want to challenge it, you'd have to challenge it in the close first, as until it's removed from the closure, it is a safe assumption that it is the consensus.
And why "high quality sources" instead of standard "reliable sources"? That slants things to academic discourseWP:BESTSOURCES is policy, and tells us to prefer
reputable books and articles. In general we are biased towards academic sources, and that is widely considered to be a good thing. However in this context, high quality sources does not limit this to academic sources, reputably published and well researched biographies are also high quality sources. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
It may not have been directly asked, but the closer certainly assessed that is where the community consensus lies based on the wider contributions to the RfC.
...implicitly acknowledged that the inherent encyclopedic value of deadnames was either nonexistent or small enough to be discarded...I don't think this follows. A supporter of Option 2 on the second question could quite reasonably be of the opinion that names are generally of encyclopedic interest, and the names of trans/nb people aren't somehow of less interest than other names, but the social mores around deadnames warrant an extraordinary and limited departure from the default practice of including them.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2", which said that deadnames should be included according to WP:PLA (considering a majority of reliable sources), "
and option 3", which said that such names should never be included."
I'm not liking this established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources
wording, since it will lead to tendentious wikilawyering. Under this proposal, the clearly notable deadname of the
Nashville school shooter would've been excluded from the article from the get-go, and editors who try to "
WP:IAR" to include the name would've gotten reverted and pointed to the MOS.
Some1 (
talk) 00:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The complexities of Hale's article make it, in my mind, something that is best handled by IAR, because the vast majority of biographies and content that will be subject to this guideline are nowhere near as contentious.(collapsed convo above)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to be a downer but I don't like the proposed wording. I would take a different approach and just talking about the increased sensitivity of gender transitions causing a need to have extended privacy concerns that would be longer and more strictly enforced than the normal privacy concerns of non-notable names. So, for example, we could recommend defaulting to the maximum of two years after death instead of sooner, per WP:BDP:
The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends...
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It is also clear from the responses that always including the prior name, or assuming the prior name is of encyclopedic importance is soundly rejected by the community.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable way of expressing what there was consensus for, as indeed the closer says above. Ideally, I'd like to find even clearer wording than "in-depth analysis or discussion", but given that we've been trying to find such wording for months (and in a broader sense, years), I think we should avoid letting the pursuit of perfect wording prevent putting decent wording in place. (Perfectly wikilaywer-proof wording probably doesn't exist, anyway.) -sche ( talk) 03:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
As there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for or against inclusion, and as discussion has otherwise died down, I've now launched an RfC on this proposal over at the Village Pump. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The third paragraph is confusing unless you word it
something like this to make it match the phrasing on the second paragraph. That way If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name...
is followed by If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name...
. I suggest using that as a base for the extended privacy wording.
Cuñado ☼ -
Talk 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
onlyin Cuñado's version. The same issue of the old wording setting a limit on inclusion (ie, you can only include if condition is met), whereas the proposed version mandating inclusion (ie, you must include if condition is met) seems to exist with this proposed change. This is something that might need to be discussed in more detail (ideally separately to the discussion above) before a change can be made. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
only, which is a major part of the point of the policy. A lack of notability under the old name is intended to be automatic exclusion; if this proposal intends to change that (which would be a substantive policy change) we'll need another discussion about that specific point and almost certainly another RFC, since I can't see it being uncontroversial.
Onlyin that paragraph is a load-bearing word, so to speak. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname),
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly".
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. For example:
....
If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name (a deadname), different guidance applies to different contexts. On the person's main biographical article, their former name should be included in the lead sentence. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:
....
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis....
(and, unless the sources discuss the name change in detail apart from the mere fact it happened, nowhere else in the article). This is to match this change to Sideswipe's proposal above. Loki ( talk) 19:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
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 as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.[ emphasis added
@ Starship.paint:: I realize there was a consensus that IAR could apply to edge cases in the RFC, but I—with some hesitation—reverted your explicit addition of IAR [23] because I think it perhaps gives undue weight to IAR. As I understand, IAR always has the possibility of applying to almost every policy (save legal-related policies), yet we don't go around each policy/guideline saying "remember, in edge cases, WP:IAR can be considered". Why here?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Generally, those supporting the stricter wording acknowledge that there will be occasions where additional uses of the former name will be necessary and aren't actually absolutist about enforcement of the MOS.But, I do not trust that all editors of the community will avoid being absolutist in the enforcement. A reminder is warranted so that editors cannot insist on being absolutist. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
… former names may be used …- how does this relate to pronouns? No mention of pronouns was mentioned at all. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Some concerns were raised by those opposed about possible scenarios where the new language could be an issue, but those in support rebut those concerns by pointing out that IAR and consensus at specific articles should be sufficient to handle edge case. Have I misrepresented this? starship .paint ( exalt) 14:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@
ScottishFinnishRadish: Solicit closer’s opinion. You mentioned in finding consensus for Topic 1 that Some concerns were raised by those opposed about possible scenarios where the new language could be an issue, but those in support rebut those concerns by pointing out that IAR and consensus at specific articles should be sufficient to handle edge case
. Are the following sentences consistent with what you wrote? (Option A) For edge cases only, former names may be used if a local consensus develops. and (Option B) For edge cases only, former names may be used per WP:IAR if a local consensus develops.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
There's an ambiguity under MOS:PEOPLETITLES: "Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context, except in the lead sentence of a biographical subject's own article." This could mean either
Largoplazo ( talk) 10:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Alright, so, the current RFC over at VPP appears to be split about 50/50 right now. While that is a lot of support, it's not looking like it will reach consensus: the current proposal appears to have failed to get the support of almost any Option 2 voters.
Several oppose votes suggest an alternative based off the presence of the name in reliable sources, so I propose:
For a deceased trans or non-binary person that was not notable under their former name, their former name should be included if and only if it frequently appears in reliable sources about the subject's primary source(s) of notability. Sources that merely document the existence of the former name but which could not be used to establish notability (birth and death certificates, court records, social media posts, etc.) are not enough for inclusion by themselves even if they unambiguously are reliable for basic biographic facts.
Names that should be included should be in the first sentence of the lead, introduced with "born" or "formerly".
- From Leelah Alcorn:
Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
Alicorn's main source of notability is her suicide, and the public outcry over it. Her gender identity is mentioned often in news stories about these topics; however, her former name rarely is.- From Public Universal Friend:
The Public Universal Friend (born Jemima Wilkinson; November 29, 1752 – July 1, 1819)...The Friend's primary source of notability is their ministry. In sources about their ministry, the Friend's birth name is often used (especially regarding their early life) even though the Friend had not been notable under that name.
Thoughts? Questions? Revisions? Loki ( talk) 03:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interestis not enough, because that provides exactly no guidance on what conditions make the former name become of encyclopaedic interest. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Numerically, supporters the stricter interpretations held the plurality, but with insufficient support to overcome the concerns and objections of the other respondents., and from a side discussion on the close
If I could have said There is consensus for option 2.8, figure it out, or if I was in a position to create the necessary language, I would have.(said by ScottishFinnishRadish) and
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.(said by Barkeep49).
if it frequently appears in reliable sources about the subject's primary source(s) of notabilitysets it too low. If my proposal is felt to be a 2.9 or 2.95, this is closer to a 2.5.
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?To use the language of this proposal when asking those questions, how frequently is "frequently"? Is 50%+1 sufficient? And how does "frequently" take into account emphasis and source quality?
Names that should be included should be in the first sentence of the lead. While it's certainly standard practice across many, but not all biographies of trans and non-binary individuals, I do find myself convinced by what Adam Cuerden has said, in that this will overemphasise the former names. I think this sentence would be better if it was more simply
Names that should be included should be introduced with "born" or "formerly", as that leaves it up to the local consensus at the article level to decide where is the best placement location in the context of the specific article.
in-depth analysis and discussionfrom my proposal to
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources. It gives us a higher barrier than just verifiability, and it takes into account emphasis and source quality. I also think that it's important that we should reference back to the close of recent RfC on this, as well as to specific policy points like WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:BALASP, which underpin this guideline. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
JFD Proposal
|
---|
|
substantial majority"), and the idea that not saying anything is less ambiguous than saying something is one I doubt (we can't quantify "in depth discussion," either—these things are standards, not rules). Moreover, consider the number of circumstances in which, say, the resolution issue actually would come down to something like "well we have 50% ... but do we need 50.1%?????" There's not a single page I can think of where the sources were that evenly divided. Also, given that the proposal has shifted to sources that principally identify the person by one name (a much higher bar), a lower % is called for (though I'd stress that even this lower % would still capture fewer sources than asking if 50% merely mention the name). After all, if a rough majority principally identify a person by their former name, then, frankly, the name should probably be included, because someone searching for the person would likely be thrown by its absence.
I know some people have labeled me "the opposition", but here is a serious proposal that I think will address most of the issues raised so far, and also avoid this section being endlessly litigated. It's a new logical flow to the section.
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Proposed MOS:GID section
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a living person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of:
Given the sensitivity and personal nature of gender transitions, information that could reveal a gender transition should be given the maximum censorship allowed under WP:Biographies of living persons, including continuing to exclude it for 2 years after death by default, regardless of editorial consensus (See WP:BDP). Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. If you see such information anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. When removing the information, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting Oversight. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, or two years have passed since their death, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion. When the living individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person.
In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used. |
Public figures, where multiple reliable third-party sources have documented the information". Now, perhaps the next paragraph hedges, but at the very least you're embracing a standard over what was previously a rule—and that expands the instances in which a living trans person's former name could be included, no?
... information that could reveal a gender transition ... should not be included in any page ... If you see such information anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it— That effectively makes it impossible to discuss the matter, if "any page ... anywhere on Wikipedia" includes Talk pages. I know that Talk pages are subject to BLP, but forbidding editors to even discuss the topic (since the existence of any such discussion "could reveal a gender transition") seems a bit extreme. Consider the case where an editor decides that an existing source is not reliable enough, or that there aren't enough of such sources. They are now required to delete all mention of the transition from the article, and cannot even ask about it on the talk page, or give any hint as to why they did it. If I notice the edit and raise the matter on the (article's or editor's) talk page to discuss it, the same editor would then be required to delete my post asking about it, with no hint as to why. Does WP:BRD now stand for Blackout, Redact, Deny? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
puts non-notable gender transition along with "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.There is a fundamental difference between "reveal a gender transition" and "reveal a phone number etc". My actual phone number, address, bank account number is private/personal/secret, but the fact that I have a phone, address, bank account number is generally not considered a secret - it's presumed that everyone has them. However if I were non-publicly transgender, the mere fact that I am transgender is the secret, not just the "details" (male-to-female, female-to-male, something-else) of the transition and my old/dead name.We could, for example, openly discuss on the talk page whether someone's date of birth (also included in BLPPRIVACY) should be included in their article, without actually disclosing that date. However we can't discuss whether someone's gender transition should be mentioned without implicitly disclosing the fact that there was one. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@
Kornatice: and I split over the capitalization of "Florida governor Ron DeSantis"/"Florida Governor Ron DeSantis". Konatice said it should be lowercased (I think because the official title is Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis), accurately pointing out that the table includes "US president Richard Nixon
". But ... while Konatice is absolutely right ... I think the problem is that the table is wrong—not just externally wrong but internally inconsistent.
First, let's start with the text rules, which say to capitalize positions.
- When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
- When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
- When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
Now, it was my thought that the first bullet controlled. But Kornatice—consistent with the Nixon example—reads the third bullet as limiting the first bullet: and thus, we should not capitalize "a formal title for a specific entity ... [that is] addressed as a title or position in and of itself ... and is not a reworded description:"
. I have to admit, I'm pretty decent at grammar, but that third bullet throws me for a loop. Does "in and of itself" apply to title and position? Anyways ... regardless:
First, I'm not sure that's the rules are internally consistent: note that the first bullet says "President Nixon" should be capitalized ... but "President" is arguably a reworded description (shorthand) for President of the United States.
And, second, I can't help but think that the colon (which I left in) is very important there. The colon proceeds the table. And, notably, there's something a little funny about the table: Every item in the left column—showing capitalization—is not a title immediately followed by a name—it's a title that's the object of a verb."Richard Nixon was President of the United States.
"; "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016.
"; "Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792).
"
On the right column, we get a little more variation: titles that are the objects of verbs ("Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom.
") AND titles that exist independent of the name they precede—not functioning as adjectives but as subjects ("The French king, Louis XVI, was later beheaded.
"). The only example where a name immediately follows and title function is the "US president Nixon
" example. Now, what's weird about this example is that it's also not consistent with the column titles at the top of the table. The left column title is "denoting a title", but the right column title is "denoting a description". But that's a semi-baffling choice of words if the example is correct. In "Florida governor Ron DeSantis
" or "US president Richard Nixon
" ... both "Florida governor" and "US president" are literally being used as titles ... so it's a little strange to say they're denoting a description instead of a title.
I want to further add that not capitalizing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be inconsistent with ... every other style guide I'm aware of? (Not that we're bound by those style guides, just food for thought.) Based on that, I'd suggest modifying that third bullet to:
- When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is connected to the subject via a linking verb and addressed as a title or position in and of itself, so long as the title is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
- Jerome Frank Disciple 02:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Mitterrand was the French president. This is the example used for the case of not capitalizing an office or title.
Mitterrand was the French president."—the title is the object of the verb ("was"). As such, the first bullet point does not apply to it, and it fits the reword I suggested. The key question here is whether the third bullet point is meant to limit the first bullet point—I think it's fairly clearly not meant to.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
when followed by a person's name to form a title" is the controlling description there—note that "
considered to become part of the name" is only listed after "
i.e." ("that is"). You can't substitute "i.e." for "if and only if". (Also, how is "Florida [G]overnor Ron DeSantis" not part of the name but "President Richard Nixon" is?)
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis), but if the title is set apart from the name in some way, then it's lowercase (
Ron DeSantis, the governor of Floridaor
the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis). — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 19:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is connected to the subject by a linking verb, so long as the title is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
Barack Obama (D-IL) was elected president of the United States.) or this NYT story ("
Joseph R. Biden Jr. was elected president of the United States on Saturday ....").
Stray thoughts
|
---|
|
During
Folly Mox's recent (very welcome)
RFC on link repetition, which successfully challenged the assumption that Wikipedia articles are read from top to bottom like a regular article
(because nobody reads Wikipedia like that) and changed the policy on duplicate links from one-per-article to one-per-section,
Bagumba wondered if that change Would [...] trickle over to
MOS:SURNAME
as well. That question was tabled for possible discussion here.
So, let's have that discussion, because OMG yes it should! (IMHO) A repeated frustration for me, when reading articles, goes like this: (Note: The names are made up, but the frustration is real.)
On December 5, 2017, Hall released a statement condemning the attack.
Now, the obvious question here is, "Who the hell is 'Hall'!?" Oh, OK, I go back three entire sections to find out that the article's referring to Georgina Hall, then-Mayor of Bowling Green.
We can do better than that. At least once a section, any figures mentioned in the article should probably be fully re-contextualized. Even if someone does read from top to bottom like a regular article
, over that kind of distance it's really easy to forget who these people are, when they're referred to only by their surname. Writing "Mayor Hall" or "Mayor Georgina Hall" the first time she's mentioned in each section costs us little, and makes for more readable articles.
Heck, when something is vital to our understanding of their role — like our fictional Ms. Hall's Mayorship — I'd even consider supporting a policy that it should be included every time they're mentioned. When a person mentioned in an article is relevant solely or primarily due to their position, including that context ("Mayor Hall" rather than just "Hall") each time they're mentioned feels prudent. FeRDNYC ( talk) 08:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
when something is vital to our understanding of [a person's] role ... it should be included every time they're mentioned), but as guidance rather than hard rule. I agree it's frustrating to find oneself in the situation described as a reader, but I'd be weary of making re-contextualising-on-every-use a solid policy lest it cause articles to become stilted or take on a patronising tone. Better it should be encouraged, but with reasoned deviation permitted. XAM2175 (T) 10:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Mayor Halland
President Zelenskyyare probably how I'd personally handle later section mentions, with or without linking as common sense indicates. So in general I'd put myself on team "allow, but don't mandate", but it would be nice if a specific change to the guidance text were proposed. Folly Mox ( talk) 20:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
After names were explicitly added to the first sentence of MOS:GID, the guideline has become rather confusing; see Talk:Eddie Izzard#Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023. Currently it says we should use a name consistent with the most recent expressed gender identity, when I'm pretty sure the intent was that we should use the name(s) the subject most recently identified with. This leads to confusion where, like in the linked thread, it can be argued that because a nonbinary subject approves one masculine name, they can also be called by another name because that is also masculine. Thoughts? -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 10:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
„In the case of multiple complementary or contradictory preferences that have been recently expressed, either together or at the same time, articles should use only one set of name(s) and pronouns for internal consistency. Which set that is should be decided on a case-by-case basis, prioritizing the naming convention under which the individual is notable or reported on. [This priority is secondary to the individual‘s preferences and only applies in cases of ambiguity in their preferences.]“
I use both she and they pronouns". In that case, the discussion seems to have focused on (1) how to determine Gooding's preference (with most users relying on which pronoun was listed first in the twitter bio) and (2) how to best avoid ambiguity (with many users supporting "she" suggesting that "they" should be subordinated by default). Oddly, few users suggesting going by what most reliable sources used (though perhaps that's because the Twitter announcement postdated most reliable sources about the person, so the question turned on recency).
If such a person's most recently expressed identity is unclear (or the person has simultaneously embraced multiple identities), articles should be consistent about pronoun usage and which name is treated as the person's principal name. These determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis.
I use both she and theytweet, their social media profiles listed she/they. At some point after the tweet it was changed to the current order of they/she. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If a person's most recently expressed gender identity is unclear (or the person has simultaneously expressed multiple identities), articles should be internally consistent with regards to the name that is treated as the person's principal name and the pronouns that are used to refer to them. These determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Complex and ambiguous cases should be treated on a case by case basis, but articles should be internally consistent as to a person's principal name and pronouns." I'd like to see what others have to say about this, but I don't have a problem with it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
complex or ambiguous case. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
While the above section seems to chiefly concern the persons with, borrowing language from Actualcpscm, "complementary preferences" regarding their names, I think Maddy also brought up a semi-distinct issue that can be addressed fairly easily. I suggest we remove "gender" from the phrase "gender self-identification" in paragraph one. I made that edit here, but it was reverted with a "get consensus first" message. I haven't seen anyone oppose, but I figured this separation will give them an opportunity to do so.
The paragraph in question already applies only to those "whose gender might be questioned" (though that could maybe be better phrased). Because "names" was added per the rfc, there was a possibility of some ambiguity: If a trans man originally had a masculine name (but still changed it), should we principally refer to him by his birth name, since that would be consistent with his most recent expressed "gender self-identification"? ... I think almost everyone here would say "no": Given the RFC's thematic focus on deadnaming (and the fact that such a person's birth name would still be a deadname), I think that's the most reasonable understanding of the community's position. Removing "gender" addresses the issue.
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 as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The current policy is to use they/them when someone uses neopronouns, which is very confusing because one of the main reasons people have to use neopronouns is that they want a gender neutral pronoun but are uncomfortable being called they/them. I think the policy should be to use whatever pronouns are requested, with the exception of satire. Example of satire: when Michelle Malkin said her pronouns are "u/s/a". Afroswordguy ( talk) 09:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
closed word class— what an utter "phantasy".
Extended content
|
---|
NYT doesn't routinely (or even at all so far as I've seen, and I've been looking for some time) actually use neopronouns; they just happened to have published an opinion piece about them
[28] (and publishing articles about stuff, whether the publisher agrees with it or not, is kind of what newspapers exist for). Fox News (of course) attacked them for it.
[29] NYT strategy has been to avoid using pronouns at all in cases of subjects who use neopronouns (and the publication was predictably attacked for it by activists
[30]). Time actually did use neopronouns in one piece (can't find any evidence of later ones) and caught criticism for it, which was reported on by Daily Mail
[31] (which says "a co-founder of Wikipedia" was among the critics, which I would guess refers to Larry Sanger since it sounds out-of-character for Jimbo). Irish Times published something similar
[32]; I've not run into any major reaction material about it (which kind of surprises me due to Ireland's majority Catholicism). NBC News published some more straightforward reporting on neopronouns and they
[33] (and notably used techniques like repeating the surname, and using they, rather than actually using the neopronouns in the publication's own voice). Other mainstream newspapers have published what amount to counter-essays (e.g.
[34],
[35] (pushback from a civil liberties expert), and this one
[36] which indicates push-back within the LGBTQIA+ community itself (though this one is a regional not national paper). A more neutral piece
[37] from a regional NBC News affilliate covers the long history of neopronouns, which go back further than people think; the take-away from this is that attempts to institute them since the 19th century have failed. It notably also shows that even close family members of TG/NB people have lasting trouble with pronoun changes. BuzzFeed News does not use neopronouns
[38], and quotes
AP Stylebook as the "authority" for why: "[Do] not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and are unrecognizable as words to general audiences." That is certainly the main WP concern. (I don't own the current edition
[39], so I don't know if AP has changed on this in the interim.) Speaking of AP, their newswire article
here addresses neopronouns without recommending them and says "They are not widely used and are unfamiliar to many people, but they do offer the benefit of grammatical clarity" versus singular-they (but WP editors already have years of practice at using they without producing confusing constructions, so we don't care about that last point, which from a linguistic perspective is extremely dubious to begin with, since there is no basis for interpreting the function or nature of a word that is not recognized as a word!). It also notes that GLAAD and NLGJA both recommend to "use the pronouns that people request" (i.e. probably including neopronouns); this is telling: both are activistic organizations, and AP is defying them, despite otherwise being often over-eager to adopt "progressive" language-reform ideas. This was published after the current edition of AP Stylebook so it probably has not changed on this matter (next edition comes out in 2025 or maybe late 2024). All that said, dredging up competing examples of "what some newspaper or news style guide is doing" is rarely actually useful to do in MoS discussions, because MoS is not based on news style, as a matter of policy (
WP:NOT#NEWS, "Wikipedia is not written in
news style"). However, exploring this at least demonstrates a few things: mainstream journalism is not broadly jumping on the neopronoun bandwagon, beyond just observing it as a phenomenon, and brief forays into that territory tend to result in controversy (which most news publishers that are not far-right or far-left try strenuously to avoid).On Harvard University: What I'm finding is a short backgrounder
[40] on pronouns including neopronouns, which they tellingly refer to as "personal gender pronouns" (i.e., it is a matter of
idiolect as I've said elsewhere); but the page's purpose is simply "a reference that provides basic working definitions to facilitate shared discussions"; it is not a policy that Harvard is officially going to write with neopronouns or make students use them. The links on that page that go to other Harvard resources don't help your case; they don't advise neopronouns. The one
here says "Commonly used pronouns include: she/her/hers, he/him/his, they/them/theirs" without any mention of neopronouns. Other links there just go to external organizations, most of them activistic about the question. Harvard's workplace inclusivity policy
[41] has a section on pronouns, but it does not address neopronouns. Their "Gender Identity and Pronouns" page
[42] makes no mention of neopronouns. Their Office for Gender Equity surprisingly has no hits for the word "pronouns" other than staff bios' declarations of particular indiviudals' preferred pronouns
[43]. Their "Equity, Diversity, Access, Inclusion, and Belonging" pamphlet
[44] mentions a couple of neopronouns, but says nothing that can be interpreted as a policy to use them by the university or to enforce their use by students or faculty. Their Employee Resource Groups subsite, which includes the Harvard LGBTQ+ Faculty and Staff (Queer Employee Resource Group), has no hits for "pronouns" or "pronoun" at all
[45]. Their "Creating Gender Inclusive Learning Environments for Transgender and Nonbinary Student" presentation
[46] mentions they several times, and mentions the existence of neopronouns without advising anytihng about them (and includes phrasing I think some people here would object to: "non-binary genders (e.g. so-called xenogenders, which do occur albeit infrequently, or neopronouns)". A page on "Creating an inclusive environment for transgender and gender-nonbinary teens" never mentions pronouns
[47]. After pretty exhaustive searching, I can find no evidence at all to suggest that Harvard is some bastion of neopronous usage. And as with news style, WP isn't based on some particular academic institution's style anyway, and MoS was not written from any of their style guides (notwithstanding that Chicago Manual of Style is published by the U. of Chicago; it's a style guide for public use, not an internal university style guide).
|
a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anywaystrikes me as unnecessarily pointed and derisive. XAM2175 (T) 17:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway" is derisive. We don't need drawn out versions of calling people snowflakes. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Things might be different if English adopted a set of near-univerally understood additional pronouns, but this clearly is not going to happen, and even if it did, a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway.I suggest that this could be read as you passing judgment on trans and NB people in bulk, because their gleefully coining yet more pronouns would frustrate a resolution to the issue that you believe would otherwise be satisfactory. In such a reading, the actual meaning you've subsequently given –
that people enjoy and take pride in their self-identification and activism activities– is entirely absent; replaced by something that can be read as far more derogatory, more of a cheap drive-by shot at a group of which it could appear that you disapprove.I note with some disappointment that your response to this suggestion appears to echo that which on a previous occasion lead to no small amount of contention within the community and resulted in your publishing this lengthy explanatory essay, in which – amongst a certain number of polemical points on the same lines as your responses above – you do ultimately acknowledge that you failed to consider that your audience might not interpret your writing and understand your meaning and intent as you yourself did.I would further note that @ Locke Cole also appears to have interpreted your original post as being negative in nature, as EvergreenFir and myself did. The major difference, however, is that he appears to believe that the negativity is not only defensible but perhaps even appropriate, and at the very least good enough to act as a COATRACK for his feelings on GENDERID as a whole. That he seems to view such a derisory generalisation as being proportionate in countering what he describes as a
[disruptive] WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalityfrom a handful of
new/recent users hereis somewhat concerning. XAM2175 (T) 21:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
quick, appositive phrase mentioning their pronounsfor neopronouns at their first instance and seems to imply that it's OK to use them. The Canadian Government's language portal recommends use of neopronouns, following the guidance of the individual who uses them, even when unfamiliar.
writers should follow the personal pronoun of individuals they write about, if individuals' pronouns are known, which seems inclusive though it doesn't explicitly mention neopronouns anywhere. I don't have access to the current edition of the APA Publication Manual, however a supplementary entry on their website endorses use of singular they because
it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender.
Extended content
|
---|
5.48 says singular they is common but informal and is "only lately showing signs of gaining acceptance in formal writing", but: "When referring specifically to a person who does not identify with a gender-specific pronoun, however, they and its forms are often preferred." Also "In general, a person's stated preference for a specific pronoun should be respected." The section mentions the existence of "gender-neutral" (specifically) neopronouns, without naming any of them, but does not advise for or against them. (That is rather odd, honestly, until one finds a condemnation in a later section, but then it gets weirder, with what reads like an "un-condemnation" a section later). Section 5.255 ("Techniques for achieving gender neutrality") is even longer that 5.48. In summary it advises (as mutual alternatives): omit the pronoun; repeat the noun; use a plural antecedent to eliminate the need for a singular pronoun; use an article instead of a pronoun; use one; use relative pronoun who[m]; use imperative mood ("A lifeguard must keep a close watch ..." – not applicable to WP per
WP:NOT#ADVICE); use the phrase he or she "in moderation"; revise the sentence to avoid personal pronouns entirely. Oddly, it never mentions repeating the name (usually surname), a technique we use frequently. Section 5.256 is also fairly long; advises avoiding it, of course ("with very limited exceptions", acknowledging sotto voce that a very small number of TG/NB people prefer the term); says to avoid clumsy constructions like (s)he and (wo)man; says to avoid neopronouns: "Clumsy artifices like ... genderless pronouns have been tried—for many years—with no success. They won't succeed. And those who use them invite credibility problems." Also says anybody and someone often don't work; reiterates that they/their have become common in informal usage but are not fully accepted yet [2016] in formal writing, especially for cases where the gender is unknown (rewrite instead), but here actually advises its use for subjects who explicitly identify with they/them. This passage can also be read as directly contradicting 5.255 in advising again that "such preference should generally be respected", right after mentioning both declared singular-they yet also "or some other gender-neutral singular pronoun". It'll be interesting to see if they resolve this direct conflict of advice in the next edition (but I would not hold your breath; there are outright factual errors in CMoS that have persisted since at least the 12th edition!).If MLA doesn't address neopronouns, then it doesn't. There can hardly be any issue in English usage that is more fraught with debate than this question; to a large proportion of English-speakers, neopronouns don't actually constitute pronouns or English at all. So, if MLA was meant to include neopronouns, it rather obviously would have been explicit about it.The UAlberta thing is not a university style guide, it's a "Community" section blog post by one of their librarians, and is clearly activistic in intent, as is clear from its introduction. And it mischaracterizes the Chicago position, so I don't trust it on the MLA or APA material either without reading them in detail myself. It says "it is always appropriate to use any pronouns for an individual when it is known" [sic] and "This can include common pronouns, as well as newer pronouns (also known as neopronouns)." But we already know Chicago is self-contradictory on the matter and that MLA doesn't address neo-pronouns at all. Of ALA, this piece says that guide says to use they "when referring to someone whose gender is unknown", which is not an endorsement of neoprouns. So, this is clearly not a reliable source on usage, for several reasons; if this person were writing such material at Wikipedia, we would revert their changes as original research that badly distorts the source material.The UIndiana piece is another student-librarian opinion piece, not a university style guide. While it does not appear to directly mischaracterize the advice in major style guides, it leaps to examples of using neopronouns as if they had been recommended by the cited sources, which they were not (and just gives two of them, implying they in particular have wide acceptance, which is not true). It correctly [as far as I know – I don't own the current APA] summarized that Chicago, MLA, and APA admit of sigular-they when gender is unknown, and even gets right that MLA and Chicago both consider it "informal". Anyway, like the other library post, this one is clearly not even intended as a style guide but is a summary (reasonaly accurate in this case but not the other) of other style guides we already consult, so not evidentiary of anything.The USYD material is an actual style guide, not for an entire institution but for "library-created content". It's an in-house booklet. It is also activistic, in aligning with the notion that not using neopronouns is "misgendering", an idea that the community at Wikipedia has clearly not accepted, and which isn't reflected in widespread and growing use of singular-they as a neopronoun replacement across English-language writing. It relies heavily on a UNC-Greensboro piece
[48] of uncertain authority at that institution, which is advocacy material of specific (Spivak, etc). neopronouns among the student body. I don't think it's informative for this debate, as it doesn't reflect anything like a broad cultural consensus but is trying to engineer changed local behavior.
|
"Clumsy artifices like ... genderless pronouns have been tried—for many years—with no success. They won't succeed. And those who use them invite credibility problems."I find it kinda shocking that such a strong genuinely activistic statement bordering on ridicule is in this styleguide. It's one thing to say something like "genderless pronouns are unfamiliar to most and should not be used in academic writing", but to say that any attempt at using them won't succeed is very gatekeepery, and to say that any
who use them invite credibility problemsis the sort of statement that would bring a style guide into disrepute.
Are you fatigued of talking about MOS:GENDERID? Here is a proposal to rewrite the section, which has languished into a poorly worded, somewhat illogical, and confusing mess. It needs to be clearly aligned with policies, reorganized for clarity, and address the various concerns about a social issue that is central to culture war in the west without pissing off everyone. This reorganization will honestly reduce the churning of numerous RFCs and endless debate. I know this because the ONLY reason I'm here is I glanced at it one day and was surprised at how far it deviated from standard policy, so decided to stick around and work on it. If it is reasonably worded and addresses the concerns of most trans-activists, I think it will stop attracting people to change it.
I appreciate
BilledMammal's and
Loki's attempts above, but I took the wording from BLP of multiple reliable third-party sources
because multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person
uses "high quality", and it's not well defined on Wikipedia.
On the question of academics and changing names of older publications, I would guess that such a thorough attempt to expunge the former name would make it drop below the threshold of inclusion. And, well, WP:KISS.
Proposed MOS:GID section
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, information that could reveal a gender transition should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should always err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person.
In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used. |
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence.should be clarified: if a name is mentioned in an infobox and/or in an article lead, it should also be mentioned in the body of the article. Additionally, pre-transition names are often included in the leads, to help with readers who may have only heard of a person pre-transition, to avoid confusion (e.g. at Chelsea Manning). This is a relatively minor concern, though, so I would still support this over the status quo. Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
|
In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion.— I think I get what you're going for, but this is hard to parse.
"former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value.
It was written, it feels, based on a very stereotyped understanding of trans-ness (viz., all trans people are binary and want their one true gender affirmed by having their pre-transition life discussed as little as possible) at a time when trans people were far less visible than they are now. However, I have some pretty large reservations about what has been proposed here that lead me towards opposing this as currently written. Going through this a paragraph at a time:
Any information related to the prior gender of a personmean? A plain reading of the sentence seems to imply that where a person was not notable prior to transitioning, but for whom being trans or non-binary is a large and relevant part of their personal identity, we would be unable to say that they are trans or non-binary in our articles about them. This seems to take the scope of the scope of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the current text of the guideline, and apply it to all aspects of a trans or non-binary person's gender identity, and not just their former name. I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, because otherwise this seems like it could be used for gender identity erasure of trans and non-binary individuals.
clearly expressed their consent to share the informationeven look like in a reliable source? Are there any articles you have in mind where this exemption that wouldn't currently be met by the current text of the guideline? Is there any evidence that you can point to that would suggest this is a more respectful way to handle
information that could reveal a gender transition should not be usedas I do for the second paragraph. What exactly does this mean? A plain reading of this would mean that for any individual who does not meet one of the four exemptions, we cannot mention in their article that they are trans or non-binary. As before, I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, because it again seems like it could be used for gender identity erasure of trans and non-binary individuals.
Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote.is a narrowing of the current guideline? It removes the current exemption where if a person prefers their former name to be used for past events, we can currently use it. I also agree with Tamzin that the
respectful extra mentionsis hard to parse, and could do with a re-write.
When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition.should be removed. Tamzin has succinctly covered why it is unnecessary and unwise. The example for this paragraph is fine, as it's taken directly from the current text.
When looking at just the current examples in GENDERID, this means that we would now be allowed to include the former names of Rachel Levine and Laverne Cox., there is a good case to be made for including the former name of Rachel Levine. We don't need to shoot down any change just because it's a departure from the status quo or past consensus; that does not make any sense.
Disagreeing with the changes because they're a departure from the current guideline isn't really a strong position to take?It is when the current guideline was formed through a series of strong consensus discussions based on exact wordings (typically RfCs, see MOS:GIDINFO). A proposal to streamline the existing guidance, without changing the scope of it is far more likely to get handwaved through a discussion like this. However a proposal that is fundamentally changing parts of the scope of the guidance, especially in a way that it would alter some rather long standing consensuses, is I'm afraid going to be a lot more contentious. To try and do both a streamline and change of scope at the same time seems foolhardy, given how slow the community as a whole likes to take when updating policies and guidelines in general.
anyone who is publicly trans or non-binary would pretty clearly fall under exemption twoWould they? The exemption states
clearly expressed their consent to share the information, which in my experience is actually quite rare in a reliable source. Often you'll see a sentence like "X is trans/non-binary/genderqueer", but not with any clear sign that X actually consented for that to be included in the source. Of course there are times when you'll have an interview where X states "I am...", which could be read as a clear sign of consent, but that is not always the case. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
To try and do both a streamline and change of scope at the same time seems foolhardy, given how slow the community as a whole likes to take when updating policies and guidelines in general.If we're gonna change the scope, might as well do a full rewrite to clean things up. Despite all the discussions, it's clear many aren't happy with the status quo, and it has many issues.
Despite all the discussions, it's clear many aren't happy with the status quo, and it has many issuesEhhhh. While I could certainly identify a handful of editors in the two most recent RfCs who are dissatisfied with the scope of the current guideline, those seem to be in a minority. I would hesitate on drawing conclusions on the dissatisfaction of the guideline from the editors who are only contributing here, as it would be a form of selection bias. A talk page like being a natural place for those who are either seeking clarification on how to apply a policy or guideline, or those seeking to change a policy or guideline, to congregate.
"public figure" ... (another very nebulously defined term around here)Yeah, the lack of clarity on how we define a public figure is causing issues in more areas than this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Trying to synthesize the overall general support for Cuñado's rewrite with the critiques I and others have given, my ideal approach would be this, which I feel better separates the policy considerations from the stylistic ones, allows for local consensus where the latter is concerned, and in relatively few words gives broad guidance for non-BLPPRIVACY-related deadname issues that will still prevent gratuitous usage:
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources.
Do not include any information about a living person that would violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. Information about a living person's gender transition (including the fact of the transition itself, any former names [" deadnames"], and medical information) is considered private if the person is a private figure or the information does not appear in high-quality reliable sources, unless the person has voluntarily disclosed this information.
Even when information about a living person is non-private, or when information concerns a deceased person, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Former names are not inherently of encyclopedic value, especially when the person was not notable prior to their transition. Articles must not give undue emphasis to these or other aspects of a transition, erring on the side of exclusion and, where information is included, avoiding unnecessary repetition. Sources that mention such information in passing, or purely for sensationalist reasons, should be given little weight.
When mentioning a transgender or nonbinary person in a context prior to their transition, use their current name, unless they have a preference otherwise; on articles other than their biography, their previous name can be given parenthetically or in a footnote if necessary to avoid confusion. Citations should generally not be modified, but the person's current name may be given in a note or via piped link. However, in no case should an article link a person to a pre-transition identity if that connection constitutes private information.
If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering.
- Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.
Obviously this would require consensus at WT:BLP too, but first I'd like to get a sense for if this is something people here would support. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 18:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
However, in no case should an article link a person to a pre-transition identity if that connection constitutes private information.I'd like if we could link or mention outing here, as that better explains the severity behind this requirement.
Responding to several comments above:
pre-transition names are often included in the leads, to help with readers who may have only heard of a person pre-transition, to avoid confusion- There was an oft-repeated concern in the last two RFCs that inclusion of a former name ends up with it in the first sentence with an elevated prominence. Not requiring it in the first sentence is an important part of the compromises going on. It's actual placement is up to editorial consensus, and this draft just says that it doesn't have to be in the first sentence.
The point is not to conceal that someone has transitioned at all, the point is to conceal a piece of information that could be wielded by malicious actors.- There is certainly a contingent of people who have transitioned and don't want it known that they are transgender. They want to pass as the new gender. For those cases, the fact of transition is a private matter that they don't want pointed out publicly, so we should maintain a higher bar for inclusion, just like the former differently-gendered name.
I would like to see a note to the effect of "Sometimes some information about a person's transition will be public, while other information will be private."- Added below.
generally reliable sources have been known to include details' of people's transitions for reasons of sensationalism- Added note below.
respectful extra mentions...- Deleted below.
In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names.- I changed "under a pre-transition name should use" to "under a pre-transition name may use". I think that wording fits with this being the MOS and offering style ideas. The alternative was to make it more wordy and maybe overprescriptive.
some difficulty in hiding the information- Deleted below.
The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph should be made last overall- Moved below.
public figure exemption- I think the claim of 'public figure' being undefined is bogus. BLP has a section on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and there is the BLP-attached essay WP:Who is a low-profile individual that has a long list of examples and definitions of "high-profile" individuals. A public figure is someone who: has a multitude of reliable published sources, actively seeks out media attention, has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable media company, is self-promotional... there are more descriptions on that page.
I don't quite understand exemption 4- This does two things: it says that the lingering privacy concerns described at WP:BDP should default to the maximum of two years in the case of GENDERID, and it raises the bar for inclusion to the same as living public figures (multiple reliable secondary sources). If a notable transgender person has a biography but doesn't meet any exceptions, their page doesn't mention their former name. Two years after they die, the bar for inclusion is higher than normal facts about their life. The last two RFCs failed to gain support partly because they lacked a coherent argument based on policy and failed to address why the information is excluded and how WP:BDP relates to the question.
guidance about people whose notablity is due to pre AND post transition- if that means people whose notability post-transition is not enough to pass GNG but pass with coverage pre- and post-? I think that would mean they were not notable prior to transition and is covered.
The second paragraph I find objectionable... I hope I'm reading this incorrectly- Clearly this is not an attempt at "gender identity erasure".
I have some pretty large reservations about what has been proposed here that lead me towards opposing this as currently written.- I also disagree with parts of the proposed re-write, but I compromised and drafted something that will satisfy the most amount of people. If there is not consensus for the draft, I'll take it to RFC, where I'm pretty confident it will pass.
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #2
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, information that could reveal a gender transition should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [a] When the individual meets one of the exceptions, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should always err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Sometimes, some information about a person's transition will be public, while other information will be private. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the claim of 'public figure' being undefined is bogusThe exact definition of public figure is taking up much editorial discussion over at WT:BLP right now, in relation to the scope of WP:BLPCRIME. A lot of editors are using a particularly expansive definition of it that doesn't entirely mesh with how reliable sources would define the term.
The last two RFCs failed to gain support partly because they lacked a coherent argument based on policy and failed to address why the information is excluded and how WP:BDP relates to the questionThat doesn't match with the discussions in the most recent RfC. Only four editors, including both you and I, even mentioned BDP. The primary opposition to the proposal, as noted in the closure, was that the barrier for inclusion was set too high. Even in the RfC before that, only 5 editors mentioned BDP, and only two did so in order to oppose a change from the then current lack of guidance. The other three editors who mentioned it supported removing the word "living" from the current text of GENDERID. SMcCandlish's suggestion above that we should be analysing in detail the most recent RfC to figure out roughly where the consensus lies, so that we're not repeating the same discussion and going off on a different tangent altogether, is a good one, and even a quick analysis of it would suggest that a BDP based exclusion criteria is a non-starter.
If there is not consensus for the draft, I'll take it to RFC, where I'm pretty confident it will pass.That would be inadvisable when we have another draft that is being worked on concurrently. It would also be inadvisable given SMcCandlish's advice on in depth analysis of the most recent RfC to try and figure out roughly where the consensus lies. I'm pretty confident that this proposal would not pass at this time, because the community's consensus is elsewhere. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Public figureI think you're really stretching for a criticism when this explains it and the phrasing is already used in BLP.
That would be inadvisable when we have another draft that is being worked on concurrently.that's not feedback on my proposal.
SMcCandlish's adviceyes, they gave me good feedback that I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate. I thought the desire of maintaining the dignity of trans people would include allowing a living (or recently deceased) person the presumption of wanting details of their transition kept private unless they share it themselves. You interpreted my draft as "gender identity erasure", which was a surprise. If this is really about the deadname, then the exceptions could apply to deadname only. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This proposal shifts us to a more common-sense-based approach that acknowledges the importance of subjects' dignity and not giving undue weight. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Made a few changes based on conversation above, including:
Mainly it was shortened, and reduced in scope to focus on the former name and not other details of gender transition. Feedback is most welcome.
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #3
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, [a] with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [b] When the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words...to
Refer to any person with the name and gendered words...without much of an issue here. A person doesn't need to be trans or non-binary to need or want to say "Hi my name is X and my pronouns are Y/Z".
A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname)...would read better as
The former name (deadname) of a transgender or non-binary person.... I don't like the weakening though of making it just a privacy interest, as the current version of the guideline states that it's a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name. Is there a reason for this change?
multiple high quality reliable sourcesand some extra wording that takes into sensationalism (it's late and I can't wordsmith that right now). There's all manner of marginally reliable sources that include sentences like "Jane Doe was born John Doe", and the sheer volume of those sources alone shouldn't be an inclusion criteria when high quality sources do not do this. I know there's a footnote B somewhat along those lines, but in context it looks like footnote B only applies to individuals who don't meet the 4 exemptions you're proposing.
Refer to any person with the name and gendered words...I have to disagree on this one. I only proposed changing "questioned" (current) to "unclear" because of a comment about the current wording sounding strange. Most people (like 99%) do not state their preferred names and pronouns and there is no ambiguity on their gender, so it makes more sense to start the section saying, in the least offensive way possible, that this is for those whose gender is unclear or out of the ordinary.
a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name- I don't know what this means. There is no privacy concern about a person's current name.
the public figure exemption needs to be stronger- I thought about this for awhile and reviewed several policies. The same wording could be used for this and the deceased example. There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources. The closest you get is WP:RS referencing "high-quality mainstream publications", but I don't think that would work here because it is contrasting those to scholarly sources. Keep in mind my draft phrasing of "multiple reliable sources" is directly from BLP, and the MOS should not be making policy. The best I could come up with from policy is to say "multiple reliable, neutral sources". Neutral is well described in policy and allows the exclusion of low-quality, opinionated, or questionable sources. I think that gets to the spirit of excluding sensational reliable sources.
the BDP issue- this is a change that I think needs to go to RFC. We won't agree on this talk page.
Most people (like 99%) do not state their preferred names and pronouns and there is no ambiguity on their genderHard disagree. One of the first things that is said when you are introduced to someone you have never met (either by yourself or a third party) is your name. In modern contexts, this often also includes your pronouns, if they're not inferrable from words said during the introduction, for example
Have you met Jane Doe yet? They're/She's new here and working on X project. And lets not even touch on how many people include their pronouns in their email footers and social media bios.
There is no privacy concern about a person's current name.Yes there is. WP:BLPNAME covers the most common privacy concerns over names. As for the rest, consider it as two complementary clauses;
a privacy interest separate from their current nameand
a privacy interest greater than their current name. The first clause is easy, you simply evaluate the privacy concerns separately from their current name. The second clause likewise is pretty straightforward, when evaluating the privacy concerns, you need to do so at a level beyond that at which we would normally include a person's name.
The same wording could be used for this and the deceased example.Maybe, if written correctly.
There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources.Huh, I could have sworn WP:HQRS redirected to a specific section of WP:RS that defined it. That aside, from looking elsewhere I'm not sure if the lack of definition is a problem. The text at WP:EXCEPTIONAL states that
any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, though footnote 4 sadly only gives some philosophical reasons for why we require strong evidence. WP:BLP contains multiple mentions throughout to both "high-quality sources" and "high-quality reliable sources", linking to WP:SOURCES. WP:MEDRS likewise contains mentions throughout "high-quality sources" and "high-quality reliable sources" without definition. The closest we seem to get right now is the WP:BESTSOURCES section of WP:NPOV, but even then it mentions "high-quality sources" without defining it. I question then if this lack of definition for the term is a problem that we need to concern ourselves with. Yes it would be exceptionally helpful if it was defined somewhere, but given that core content policies use the term without defining it suggests that such a definition may not be necessary.
The best I could come up with from policy is to say "multiple reliable, neutral sources". Neutral is well described in policy and allows the exclusion of low-quality, opinionated, or questionable sources.It is, but it's also the subject of considerable and frequent debate at an article level. "Is this source baised against/towards [article subject]?" is the sort of question you'll see variations of frequently, especially in contentious topic areas like gender and sexuality,
this is a change that I think needs to go to RFCWhy do we need an RfC to datamine the results of the two most recent RfCs? Why can't we put a pause on the BDP point for now, and just start a separate discussion (either as a subsection or new discussion here, or on a dedicated page) where we can compare notes on those RfCs to find out what people have already said, and from that see if we can distil something that might stand a very strong chance of being accepted? Yes it will take us a little time and effort now, but it will save us a lot of time and effort later, and afford us a fair degree of community good will. Maybe at the end of that process a BDP based clause will be the right option, or maybe it'll be something else that no-one here has yet put forward. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
In modern contexts, this often also includes your pronouns- no, it almost never does. A person's gender is almost always extremely clear from their chosen appearance and that is expected and understood to be sufficient in nearly all social contexts. A standard that would require people to explicitly say "my gender is male and my pronouns are he/him" would send the vast majority of people (and even more historical individuals) into a genderless they/them category, which is far more offensive and misgendering than anything else.
Refer to any person with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources.would result in sending
the vast majority of people...into a genderless they/them category. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this might happen?
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear...- I have to agree with others that the scope of this MOS should be clear in the intro. We're talking about a special case and I think the question here is whether "unclear" is better than "questioned".
There is no privacy concern about a person's current name.- I see what you mean now. The examples are of names who are not the subject of articles. As in, suspects in crimes who don't need to be named, names of family members of a notable person, loosely or uninvolved low-profile persons, etc. I think the current wording ("separate from and greater than a current name") just sounds confusing and doesn't really add anything useful. This is MOS/biography, of course the current name will be mentioned.
There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources.- This was one of the sticking points at the last RFC. I agree with your assessment that it is used enough in policies that it can probably be used here safely, but it will have the same problem that you describe defining what is "neutral". I could support either wording but I lean toward "multiple reliable, neutral sources".
Why do we need an RfC?- There is a high level of fatigue on this subject and the reasons seem to be that a local consensus on this page, where gender-activists are overrepresented, will probably not create something that will win consensus at Village Pump. The last two RFCs had a fairly biased setup and seemed to disregard the magnitude of creating an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED in the MOS, without a tie-in to BLP. I would be thrilled to work out a local consensus for a re-write, but I have been described as "the opposition" and even the most basic good-faith contributions have been blocked at every step. Prove me wrong.
Why can't we put a pause on the BDP point for now?- Think of it another way. The last two RFCs tried to extend the censoring of former names to deceased people indefinitely. There was no consensus, BilledMammal's attempt to work something in got reverted, and the MOS went back to excluding the former names of living trans people, leaving the rest to BLP. BLP allows censorship of reliably-sourced information about living people, but the policy does not apply to people confirmed dead, with the only exception for recently deceased, and allows that protection to gradually fade after death, the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. So given the concern, why would you not support the MOS saying that on this subject, automatically extend to the maximum of two years? Would you rather some cases be six months? Your moonshot to extend it indefinitely failed twice, and anyway, the MOS is not the place to make such a policy.
The last two RFCs tried to extend the censoring of former names to deceased people indefinitely.This sentence is a perfect example of why we need to review the last two RfCs in detail. While it is true that one of the options in the first RfC would have extended the protections (please stop calling this censoring, it's not censoring) afforded to living trans and non-binary individuals indefinitely (specifically, topic 2 option 3), that was not the case for the second RfC. The second RfC laid out a set of inclusion criteria for deceased individuals that was complementary to the existing guidance on living individuals, and in doing so allowed for the former names to be included when either they met the specific test for deceased individuals, or for individuals whose former names we could include when they were alive.
a reasonable summation of how [they] read the consensus. With the benefit of hindsight, I clearly made an error somewhere in that assessment, and that the community's consensus set a barrier for inclusion that wasn't quite as high as what I proposed. However making that error does not negate that making such an analysis is a good and necessary thing.
a local consensus on this pagewould immediately be invalid as any proposal we come up with should first and foremost be based on what was said during the broad consensus discussions. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The examples are of names who are not the subject of articles.Not quite. See WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, both of which advise us to avoid creating a biography on an individual who is only notable in the context of a single event. It's also inaccurate to say that this is only for criminal suspects. It also covers individuals whose notability is connected to any other controversial or non-controversial event.
Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the name- how about "Individuals who have shared the name publicly" or something along those lines? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
At no point will an article be written based upon what the subject consents for us to write about them.Actually the BLP policy already provides several clauses where an article subject can request the removal of information, which would include non-consensual publishing by reliable sources.
If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.WP:BLPNAME urges caution for article subjects who are discussed primarily in connection with a single event, along with a strong presumption in favour of privacy for the family members of article subjects. WP:BIOSELF states that if an article subject finds that an article contains personal information or potentially libellous statements, they should contact the oversight team so that it can be evaluated and suppressed as appropriate. And yes, per the Foundation's website content that is reliably sourced can still be libellous, especially when it is subject to link rot, and we can be compelled to remove it. And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE provides for non-public figure article subjects to request deletion of articles about them. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Individuals who have made the name public and not expressed a desire to conceal it.or
Individuals who have made the name public post-transition. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
human dignity and respect for personal privacyare both reasons for the policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the nameto
Individuals who have made the name public post-transition. The wording here could still be improved, but shouldn't be over-prescriptive.
where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the nameto
where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the namein #3 and #4. I could be convinced that "high-quality" could go here instead of "neutral", but I think this will get the most agreement from the wider community. "Neutral" focuses on excluding low-quality sources and is better defined.
If local consensus is in agreement, I think this change is ready to go on the MOS.
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #4
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, [a] with the exception of:
Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [b] When the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Deceased individuals, where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name. Editors shouldn't have to wait at least two years to include a notable former name of a recently deceased individual. That just seems like delaying the inclusion of encyclopedic information for the sake of delaying. Some1 ( talk) 23:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. If we say "Deceased individuals, where..." then it would become a range of time case-by-case based on consensus. The suggetion here is to default to the maximum privacy range of two years in the special case of former transgender names, so it isn't re-hashed on every page. With that background, do you still think it should change? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
default[ing] to the maximum privacy range of two years. Personally, I don't think a re-write is needed; MOS:GENDERID as it presently stands is fine as is. Adding a sentence about living transgender and non-binary people who are open about their former names/who have made the name public post-transition would be a nice addition to the MOS though. Some1 ( talk) 00:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Refer to any person who is transgender or non-binary, or whose gender might be unclear...Otherwise, the implication is that all trans/nb individuals have an unclear gender, which I don't think is the intention.
became a parenthas always annoyed me, as it feels very awkward. I suggest
had a childas the more natural recommended text.-- Trystan ( talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Sean Connery fathered a childor
Sean Connery became a parent, but it could well say
Sean Connery had one son, without any implication of him giving birth.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Edit - I changed the fourth exception in the proposal to Deceased individuals, where...
. I think it was actually in the interests of people trying to exclude former names, but it was perceived as the opposite. Now the privacy provided to living individuals extending after death would range from 2 months to 2 years depending on the case and consensus.
Cuñado ☼ -
Talk 15:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Some of the discussion on the previous drafts appears to be going in circles. Repeated objections to the third and fourth points have not been reflected in previous drafts. So, I've written my own draft with some of the changes that have been repeatedly proposed, as well as fixing some other weaknesses I noticed in previous drafts:
Proposed MOS:GID section draft #5
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, [a] with the exception of:
When the individual was notable prior to transition, the former name of a transgender or non-binary person should be included somewhere in the lead of their article to avoid confusion from readers who are unaware of the individual's transition. Usually it should be included in the first sentence, but in some cases where the risk of confusion is low, it may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article, to avoid giving it undue prominence. After this one time, it should not be mentioned again. When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated, or a deceased individual's name has been included in multiple reliable sources, it can be mentioned in the same situations that any other name could be. However, be aware that former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value, and therefore the name still should only be included if there is a compelling reason to do so. Do not give the former name undue weight or overemphasis. If the appropriate weight is ambiguous, lean on the side of mentioning it as infrequently as possible, up to and including not mentioning it at all. In either case where an exception applies, articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnotes. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. [c] Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Specifically, I've:
Loki ( talk) 05:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In the case of public figures... BLPs should simply document what these sources say,
there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures, and
names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. Without BLP, we would always include former names if properly sourced. Because of BLP, we require a higher bar for inclusion. The justification for removing the former name is for personal privacy, and we can't use the MOS to create a more restrictive policy. An elected official is a public figure, and if they have a former name that is documented in numerous reliable and neutral sources, it should be on Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you have an example?Consider pretty much any actor who retires. During their career, when they are appearing in film or television frequently, or press junkets promoting their latest production, they are unquestionably public figures. But after they retire, unless they stay otherwise active in public life by transitioning to another role, they stop being public figures. Sure you might hear from them once every so often, typically when one of their well loved productions has an anniversary, sequel, or reboot, but are they still a public figure when they're living quietly at home?
have been widely published by reliable sources, not former names (and this guidance isn't specific to public figures either). There's no instruction about former names other than the instruction for miscellaneous personal info (which is to say, it should be removed). Loki ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
exercised some editorial judgement, however slightactually mean in practice? How do you define a source that has exercised editorial judgement? Is this something as general as the source publication having an editorial policy and team, or is it something else entirely? Do you have any examples of this in practice so we could see what it looks like?
When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated. I'm concerned that this doesn't properly differentiate between someone who acknowledged their former name once or twice when first coming out, and someone who later distanced themselves or otherwise refused to acknowledge their former name. Would this not lead to the inclusion of deadnames that we currently exclude because they were not notable under that name, like for example Nicole Maines (see this November 2020 RfC for why we currently exclude the name)? Or are we seriously considering consent for dissemination a one-and-done thing that cannot be revoked at a later date?
articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name.... Is that not softer than the current guideline? The current guideline text is a lot more definitive, use their current name unless they prefer to be credited under their former name for past events. The implication that I get from the text in the proposal is that using their current name is optional in all cases, whereas the current text is optional if the person prefers it. To better fit with the current text, I think this would be better phrased as something like
articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnotes, unless they prefer their former name be used for past events(changes in italics). Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated, or a deceased individual's name has been included in multiple reliable sources, it can be mentioned in the same situations that any other name could be. However, former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value, and should not be given undue weight or overemphasis. If the appropriate weight is ambiguous, lean on the side of mentioning the name as infrequently as possible.
After this one time, it should not be mentioned againas it's in clear violation of how leads are supposed to work. There should not be content in the lead that is not also contained in the article body, and this goes for names as well. Elli ( talk | contribs) 01:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
should not be mentioned againis very clearly how the guideline works now, so no, I'm not removing that. You'd need a strong consensus of editors to overturn that. Mentioning the former name only in the lead is how every article about a trans person notable before transition on Wikipedia is currently worded. See for instance Chelsea Manning, whose deadname we mention once in the lead and thereafter only in quotes, or The Wachowskis, whose deadnames are mentioned in the lead and thereafter only in quotes.
is very clearly how the guideline works nowThe current MOS doesn't require that a former name be mentioned once, only in the lead. For example, Caitlyn Jenner and Elliot Page's former names are included in the lead, but also in the Early life section of their respective articles. At least for deceased trans or nonbinary people, there's no consensus for including language about how often a former name can/should be used, see the RfC from two months ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1158982243#Topic_3:_How_often_to_mention_deadnames?_(MOS:GENDERID_3rd_paragraph*) Some1 ( talk) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Should "Rabbi" be used in running text ( here, for example)? Or just the individual's surname, as is the norm? I strongly assume it's the latter and that the recommended action is to remove "Rabbi", just wanted to confirm and check to see if there's been any discussion regarding this already. Mooonswimmer 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly added the following to MOS:DEADNAME:
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing significant coverage of the person.
I understand that some editors will want stricter restrictions than this, and I understand that some editors will want looser restrictions than this. However, I believe the former group will consider this an improvement over the status quo, and I believe the latter group will recognize that if this went to RfC it would get consensus.
Hopefully, this is an acceptable compromise that will allow us to avoid yet another RfC, at least for now. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
central to the notability of the subjectThe issue with that is I'm not certain what it means; at least WP:SIGCOV is somewhat well understood. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I think if anything such guidance should be for everyone if it is good guidance.Personally, I would have no objection to expanding this to all bios; if reliable sources don't consider a name relevant, why should we? BilledMammal ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there precedence including the wording " "high quality" reliable sources"? I mean, reliable sources are reliable or not.My understanding of their comment was that it was focused on a different aspect of the paragraph than what your comment was focused on; if I misunderstood their comment I apologize, but I am certainly not moving any goalposts. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
David Eppstein has now
reverted, saying Some restriction like this may be appropriate but pushing your SIGCOV-fetish into MOS goes too far
.
To try to address this, I've changed the wording to:
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
This still requires that the source contains more than a passing mention, but it omits the reference to SIGCOV that David found so objectionable. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
much of their academic publication record happens to be under their deadname, our guidance already licenses mentioning the deadname because the individual's notability is unlikely to be derived wholly from post-transition publication. In most NPROF evaluations, notability is far more a cumulative measure than what we use in any other guideline; in my opinion, if someone could not have established an NPROF pass without pre-transition publications, the deadname is DUE even if they wouldn't have met notability criteria before adopting their new name. But if their publication record was strong enough to pass NPROF post-transition and it was too weak to pass pre-transition, then exclusion of the name may be warranted according to the RfC close. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person, or if the person published multiple reviewed works under the name.
multiple reviewed worksis the correct line to draw, but we can work on that; would anyone object to the general principle? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
much of their academic publication record happens to be under their deadnameSo this is an interesting point. Many academic journals, such as everything published by Springer Nature, SAGE, Elsevier, Wiley, PLOS.one, now allow for names to be changed on previously published works without any corrections note being added to the paper. This is in line with the current COPE ethics guidance on name changes, which states that correction notices for name changes
are not appropriate in all circumstances however, particularly in the case of transgender, non-binary, and/or gender diverse (hereafter shortened to “trans”) authors because of the potential trauma caused by the continued circulation of their previous names and the risks to which disclosure of their gender identity subjects them.
If such a person happens to be transgender (I know of multiple notable examples, not all of whom say anything about that in the article) are we to be entirely forbidden from mentioning it?I would ask back, how are we going to verify the name change through an academic's publication record if their publication record for the duration of their career only contains papers published in their current name, even for works published years or decades prior to changing it? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
high-quality reliable secondary sources containing non-trivial coverageof Jessie .
Those citations are in other works that are not going to retroactively cite the same publication under a different author nameThat's not entirely true. If you check the policies I linked all of them cascade changes through DOI metadata to update citations in the works of other authors. Now if you're looking only at a print or PDF copy of the journal or paper, that was printed or generated at the time the paper was originally published or at any point prior to the name change, then that copy will obviously contain a citation to the person's former name. However if you're looking at the same journal or paper, either through the journal's website, or a PDF copy that is generated after the name change, then the citation in the paper will contain the new name only. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under their former name or if their former name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
their birth or former name should be included in the lead sentence(emphasis mine to highlight objectionable point) is too strong, in that it mandates inclusion if the criteria is met. The May/June RfC closed with a consensus 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.and
the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used.
may be included, as this would still provide guidance for what the inclusion criteria is without mandating inclusion if that criteria is met. I realise this is different than what I suggested for the just closed June/July RfC, however for that version I felt as though the inclusion criteria was high enough on their own that they would cover this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
should be included, it's
should be included ... only if. Or to rephrase,
should only be included if.
May be includedfeels very much too weak to me. By the rejection of the "never" option in the previous RFC, we've already agreed that there are some cases where we should include a previous name. And if we're going to have those cases, I want to know what they are rather than having to argue about it every time. WP:IAR is still a thing for really extraordinary cases but I don't want to have significant ambiguity about the typical case. Loki ( talk) 15:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
should be included...only if [the conditions are met]. In other words, we are mandating inclusion when condition is true. In programming language that is
if (A == true || B == true) { /* include name /*} else { /* exclude name */ }
. Even if we move the only earlier in the sentence, we are still mandating inclusion by saying should only be included if [conditions are met], because the emphasis is on the should and the conditions. It does not allow for a local consensus to form for exclusion of the name, if the conditions are otherwise met, short of invoking WP:IAR.
may be included...only if [the conditions are met]we're not mandating inclusion. We're still providing the same set of positive inclusion criteria for when a previous name could be included, while also leaving it open within the letter of the guideline for local consensus to form around exclusion of the name should that be felt necessary based on the circumstances specific to each article. The only significant change is that we stop just short of mandating inclusion. In my mind, that isn't weaker, because the same criteria for inclusion must be met before a name can be included. It just allows for a little more editorial judgement on whether or not inclusion of the former name would or would not improve the article. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
should be included in the lead sentence
IMO, notable deadnames of deceased trans people should be included in the lead, but non-notable deadnames of deceased trans people should be in the Early life section (if they have one).
Some1 (
talk) 18:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
if the name is documented in multiple high-quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the personthen it
should be included in the lead sentence. Any former names of deceased transgender or non-binary persons' that don't meet that criteria can still be included in the article, just not in the lead. That's my interpretation of that one sentence anyway. Some1 ( talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
SnowRise has now
reverted this, saying I'm sorry BM, but 1) this is substantially the same language advanced at the recent
WP:VPR discussion, with massive community input, that failed to gain consensus. And 2) GENDERID is about the last MoS section where
WP:BOLD is well-advised, especially in these circumstances. Please wait a while and attempt another go at consensus if you wish, but this feels like an effort to back-door in non-consensus language, and feels borderline TE, IIAH.
borderline TE, I note that I strongly opposed the VPR proposal, on many grounds. I don't believe any of those grounds apply to this proposal. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Now I believe BM was acting in good faith in doing so, but it was a questionable call, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, when that edit was reverted, they should have come here to discuss. Instead they chose to edit war an (again, substantially similar) version into the policy/style guidance. That is out of process, so I reverted it.
"I really don't like all these WP:ASPERSIONS, and I think if your only argument is that we're reverting you and you don't like it, that means you have no actual argument for excluding that content."
"I was nowhere near 3RR (I haven't edited this page at all in over 24 hours..."
"...and I reverted you to restore text that was status quo and had consensus."
"The basic fact of the situation is that we have an RFC with a very strong consensus for language like this."
"We don't currently have an RFC with consensus on specific wording, but there's no reason to think we'd need that: consensus on the talk page should be all that's necessary."
"So reverting it was inappropriate: if you object to it, you need to come in and discuss.
Yeah, and then you had a more recent and even larger RfC which found no consensus for language even more precisely similar to the language you are edit warring to include here.The proposed wording here changes the requirement from a deadname itself receiving multiple pieces of SIGCOV to the deadname being mentioned in multiple pieces of SIGCOV. Most opposes were specifically opposing the former wording rather than opposing the whole idea of restrictions on deadnaming dead transpeople (which had already received consensus in the earlier RfC where deadnames in this context were deemed to be "not inherently encyclopedic" and "must be avoided to some undetermined extent"). JoelleJay ( talk) 06:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
based on my analysis of the previous RfC and the support expressed for this option among those who opposed that proposalThis is the first time you've alluded to having done an analysis of the previous RfC. As such, could you elaborate on this please? How did you reach the text of this proposal? Where there any other alternative formulations were considered and ruled out during the analysis, and if so what were they and why were they ruled out? Beyond the specific questions that were asked in each RfC, are there any proposals that your analysis would consider doomed from the outset? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
given that in the previous RfC many who opposed the wording there expressed support wording like what I have inserted, and I believe I've alluded to it elsewhere as well. I reached the text of this proposal by considering the discussions during that RfC, and found that JoelleJay's suggestion was particularly convincing to editors involved in that discussion and so heavily based my proposal on it.
Beyond the specific questions that were asked in each RfC, are there any proposals that your analysis would consider doomed from the outset?I could think of dozens, but I don't think it is very useful to discuss doomed proposals unless someone actually proposes them.
I understand that some editors will want stricter restrictions than this, and I understand that some editors will want looser restrictions than this. However, I believe the former group will consider this an improvement over the status quo, and I believe the latter group will recognize that if this went to RfC it would get consensus.), and I proposed it on that basis in the hope that we could avoid yet another formal discussion - but as I said, if editors insist on it needing to receive formal consensus then I will open an RfC on it. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
In the end, my position is that this is a proposal that is all but certain to receive consensus if brought to a formal discussionI would like to agree with this, however I need evidence to do so. I ask because there's at least one other competing view on how to interpret what was discussed at the RfCs. While I'm opposing that one currently, I have to ask why is that one a less accurate reading of the community consensus than yours? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Individuals who have been deceased for at least two years, where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the name).
is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources), the primary reason I didn't base it on that was that there was no chance it could be implemented as a WP:BOLD edit; it is almost identical to the proposal rejected in the previous RfC, it shares the issues that proposal had, and it was opposed by too many editors in that discussion including myself. For those reasons I also don't believe it would receive consensus even if a formal RfC was opened on the topic, and I suspect that even opening an RfC on that topic would be controversial and invite accusations of tendentious editing. Further, if we are going to open another RfC on this topic it shouldn't be for yet another highly controversial proposal; it should be one that most of the community can get behind and produce a clear consensus for. (Regarding the closer's reference, I read that as referring to all the alternatives, including JoelleJay's, but reasonable minds may disagree.) BilledMammal ( talk) 02:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The closer specifically stated: "Several comments argued that a variance on the proposed change would be far more preferable (and obviously could be the subject of a subsequent RFC), but consensus doesn't clearly support that version (yet)." and "Of course, further discussion/consensus can (and probably will) help address these points and/or alter wording.", but going in and trying to push through these changes via a discussion that preceded that one is out of process, and this is getting to be a tiresome way of seeing BilledMammal and other editors joining him conduct business on here. Those controversial changes should never have been made without discussion, and I am reverting them back to the status quo. Just because they didn't get noticed for 7 days is no excuse. Huggums537 ( talk) 06:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
I've updated this version to address comments made above. If there are no further issues with it, I am hoping we can get an informal consensus to include it rather than wasting more community time with an RfC; do any editors both oppose this change and believe there is a chance it wouldn't be approved in an RfC? BilledMammal ( talk) 01:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
...multiple reliable and secondary sources...to
...multiple reliable and neutral sources.... This will implicitly avoid the issue of biased and sensationalistic sources, while also maintaining some degree of source quality per the rest of the text. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
..multiple reliable, neutral, and secondary sources..., which combines all three and that way we avoid both the primary source and sensationalistic source issues entirely? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
"...containing non-trivial coverage of the person.". I strongly urge that we don't endanger the potential benefit of that wording (and our best chance yet to fashion together a community consensus at last here) for a highly irregular use of a term that already has a distinct and more or less polar-opposite meaning in policy. I very much respect your effort to bring the disparate sides of this issue together here, but adding this word is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm certain of it. Much better to stick with "secondary" which has a precise, actionable, applicable meaning under existing policy that directly aligns with what we want it to say here. SnowRise let's rap 23:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
we are not meant to be judging or evaluating the conclusions of sources in any way (whether that pertains to bias or factual accuracy or any other element of their claims) in individual casesYes we are. Part of our role as editors is in figuring out what the neutral point of view on any given topic is, and NPOV straight up tells us that
A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources(emphasis added). There is no way to determine whether an article is or is not NPOV compliant without assessing the sourcing used against all of the reliable sources on the topic and accounting for their biases in doing so.
Lastly, I don't think this language has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of passing community scrutiny.That's fair, and I'm not going to belabour this any more than I already have. I've made a suggested tweak that I think would improve the draft and whether or not that tweak finds consensus prior to bringing this forward (if necessary) is not something I'm going to lose sleep over either way. But please, don't say that NPOV tells us not to do something that it explicitly tells us to do. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view."(emphasis added)
"...containing non-trivial coverage of the person."That's also the language that most substantial increases the burden here, and it's also likely to keep out the kinds of primary sources that you are concerned with, as I read it, because these sources contain no real substantive "coverage" but rather just routine clerical data. But I don't necessarily think we need to drop the "secondary" either; I'd argue it is much more useful, clear, and functionally dispositive than "neutral". SnowRise let's rap 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
multiple ... sourcesfor
a majority of ... sourcesor at least
a plurality of ... sources. As written, the standard is just two reliable secondary sources, and while in cases where there isn't a lot of coverage I think that's fine, in the case where a subject has received a lot of coverage and most sources don't use the former name, just two sources may not really be a convincing argument to use it in practice.
the entire British media is not neutral on this topicIf the entire media of a major nation with freedom of the press is not neutral on this topic then I would suggest no media is neutral on it, which does demonstrate the issue with adding a “neutrality” clause.
Hi, I've noticed there's a filter or something called "possible MOS:ETHNICITY violation" in Wikipedia's code. How does it work? Does it for example avoid edits consisting in the removal of demonyms from an article? If so I'd like to propose an addition. But firstly I'd like to know what does it do. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 21:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this page should be
split into pages titled
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. (
discuss) |
Split Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. Currently the topic is a WP:FORK between the two. Being a subtopic in MOS:Biography perpetuates forked discussions, forked manual-of-style-guidance, prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature and accessing this policy discussion, and floods disinterested wiki policymakers with a high-barrier-to-entry inaccessible discussion. We already have about 100 conversation threads identified for this and it is unsustainable to center them here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. I fail to recognize negative consequences of this proposal; if anyone sees any then please state them.
prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature. I am not sure whether there are other stakeholder communities this could be referring to, and if not, then the question remains that once this change is made, would there will be appropriate balance in resultant discussions, instead of a local consensus? starship .paint ( exalt) 04:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION.Some1 ( talk) 11:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW it's already the case that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to deadname people.If it's WP:DUE, then it does. If there are
losing argument[s], then it's because you're witnessing editors willingly choose to violate the non-negotiable status WP:NPOV enjoys and it's a shame because our ability to cover topics neutrally is a deeper concern than helping someone trying to stop a streisand effect (or put a genie back in a bottle, etc, etc) over something that not all of society agrees with (as evidenced by reliable sources). Of late, the arguments for change are boldly running straight through WP:RGW and are disruptive with the non-stop proposals/threads/debates and it grows tiring. If someone had told me 3-4 years ago I'd be on Wikipedia arguing about transgender topics, I'd never have believed them. And yet here I am, because apparently we're trying to change Wikipedia from being a follower of sources to being an encyclopedia that picks and chooses which reliable sources to ignore or acknowledge. And that's the most dangerous thing to come out of this to me in my decades of being here. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.And I don't think it's a point of view (and it doesn't really matter what I think here), our sources do. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Why [do] you think a person's name (or in this case former name) is a point of view on a topic?, I cited the exact wording from WP:NPOV that addressed your question. As to the rest, I'll leave you with WP:RGW which addresses what's happened here far better than I'm capable of. — Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
factoid, you'll need to let the folks who came up with WP:AT and the various Wikipedia naming conventions that their work was all for nothing. But this is all basic writing: who someone is (their name) is as important as what they've done, where they did it, and the why of what happened. This is all very academic. I won't be re-quoting NPOV since apparently the words don't mean anything to you, but it's all right there. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Ordinarily when we discuss DUE, we are asking and answering questions like "does [insert label] apply to this article/?" or "what does current academic research state about this topic?" or "is this theory disputed and by whom?" This is so that whenever we're answering those questions, we're always following whatever the mainstream view on a topic is.
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to(emphasis added, the "several ways" provided are just a sampling and not an exhaustive list)
the depth of detail(a name is a "detail" that sources may go into depth on, omitting such a detail when reliable sources report it runs afoul of DUE)
[...] the juxtaposition of statements(our sources may list a "deadname" near a subjects current name, deviating significantly from that would again run into NPOV concerns). — Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons. Loki ( talk) 03:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
this will reduce the number of eyes on this section— I don't think the number of watchers should affect where a guideline goes. It's either about content or style (or both, as Blueboar pointed out), and its location in the guideline/policies structure should be dictated by its scope, not by how many people chose to watch it. Anyone can watch or subscribe to anything - we don't hide our policies and guidelines. If anything, it should be easier to find and watch if it is in a sensible place, matching the scope of the guideline/policy. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
[t]here are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipediaand focuses on avoiding the loss of information ( MOS:SAID is a good example of this). - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Based on the consensus that seems to be forming around the split, here is a proposed wording for a paragraph in BLP, so that the MOS is for style and not making content policy.
Proposed paragraph for
WP:BLPNAME
|
---|
For the special case of the former name of a transgender or non-binary individual, it is reasonable to assume they would not want the name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure. Any inclusion must be supported by multiple reliable and neutral sources. [a]
|
Proposed MOS:GID
|
---|
Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person should only be included if the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure (See WP:BLPNAME). The former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
consensus that seems to be forming, whaaaat? No jumping the gun, please. Crossroads -talk- 00:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
There's also the matter of what status it should have if it's moved out of the MOS.That's easy. GENDERID is already a guideline, and is regularly enforced as such at both content and behavioural noticeboards. As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity.
while the NPOV conflict remainsWhile this has been going on, I've re-read every formative discussion on the text of the guideline (ie those that were on the text of the guideline or lead to changes of it, and not application of it). In doing so I discovered that NPOV concerns have been raised by a handful of editors in total, across the hundreds contributing to the various discussions. The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
GENDERID is already a guidelineIt's a style guideline and part of the manual of style. It is not a traditional content guideline.
As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity.This would not be parity, but a promotion by fiat unless it was accompanied by a community conversation that showed support for such a promotion.
The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this.NPOV is non-negotiable, whether a community of editors supports something is irrelevant. If you want to split it off and promote it, you'll need to address these issues or face the reality that it will likely fail. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.I'll note that WP:SATISFY is an essay. We'll go with the policy here. But we won't be sacrificing our neutrality on the altar of WP:RGW just because a vocal minority (the small group here) wishes it so. The community decided the principles of NPOV are above consensus decision making, and likely rightly so if the conversations here are any indicator of how quickly some groups are willing to set aside our neutrality in the name of "feeling good" or some misguided desire to "respect" people in a way that society (and more importantly, our sources) have not. There is genuine real-world progress to be made on these issues, but Wikipedia cannot be the "leader" of change that some here seem to be pushing. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
If you propose that we move to BLP to exclude all former names unless they were notable under the previous name, it would fail.Outside of IAR, we already exclude all former names unless the person was notable under the former name. Moving the relevant parts to BLP for something we already have a long standing consensus for and have been doing routinely for years is much easier to do than adding wholly new exemptions or moving and adding new exemptions.
I'd like to get feedback on this proposal before taking it to VPP. Assume a preamble and option to oppose all.
Option 1 - Expand
MOS:GENDERID to deceased
|
---|
Add this paragraph to MOS:GENDERID: For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person. |
Option 2 - Move content restriction to
WP:BLPNAME with normal privacy exceptions, and revise down
MOS:GENDERID
|
---|
Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, it has been widely published by reliable sources, or it may be reasonably inferred that the individual does not object to the name being made public. [a]
Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup: Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Option 3 - Move content restriction to
WP:BLPNAME with only exception for notability, and revise down
MOS:GENDERID
|
---|
Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name. [a]
Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup (same wording as Option 2): Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included.
|
Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Would it help to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other optionsPerhaps, though that particular clause might just be better handled as a separate RfC, or as a separate question within one overall RfC. I'm not entirely sure that the drafting of that text has reached a conclusion yet and I wouldn't want to pre-empt it by placing a non-final version of it in here. The alternative would be to wait until that process and this process has finished and we have finalised text for all of the options/options. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
use their current name as the primary nameand
may use their current name as the primary name
In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names.Which resulted in the change to "may use their current name" addressing works published under pre-transition names. In another example,
even if it does not match what is most common in sourcesis redundant and unnecessary. You have the right to oppose all of my efforts, but you can't insist that it
cannot be brought forward to an RFCwith specious complaints. Due to this topic having a history of WP:GAME and WP:ADVOCACY by WP:ACTIVISTs (as noted in numerous RFC comments) I don't expect 100% agreement on this page but I welcome any feedback to make it a better proposal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise- this is redundant to the "Refer to any person" in the previous sentence, and the "unless they have indicated a preference" is just obvious. It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writing, not scope of guideline. Even though it's not my preference, I can put it back in to build unity.
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.- 1) this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographies, 2) it's in scope for removing in the spirit of moving content criteria out of the MOS, 3) also obvious given many relevant content policies.
use their current name as the primary nameto
may use their current name as the primary namefor pre-transition publications. This was not my idea but I was incorporating a recommendation from Tamzin:
In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names.Nobody opposed this until now. As I've been reading hundreds of RFC comments over the last 3 months, proposing drafts and soliciting feedback, I'm trying to get the best version forward. Similarly, the change in the first sentence from "questioned" to "unclear" was a result of feedback from Jerome Frank Disciple and SMcCandlish on this page.
In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)".This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated. See WP:KISS. If you think it's important, please propose a better wording. This is a style example and has absolutely nothing to do with scope. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writingThe content that refers to is part of the Manual of Style. It makes sense for style guidance to be a part of that text.
this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographiesPer the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO
This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles. All biographical content, regardless of whether it's in a biography or any other article is subject to MOSBIO.
Nobody opposed this until now.I cautiously opposed it on 24 July. However that is separate to the reason I'm opposing it now. The reason I'm opposing it now is because it represents a significant departure from the current scope of the guideline, by adding a new exclusion criteria to GENDERID. We should not be launching an RfC that alters both the scope and location of the guideline at the same time. Do one of those two actions, and do that one action well. Now if it was only that change of scope that was being discussed, I would be somewhat more inclined to support it, but I still think it has issues that require further wordsmithing.
This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated.Possibly, and given the widespread shift in academic journals with regards to allowing for silent retrospective name changes for trans and non-binary authors this might even be (partially) outdated. That said, removing it again represents a significant change in scope of the guideline, in this case by removing guidance on how to handle source author name changes in citations. However saying this is a style example is again irrelevant, because this is referring to content that in options 2 and 3 will be remaining in MOSBIO. And as I've said above, MOSBIO refers to all biographical content and not just biographical articles. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise- If I hear wider support that this is important I'll include it. Again, not a scope change.
the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO- you win! I'll add it back in to the MOS text.
may use their current name as the primary name- nobody opposed this particular change until now, and the change was in drafts #2,3,4, and 5 above. The link you gave of you opposing it is just some general opposition to Tamzin's draft (#5). Perhaps some wording along the lines of "...unless they have a preference otherwise" would be in order, but I don't think it is very consequential whether we use "should" or "may". The proposal is clear that we assume privacy concerns unless the individual says otherwise, so that would override the "should". If I hear wider support that this is important I'll change to "should".
In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)".- Please propose a better wording. Both sentences look like they were formed by committee. To me at least, it's not clear what situation it's trying to address, or whether the "author is notable" refers to the new or former name. Try writing like you're explaining it out loud.
Question 1 - Wording for deceased individuals
|
---|
Which of the following paragraphs should be added to the guideline on referring to trans people?
|
Question 2 - Location of the guideline
|
---|
Where should the main guideline on referring to trans people be located?
|
Questions 3 and 4 - Exceptions
|
---|
Which of the following reasons should require mention of a trans person's former name in the lead of their article? (You may select more than one.)
Which of the following reasons should allow mention of a trans person's former name in their article? (You may select more than one.)
|
The person's former name has been widely published by reliable and secondary sources, based on WP:BLPPRIVACY
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.However, I am still hoping we can avoid an RfC on that question. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
RfC has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on GENDERID in BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that Loki's presentation of the issues, divided among three potential proposals, looks to have a the requisite levels of simplicity and clarity to my eyes, and has taken the feedback of the above discussions into account, regarding what we can predict from the last two RfCs and how ambitious the new proposed wording can be while still standing a decent chance of capturing community consensus. The advocates for increasing the privacy protections of trans individuals as biographical subjects have adjusted their approach, and I am hopeful that those with strong NOTCENSORED conerns among the respondents of the next RfC at VPP will also give some ground in light of / as a result of the extra level of preparation and tailoring that went into this language.
As such, I'd like to read the room and see if we are good to go on this in the coming week or so, pending some additional tweaks to the precise language? (For example, do we want to leave the inquiries of Q3/Q4 open-ended as they stand now or propose precise language?) If there is support to propose this soon, I think the following timeline is most advisable:
I appreciate this puts us potentially more than three months out before all of this gets resolved, but there seems to clear consensus above not to run all of these inquiries concurrently, and that may well be for the best (and ultimately save a lot of time and effort) in the long run. Incidentally, my thanks to everyone for pulling together and trying to meet in the middle after a tumultuous start to this series of discussions. Thoughts? SnowRise let's rap 01:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
My preference would be include somewhere between 2 and 4 options that represent different points within the range, which gives the best chance at community consensus.I would strongly oppose that. We have tried multiple ambitious RfC's, and they have done nothing but exhaust community patience. We need to run with a single conservative proposed wording, that is guaranteed to get community consensus. My wording has broad acceptance, even if some editors think it is too strong, and others thing it is too weak. Let us use that, and if down the line we find it is not strict enough we can look at a modifications to address specific issues that are raised. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Also presenting a single option will almost certainly be perceived by some as an attempted fait accompli (even though that is not the intent) and will get opposition on that basis alone (even if the same people would pick that option from a list).Honestly, I doubt that - most policy proposals have a single option with editors !voting either "support" or "oppose", and I've never seen anyone oppose a proposal on that basis.
near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3), but not enough overall to gain consensus. This is why in the second RfC the barrier for inclusion was set very high, as it was to try and respect that consensus, but clearly that failed because it was too high.
For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name should be included in their main biographical article only if...and then present a series of options that complete the sentence, eg
multiple, reliable sources,
multiple, secondary, reliable sources,
multiple high-quality reliable sources. Editors then contributing to the RfC can then chose which combination of options how restrictive or non-restrictive they feel this part of the guideline should be.
How should complementary or complex preferences with regard to gender expression and identity be handled? This applies to article subjects such as Conchita Wurst or Trixie Mattel, where the article contains information both on the person and their stage persona(s), as well as to articles like Eddie Izzard, where the subject's expressed identity does not clearly indicate how they should be referred to under MOS:GID. [a] In such cases, should the article text:
A. Refer to the subject with only one set of pronouns throughout the article
OR
B. Refer to them variably?
Note relevant discussion in the GID inclarity section above. Actualcpscm ( talk) 10:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no single “right” answer to this question. A LOT depends on the expressed desires of the subject of the article… which means we often have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, per Blueboar but in general, refering to someone variably within an article is a recipe for confusion IMO. The drag artists ( Conchita Wurst and Trixie Mattel) have some justification since the articles are ostensibly in the name of the character, rather than the artist, but even so, the articles seem needlessly confusing, both whether the article itself is actually about a performer, or the drag persona they created and in the use of pronouns (the character or creator could be referred to by name throughout). Pincrete ( talk) 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
unambiguously [gender]-identifying first nameis a fallacious construct. To step outside this culture for a moment, whenever one of the teachers I worked alongside in China would hear from another teacher the name of a student they didn't know, the first question was always "boy or girl?" Leaving aside the obvious gender-binary cultural blinders, even the idea of an unambiguously gender-identifying first name is unknown is some settings.And for a counterexample from Western culture, one of the easy ways people in our department at grad school used to suss out whether some student was actually familiar with the secondary literature or had just read a few articles here or there would be to bring up Michael Nylan, now the most prominent active Han dynasty historian in the Western world, and see if the student misgendered her based on assumptions about her first name.I'm sorry this got rambly and ranty, and I appreciate that the people initiating these RfCs are doing so in good faith to protect and respect notable people who are similar to me in a vulnerable way that makes us visible minorities wherever we go. But what I'm feeling instead is that the image being presented to the wider Wikipedia community is that trans people are delicate to the point we need a constant flow of RfCs to head off any possible affront no matter how minor or unintentional. When people address you with the wrong pronouns, you remind, forgive, and have patience. It takes a while to learn, but people are learning. The ceaseless pushing on these topics is a road to resentment, not consensus.Apologies for the feelings. It's been a wholeass week over here. Double apologies to everyone who has their pronouns tattooed on their knuckles and gets tilted about pronouns on the daily (although I doubt the person I'm thinking of reads anything in the Wikipedia_talk: namespace). Folly Mox ( talk) 04:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
complex / complementary gender expression, rather I have a "don't give a fuck" approach which means I don't mind any personal pronouns. But even in that, the same issue arises as described by Actualcpscm. I don't think we have enough BLPs that would require us to create a uniform policy and AFAIK we've been able to self-regulate well enough. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
MOS:ETHNICITY covers several useful situations for how to refer to the nationality or ethnicity of a biography subject in the lead section. However, there is no guidance on whether duress can be a factor in determining a person's nationality. At Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, there is currently a riveting discussion regarding how to refer to Sergei Bortkiewicz' nationality and/or ethnicity in the lead section. Even if these questions are mooted by other factors, the question of duress may still relevant to many biography subjects who have lived in the middle of geopolitical conflicts, especially if they lived in occupied territories. @ Mzajac raises an interesting concern regarding Bortkiewicz: "His own comments have to be interpreted in his cultural and historical context: in the Russian empire one could get in serious trouble for publicly acknowledging Ukrainian as a separate national identity so it wasn’t done, and the name Ukrainian wasn’t universally used as an ethnonym until after the revolution (in Austro-Hungarian Ukraine, Ukrainians had referred to themselves as Rusyns, Rusnaks, or Ruthenians). This coloured the way people from there referred to themselves and others, and the way the rest of the world referred to them."
To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity? 169.156.16.220 ( talk) 23:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity?No extent, because that requires WP:OR. Instead, we should just follow the sources; if the sources describe Bortkiewicz as Russian, we describe him as Russian. If the sources describe him as Ukrainian, we describe him as Ukrainian. If the sources are conflicted, we reflect that conflict. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)I really don't think this two-editor pissing match, about a content dispute at an article, needs to continue on this guideline talk page. Most of this is turning to behavioral complaint, which belongs in userspace or at a noticeboard. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I got sucked into this rabbithole topic by User:Mzajac/Michael's comment, because Bach and Beethoven and Vivaldi get rather less controversial anachronistic ethno-nationalities in the lead paragraphs, while Mozart and Haydn get into historical/pseudohistorical and politicized Godwin-converging Talk battles. There's even a Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article (entirely SYNTH imo). If you browse the archives of any such bio's Talk page they raise the same basic points: nationality, ethnicity(s), language, citizenship, residence, and self-identification are all different concepts that may vary in different contexts at different times in the subject's life. An appropriate RS may indeed cover such a topic in some detail. But if it's only mentioned as a throwaway line in a bio -- "Bach was born in X. The precocious young German did Y." -- is that really a suitable source that a historian has staked out a position on the subject's ethnicity, especially if the historian provides no footnote for that singular nominalization? I hear way too often the entirely false mantra that "an RS is an RS". Tldr: maybe editors here who say it suffices to adhere to reliable sources are correct, but I have yet to see editors consistently understand what reliable sources are, especially when tribal lines are being drawn. If something like duress is even remotely an issue, then I'd be shocked if editors ever agree to put any positive ethnicity or nationality anywhere. SamuelRiv ( talk) 04:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:BOLD, "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section." However, the guidance at MOS:SIR is, "The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." In cases when the title of the article does not include the honorific, this is contradictory; not knowing that MOS:SIR even existed, I've been conforming articles to MOS:BOLD.
I'm not clear why "sir" should be different than any other honorific in terms of the use of boldface; shouldn't it only be in bold when it's part of the article title? If in fact it's the consensus that "sir" is an exception, shouldn't MOS:BOLD be updated to reflect that? ~ T P W 15:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Equivalently, in the article Ruth Westheimer includes
Karola Ruth Westheimerand later
Dr. Ruth. An alternative route to the same result is that Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill and Dr. Ruth are both redirect pages.
Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webberwould look strange if we unbolded the "Baron". Other examples of titles that are bolded include Mother Teresa's (among others)
Saint Teresa of Calcutta.
Captain Sir Thomas Moore. I have no idea... Mgp28 ( talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
We're having a discussion at Sia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about if/how to introduce per MOS:LEGALNAME why we refer to her as Sia throughout the article. She has not changed her legal name to her mononym. This is similar to the examples in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use: Aaliyah, Selena, and Usher; where only Selena has an introduction, "known mononymously as Selena" in the first sentence.
Is there a general consensus to prefer an introduction over none? - Hipal ( talk) 20:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There’s currently a discussion going on at RfD regarding the redirect {{ R from deadname}}. One of the potential outcomes is the creation of a new rcat.
During the discussion so far, an editor has raised potential BLP concerns, so it would therefore be good to hear the opinions of editors experienced in this area. I’ve linked the discussion below — any editor who wishes to take part may do so.
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Template:R from deadname
All the best, user:A smart kitten meow 09:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:Requested moves has consistently interpreted the "Initials" section as also applying to names of fictional characters.
An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless:
- the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and
- an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person.
In such a case, treat it as a self-published name change. Examples include k.d. lang, CC Sabathia, and CCH Pounder.
starship .paint ( RUN) 13:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the ethnicity section needs more elaboration. There are missing gaps in the policy; how do we reference people that lived in empires? How do we reference people that lived in abstract geographic regions in past times when no political entity existed? It wouldn't make sense to remove any ethnic/geographic reference from the lede.
Checking a number of Wikipedia biographies reveals this inconsistency: Niccolò Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei would be Florentines instead of Italians; Thomas Aquinas would be Sicilian instead of Italian; Jesus would be Roman instead of Jewish; Aristotle would be Chalcidian/Macedonian instead of Greek; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would be "Roman Holy Empirer" instead of German; Maimonides would be Almoravid instead of Sephardic Jewish; Saladin would be Abbasid instead of Kurdish; Muhammad would be identified as having been born in the Hejaz instead of being Arab.
A new paragraph should be added along the lines of: "Persons who lived under empires and persons who lived in abstract geographic regions in pre-modern times, can be referenced by their ethnicity or by mentioning the geographic region if this supported by a majority of sources as a notable identification." Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability...
if relevant to notability— Bagumba ( talk) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I found this discussion via " Margherita Gonzaga, Marquise of Ferrara", which I'd arrived at from a search for the term "in modern day Italy". It seems to me that using "modern-day" (or "modern day", or simply "modern") in this way often leads to absurdities. Earlier today I learnt that " Capsian [neolithic] culture was concentrated mainly in modern Tunisia"; previously, that "Etruscan was the language of the Etruscan civilization in modern day Italy", and that the Third Punic War "was fought entirely within Carthaginian territory, in modern northern Tunisia". Elsewhere, I learn that the Gothic language was "preserved and transmitted by northern Ostrogoths in modern-day Italy".
I'm old-fashioned, and quite British, but is it really acceptable to use "modern" or "modern-day" like that? There are no Ostrogoths in modern-day Italy, the Third Punic War was not fought in modern Tunisia, and the Etruscan civilisation died out long before modern Italy was thought of. Margherita Gonzaga was born in Mantua, and Mantua is now in Italy, but she wasn't born in modern Italy, or in modern-day Italy. Doesn't the Manual of Style have anything to say about this? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 23:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
First, I agree with User:Makeandtoss that the ethnicity section needs clarification. That is evidenced, among other things, by two disputes that I am mediating, and I don't usually mediate two disputes about the same class of issue at the same time.
One of them, Marco Polo, really does involve whether you can refer to medieval Italians as Italians, and the specific questions are:
I think that the answer to all three questions is yes. In particular, Italy was a geographic region, and a part of the Roman Empire, long before the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed. I think that we need a statement to that effect somewhere, because the issue keeps coming up.
The second dispute is more controversial, and has to do with Sergei Bortkiewicz, a composer who was born in what is now Ukraine, which was part of the Russian Empire at the time. Since blood is being spilled as I write this, we clearly need to be ready to deal with disputes about persons born in what is now Ukraine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I started a Village pump (proposals) discussion regarding the problem of anachronism in the articles, considering that the articles are uneven in this regard. If there are sources that speak differently about a historical person, I don't think we can use that argument alone ie only RS argument. Because with the will of most editors and some sources if there are any, we can have anachronistic information in the article. Thus, for a certain Roman emperor, we could put information in the article that he was the Italian emperor. The key problem is that we do not have any guidelines regarding anachronism in the articles. If you want to discuss this problem, feel free to join. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rule_that_will_cover_anachronistic_informations_in_the_articles
Mikola22 ( talk) 07:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there agreement that the MOS can be left alone? Do we need to formalize anything, such as that we should state what the majority of reliable sources say? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
A specific question that recurs from time to time has to do with people born in the region of Italy between 476 AD and 1860 AD, who are often referred to as Italian, but also often the subject of arguments because there was not an Italian state. Should we specifically discuss either a rule that this characterization should be avoided, or that this characterization is permitted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor consolidation merge - Idea to merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into MOS:TM, leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from MOS:NAMES. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Quite a while I posted on the person infobox template talk page to ask about this. I checked back again just now and saw my attempt at a discussion disappeared but an identical one is there now from another editor. Someone suggested to try here. The template doc says to only include this parameter when "the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." However, it appears this is inconsistently enforced and honestly it seems extremely objective and in some cases difficult to prove. The prime example is Michael Jackson. Can we honestly and truly say one of the best selling and most popular artists of all-time's cause of death had significance to his notability? The death itself, absolutely. But the actual cause? Not necessarily. He's the only one I can come up with that's a good example but I'm sure there's others. People like Tupac Shakur, John Lennon, that were murdered and had their legacies live on partially due to how they died makes sense. Elvis had his for the longest but it was recently removed (I've since added it back). I'm looking to either change this silly having "significance for the subject's notability" rule or make it a little more clear as to what exactly this means. There's a single editor I will not mention by name that has been on a tear over the last couple of years of removing death cause parameter, sometimes for articles that have had it up for years (like Elvis).--Rockchalk 7 17 05:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
MOS:INITIALS reads:
With initials, it is not necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. For example, H. P. Lovecraft has that title, H. P. Lovecraft appears in his infobox, and his lead sentence just gives Howard Phillips Lovecraft ... was an American writer ..., without "explaining" to the reader what "H. P." stands for.
Would this also apply for people with "Jr." in their name, for example, D. J. Hayden, whose full name is Derek Sherrard Hayden Jr.? — Bagumba ( talk) 08:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't need to add DJ here if it's obvious where it comes from. — Bagumba ( talk) 00:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
...case where someone is habitually called D. J. as short for "Derek Junior", so it's really a form of hypocorism (as WP broadly uses that term, to include shortenings), not a nickname like "Spanky"...: I think many might stumble on the nuance between a nickname and hypocorism to determine whether to quote or not, or simply mix this up with MOS:INITIALS. — Bagumba ( talk) 00:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The redirect MOS: SURNAME has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: SURNAME until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I've done one of my periodic "guideline overhaul" jobs [63], that should not result in any substantive changes (no new style rules or deletion of or meaning change to existing rules), but with a lot of cleanup:
I don't think any of this will be controversial, but of course feel free to raise an objection if I've broken something (or just go fix it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Just look at this talk page. Look at the archives. JOBTITLES is constantly discussed. Not even people familiar with MOS understand it. Alternatively, pay attention to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors: the most common point of contention there is capitalization because mere mortals cannot wrap their minds around what JOBTITLES is trying to say. It is absurdly convoluted, to the point that it does not reflect either academic and journalistic usage or government usage.
To illustrate, this mumble is the only correct way to capitalize per MOS:JOBTITLES:
John F. Kennedy was President of the United States. He was the president of the United States from 1961 to 1963. Before he became president, Kennedy served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The President served at the height of the Cold War. In 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated.
We will all be spared the eyesore of apparently random capitalization as well as the incessant questions about the intention of MOS:JOBTITLES if we just adopt the style that is almost universally used in academic and journalistic writing, namely:
John F. Kennedy was president of the United States. He was the president of the United States from 1961 to 1963. Before he became president, Kennedy served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The president served at the height of the Cold War. In 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated.
Only capitalize job titles when preceding the person's name. That's it. No "when not in plural", "when not preceded by a modifier", "when not a reworded description" and all those other conditions that make MOS look like a computer code. Just do as academic and journalistic style guides do.
So, to spare us yet another unproductive discussion about this, I beg your answer to two questions:
Thanks and bear with me. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
tqb}}
of what the current guideline wording is, and another showing what the proposed wording would be, so people don't have to try to compare text in two different browser windows and whatnot. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestions for simplifying the existing rules, which would be in line with a few style guides. But a lot of capitalization will still look weird and inconsistent since in the end we're at the mercy of the articles. SamuelRiv ( talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)JFK was the president of the United States. He was elected to the office of the President of the United States. (Note that President JF Kennedy should not be confused with President of Ireland JF Kennedy or the president of Kennedy, Ireland, which maybe exist at some point.) On his best days as president, President (of the US) Kennedy wore silly hats with his crayon-drawn personal presidential seal on them {not the official seal of the president of the United States or the Great Seal of the United States -- but the one emblazoned on his pajamas nonetheless}. The first lady that JFK married became his first lady for his presidency, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, who would be seen to embody the Office of the First Lady and the public role the first lady of the United States should take.
Following on the suggestion above to workshop specific reivsion ideas, and drawing on Surtsicna's sound idea to "just adopt the style that is almost universally used in academic and journalistic writing", I will propose [this is workshopping, not an RfC!] that the way to fix MOS:JOBTITLES to be easy to remember, and more importantly to produce less reader-confusing results, is to simplify it down to something like:
... They are capitalized only in the following cases:
- When they are directly attached to a person's name (with no modifiers, including an ordinal number or a definite or indefinite article, and no intervening interpolations, including punctuation), and are not descriptive re-wordings.
- Even then, do not capitalize them if they are commercial jobs (chief operating officer) or are non-unique, non-administrative governmental roles (sherrif's deputy, building inspector, but Chief of Police, Minister of Finance).
- When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office ... [keep existing examples].
Then eliminate the third extant bullet point and the table that follows it, this material being almost the entire source of confusion and strife. (Honestly, I think the second item, about use of a title as a name substitute, could also go, but some people are probably in favour of retaining it.)
Also remove the now-redundant "Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles ...." sentence below the list. Alternatively, keep this line but remove the simpler but stricter indented sub-bullet from the proposal above.
If we used this replacement material in the sectional introduction, we could possibly also pare down the material that follows into more concise sets of examples of what to do and not do, and spend less verbiage on covering various types of titles. But the main point is eliminating the material causing confusion and impractical complexity.
The current wording, for comparison
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan. The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it. Note that for "president of the United States" or "prime minister of the United Kingdom", the name of the country remains capitalized even when the title is not, as it is always a proper noun. When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs). [Subsections follow on various title/role types.] |
To be clear, this proposal would completely eliminate the weird "half-way" provision that is confusing people, the notion of capitalizing:
This is something many people have had difficulty parsing, and there is no question that the results are confusingly inconsistent for readers. The long-contentious examples like:
would all become lower-cased to match:
It would also eliminate the confusing conflict between:
All of this would also be consistent with our move to writing, e.g., "president of the United States" at the article on the title ( President of the United States), moving "List of Lord Mayors of London" to List of lord mayors of London, etc., etc. (though there are a few straggler articles still at over-capitalized page titles).
This would mean writing "Micaela, countess of Paris," instead of the style " Micaela, Countess of Paris," that presently dominates in articles on people with nobility titles, due almost entirely to the preferences and activities of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (and technically against the guideline even as it currently stands). If we didn't want that result, then "including punctuation" in the above wording could be replaced perhaps with "other than a comma conventionally placed between the name and the title". But I think it would actually be better to use lower-case here for increased consistency and less confusion potential. It will be weird to have text like "Foo Bar, 7th Baron of Elbonia, met with Baz Quux, the prime minister of Kerblachistan", which also has the WP:NPOV problem of treating people with noble titles as somehow better and more important than everyone else, even when their notability and relative social stature are actually lesser that those of the other, non-ennobled, party.
This proposal is obviously moving in the direction of less not more capitalization, because this site (like Chicago Manual of Style and others) is "down-casing" where possible, using lowercase as the default which should only be diverged from when necessary. In particular, the guiding principle here is the lead of MOS:CAPS: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." All of our guideline sections that apply capitalization need to descend from this principle and not contradict it. Consequently, WP should not be capitalizing titles except when they are directly attached to names as if they've become part of the name, because that is the only situation in which usage across English-language writing consistently applies capital letters to them, and even that is becoming less common with corporate and low-end governmental role titles. (And the argument can maybe still be made to keep things like "the Queen" when Elizabeth II is the specific referent.)
PS: It used the wording "directly attached to a person's name" rather than "followed by a person's name" to account for cases of titles (mostly from other languages) that are post-nominal in position. It is not a reference to constructions like "Micaela, countess of Paris" which has a parenthetical title divided from the name by a comma.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
She is Marjorie Roberts Professor of statistics and chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and a professor in the National Center for Supercomputing Applications.In this case the Marjorie Roberts Professorship does not appear to be attached to the department of statistics, hence the choice to use lowercase for the first "statistics"; the second "professor" is just an ordinary English-word job title hence lowercase. I'm hoping the answer is no intended change to this capitalization, but you can see that "Marjorie Roberts Professor" is a job title, is not grammatically attached to the person's name in the sentence (as the name does not even appear), and yet is capitalized. A literal reading of this proposal would seem to imply that in such sentences we should write "marjorie roberts professor" instead, a nonsensical outcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
somehow better and more important thana chief executive officer seems contrary to the NPOV position you are advocating.
Sincere thanks, SMcCandlish, for taking this up. I strongly believe that we should propose removing the second point as well. Surely we have had enough of this neither-here-nor-there attempt at a style. We should take the opportunity to go all the way towards matching this guideline with well-established modern practices. "The Queen" vs "the queen". "The President" vs "the president". "The Professor" vs "the professor". "The Bishop" vs "the bishop". Wikipedia is the only publication that I know of that makes an exception for titles "used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office". This produces text that looks internally inconsistent. We have "the queen" in one sentence and "the Queen" in the next for reasons that are unclear even to most editors, let alone readers. I also find it jarring to have to use "the King" when writing about a historical figure when all the books I am citing use "the king". I do not think we have a valid reason to retain this. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Titles of office-holders. In certain cases and certain contexts these are virtually proper names of persons: HM the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The extension of this principle depends on the context: the President (of the USA, of Magdalen College, Oxford, etc.). Similarly, the Bishop of Hereford, the Dean of Christ Church; and in a particular diocese, the Bishop, or within a particular cathedral or college, the Dean (referring to a particular individual, or at least a holder of a particular office: the Bishop is ex officio chairman of many committees). But in contexts like when he became bishop, the bishops of the Church of England, appointment of bishops—such instances are better printed in lower case, and the same applies to other office-holders.
Apart from certain elementary rules that everyone knows and observes, such as that capitals are used to begin a new sentence after a full stop, for the initial letter of quoted matter (but see punctuation), and for proper names like John Smith (with rare exceptions like the idiosyncratic e. e. cummings) and those of the days and months, their present-day use shows wide variation from one publishing house to another, and even within the pages of the same book, newspaper, etc.
Possible wording
|
---|
Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director should be in lower case: François Mitterrand, president of France. They are capitalized in two cases:
|
MOS:GIVENNAME clearly overrides Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#People with the same surname (currently MOS:SAMESURNAME), but we don't have an entry to recommend usage for the Meitei people, typically from Manipur. See Talk:Licypriya Kangujam#First name/second name where it's unclear what to choose. Any advice, preferably based on good sources, would be welcome. Boud ( talk) 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
For non-Western cultures that have different namving conventions, substitute for "surname", in "use just the surname", whatever portion of the name would be conventionally used in that culture for references to a person in a semi-formal register. [examples here]"Culture-specific usages" = MOS:GIVENNAME a.k.a. MOS:PATRONYMIC. And obviously that section needs expansion to cover more cultures (possibly even a split-out to a sub-page after significant development; back in 2018, I loosely proposed centralizing this sort of thing at what is now WP:Categorization/Sorting names, or having some kind of shared transclusion or something between that page and an MoS page – see Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Archive 10#A point needs clarification into guidance instead of non-guiding observation (and tacit approval) of conflict) – but in several years there has been no progress yet in this direction. It would take significant RS research. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
For non-Western cultures that have different naming conventions, instead of "surname" in the recommendation "use just the surname", use whatever portion of the name would be conventionally used in that culture for references to a person in a semi-formal register. [For example, Abiy became prime minister in 2018, per the Eritrean/Ethiopian convention; other examples here]Boud ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at
Talk:Isla Bryson case § Reverted edit over the language we use to describe a person’s pre-transition gender: “while a man”
or “when she was a man”
or similar, vs “while presenting as a man”
or similar. While this is both an ideological and a personal question, it seems that it might be helpful for the MOS to either proscribe or permit such wording.
…Alternatively, if we don’t feel like wading into that quagmire, it might be nice to guide editors towards using language as is used by the subject themselves, or, where no evidence is found, to avoid either philosophical attitude, as seems to be the interim solution at that article (and the one I personally think works best). — HTGS ( talk) 04:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
It'd be easiest just to write "before his/her/their [gender] transition"Yup. And that is what the article says, specifically
prior to Bryson's gender transition. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)