Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Request for comment: should we add nationality usage examples for lead sentences?

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)

• Support as nom. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support There have been a few recent RfCs that have used the examples here to find consensus. This should be restored immediately and then any discussions to change should happen after. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support the principle of having a few examples, though the actual text and examples need further discussion. For a start, the introductory text talks about living people, yet all but one of the examples given are dead. The native American example also appears to be controversial and ought to be discussed separately. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is already an example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples, with Cesar Chavez shown with "was an American labor leader..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I hadn't seen this RfC and already reverted the removal. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

• 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

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)

Agreed. The examples flow from that "single nationality" point and I don't think that it's necessarily correct in every situation especially when the lines around what counts as "nationality" aren't settled. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's not true that most people never have more than one nationality? Just trying to understand why you think it's an issue... it would be easy enough to modify that to say "Since most people are only citizens of their birth country, most subjects will be described with a single nationality." I never intended it to be prescriptive but rather descriptive. I would have thought that obvious logic, but apparently not... Skyerise (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not you realize this, but your modified proposal now imports the assumption that nationality equals citizenship: because X fact about citizenship, therefore Y rule about nationality in articles. I would not regard this as obvious logic, and it is not really a claim supported in the status quo of the guideline.

Also, the modified proposal carries the (probably unintended) implication that people who are not (and perhaps never were) citizens of their birth country, or people who had one citizenship at birth and obtained others later, will be described with multiple nationalities. I'm not sure this logic is in line with community consunsus, either. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is a problem my original wording does not have. Are you just wikilawyering because you don't like the proposal? Can't tell. Skyerise (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I was simply responding to your modified proposal. The problem with your original wording is that there isn't evidence to date that the community supports it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise, no, the issue is that their nationality (in the sense of the nation-state in which they were born or live) may not be the most relevant thing in the intro especially if the direction is that a Westphalian state nationality is the only thing that should be listed. Depending upon the person, their regional, ethnic, or religious identity will be more relevant than their citizenship/residence. For example, a strict reading of 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)

Sounds like an excellent example to add! Skyerise (talk) 01:46, 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)

• Comment. In addition to Bagumba's demolition of these examples... the first example is wrong: Boone isn't described as American in that sentence; he's described as an "American pioneer", which is linked as a single phrase. He was also born before the US was created, so can't be an example of "someone who continued to reside in their country of origin". In the second example, "continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country" is too open to interpretation: what does "identify as a citizen of their adopted country" mean? What evidence is needed to support it? For Schwarzenegger, "avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is ... about dual citizenship"; is it? He wasn't an Austrian politician and he wasn't an American bodybuilder, so I don't see how this construction has reduced ambiguity. Around half of Lorre's talk page discusses his nationality, so this is a shaky example (Hungary didn't exist as an independent country at the time of his birth). In the final example, "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted" is wording to be avoided: it's encouraging the inclusion of nationality when it isn't relevant. And "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race"... great (although what does "status" mean?) ... (as with the other examples) what about the rest of the world, outside North America? And the opening – "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" – jumbles nationality, residence and time. EddieHugh (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Should nationality be included in the lead sentence?

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)

Wikipedia, like most encyclopedia, has already decided that nationality is important to convey up front. This is a totally separate discussion which should not be attached to my RfC. Start your own RfC about it. I'm changing the heading and heading level. To differentiate your tag-on from the my question. Pretty sure this is a non-starter, but hey, go for it! Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s common sense that national identity is intrinsic to who someone is as a human being, not their job. Trillfendi (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If nothing else, the discussions currently visible on this page should make it clear that there is no clear consensus among editors what national identity means. 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 territory rather than Westaphalian state, and sometimes invoking national identities that may, for example, include Indigineity.

Some editors seem comfortable to exclude WP:V information, such as birthplace, from the lead section while being equally comfortable making what amount to WP:SYNTH assertions about nationality (assuming that someone who has lived somewhere for a while must have citizenship or permanent residency and have thus acquired a "national identity", for example). Some editors hold to a Westaphalian principle in most cases while not seeing the treatment of UK subjects (for whom the specification of English, Welsh or Scottish nationality is typically required even for non-footballers) may reflect a practice relevant in the case of other multinational states.

So I might personally agree that national identity is typically a defining characteristic for most contemporary living people, but that personal opinion doesn't help guide in (1) deciding how a person's national identity should be determined and (2) deciding what level of source support is required for inclusion of this information in the lead paragraph. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

For the reasons laid out by Newimpartial and Blueboar, we really need to pay attention to how sources describe the subject and follow suit accordingly. If RS do not emphasize an individual's nationality, neither should we. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In answer to the question: in most cases, no. Place of birth can be obtained from the infobox and body. If nationality is more complicated than that, the details can be provided in the body and (per 'lead summarises body') summarised in the lead if appropriate. There can't be many people who are notable for their nationality and we enter a quagmire with identification by region/people/religion, etc... taking it out of the opening is a clean solution. EddieHugh (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really find the argument that nationality/citizenship doesn't tell the reader important information about the individual's notability. On the contrary, it usually conveys where the person is/was notable. Saying a German business man can convey geographic information about the subject as well as just the citizenship/nationality. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The MOS:CONTEXTBIO guideline 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.

It seems the de facto standard to achieve this has been to state nationality in the lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that country, region, or territory doesn'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)

I would be strongly in favor of a well-written RFC to de-emphasize nationality in cases where it is not closely connected with the biographee's notability. Most political figures should probably have nationality in the first sentence, but I see no good reason for it for, say, scientists and mathematicians. In many cases arguments over this piece of trivia become the most contentious aspect of the bio, which is just silly. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the cases where a one-word description is contentious or over-simplified, the location of their notability can be described with additional sentences later in the lead. FWIW, nationality in the lead sentence appears to be the norm in Encyclopedia Britannica. —Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The location of their notability???? Mathematics and science have no location. Well, I suppose some sciences are about location-specific things, but not necessarily where the person studying them comes from or works. --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The guideline says "should usually provide" (and there's anyways WP:IAR), so use common sense for exceptions. Perhaps "location" can apply if one does most of their research in a particular place e.g. their home country. —Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a reason it's linked from WP:CONTEXTBIO. The intent is to give the reader a quick idea about the where context. When is covered by parenthetical dates. Every reporter knows that who. where, and what, are essentials. Ask yourself - if you as a reader were just doing a quick check for context ... was he Polish or British? ... and really only intend to read the first sentence... what would you expect to come away with? How far into the article are you willing to read? If an automated process collected first sentence into an index, would it have enough info to give a quick idea of the whole context? Skyerise (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the hypothetical RFC I would support might well comport a change to CONTEXTBIO as well. I haven't really read that guideline so I don't know whether it also would have to change, but that would certainly be on the table.

I don't see why a "where" context is necessarily always key to bios. If the person was known for things of universal importance, then they really have no "where". --Trovatore (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

How is the "where" context not necessarily key to a biography? Every person lives in a place, a where, somewhere. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But why is that place important? Specifically, important enough to go in the first sentence? Sure, there aren't a lot of people who are complete cosmopolitan nomads (there are some, but for now we can consider that a corner case), but even if someone lives in a particular place, why should that place be one of the most important things the reader should know about the person? --Trovatore (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The status quo text of CONTEXTBIO seems to imply a logic something like, "all lives are lived somewhere, therefore BLP articles should open with a statement about citizenship or resident status of the subject". This logic does not seem to some of us entirely consonant with the WP:5P. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But is nationality the best way to provide that where context? "Polish" or "British" might indicate where, but not definitively. If Pawel Tumilowicz were to meet GNG, "British businessman" would describe where he is active, but would misstate his nationality. "Polish businessman", as he's described in the Telegraph article, is correct about his citizenship, but not his area of activity. "Polish-born English businessman" or "England-based Polish businessman" would be most accurate (providing both nationality and geographic information), but would be discouraged by the "single nationality" guideline and could be ambiguous if "Polish-born English businessman" is taken to mean a change in citizenship. I think part of the problem here is that "British" and "Polish" as an adjective can describe both a geographic context and nationality or citizenship (as well as ethnic group), but WP:CONTEXTBIO specifies that nationality is the one that matters, even though it isn't always the best indicator of where. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the long-standing wording "Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable." I'd go with "Polish businessman based in England". We don't allow abbreviations like don't - why should we insist on abbreviating what we say in the lead sentence with hyphens? It just makes the details unclear. The idea here is quick clarity. Why should we begrudge the inclusion of the single word "in" as "too long"? Do you really mean to say that 3 to 4 extra characters is too high a price to pay for clarity? Skyerise (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is more to drop the "Polish" rather than the "England". --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think "Polish businessman based in England" is fine. What I would object to is what was stated in the #Most living people will be described with a single nationality... discussion: 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).

If I'm following you correctly, your main objection is to hyphenated nationalities (Polish–British in this case, which doesn't seem to be how Tumilowicz (or RS) refers to himself), but the prior discussions and the straight reading of CONTEXTBIO also lean into the idea that we shouldn't say something like "Polish businessman based in England" (or "Yugoslav-born computer scientist who works in Canada" to pull an example from the other thread).

The point I'm concerned about is that most people may well have one nationality, but nationality/citizenship isn't always what's relevant to their notability or identity. Adhering to 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)

This is a separate discussion from Skyerise's RFC above. The question on-point here is, should we call out Tumilowicz's nationality in the first sentence at all? What's wrong with just dropping "Polish"? Of course his nationality can be treated in the body, maybe even in the first paragraph, but why does it need to be in the first sentence? --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a lot of overlap in these. I'd agree that nationality isn't always going to be needed or appropriate, but the where notability occurs may be relevant. So the conflation of nationality and location in CONTEXTBIO remains relevant (which is why it's been pointed to several times in this discussion). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:08, 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. GiantSnowman 19:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Who says it's "defining"? What does that even mean? --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think they're referring to WP:DEFINING since they're talking about categories. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not under the impression that an attribute needs to be presented in the lead sentence for the category system to work. Also, if the way the current category system works for biographies depends on WP:OR, then maybe the problem isn't with CONTEXTBIO? Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah it is not clear what the problem is with having nationality in the lede? GiantSnowman 06:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, nationality is an important characteristic that I'd prefer listed for every subject. Ortizesp (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So first of all, the direct question is not about the lead, but about the first sentence; these should not be conflated. The problem is that any ambiguity becomes a battleground for nationalists, and it gets pretty tiresome. As long as we can defer discussion to somewhere later in the lead, maybe even in the lead paragraph, we can usually come to some reasonable formulation, one that doesn't make nationality more important than the things the person is actually known for.

As for many articles "having to be amended", I'm not advocating for a rule that would require removing nationality from the first sentence in cases where it's non-contentious or when it's actually a major part of the subject's notability. I would just de-emphasize it, make it clear that leaving it out of the first sentence is also a valid choice in cases where the source of the person's notability is not closely tied to nationality. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

But there is already flexibility in pages where it doesn't make sense in the lead sentence. MOS:CONTEXTBIO says 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)

Oh, sure, there's flexibility in principle, though in practice going against a guideline is a heavy lift even when the justification is pretty clear. I'm not really looking for a radical change here. What I've observed is that, on a repeated basis, large fractions of the bandwidth in editing discussions are consumed by arguments over nationality and other forms of group identity, on bios of persons where these are largely beside the point. I think it would be helpful to tweak the wording of the guideline to tone down emphasis on these.

One possible solution would be to state explicitly that, when nationality is ambiguous or complicated, it may be desirable to leave it out of the first sentence, and explain the complications later in the lead section. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with equating nationality wirh citizenship, and then putting a poorly sourced statement about citizenship in the lead sentence, is fairly obvious, no?

I also think insisting on a national state as first sentence "nationality" (unless the subject is from Wales or Scotland) while ignoring how high-quality RS actually desctibe the biographical subject is pretty clearly problematic. Doing so in service of the category system would seem to put the 5P upside down, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 11:29, 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)

WP:CONTEXTBIO does say "in most modern-day cases." A living person is going to have, in most every case, a clear place where they were born, a citizenship (although they may have more than one), and a place where they live and work. For a many people, all three of those may be the same, but for many others they aren't. All of these will likely be included in a bio article, maybe in the lead section, but "nationality" does a poor job of describing which of those is relevant in the first sentence of a bio article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:48, 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)

• Yes. Either nationality, country of birth (unless the country of birth was merely accidental because mother was accidentally or by-force temporarily away [vacation, quarantine, displacement, etc.]), citizenship, or all of the above should definitely be clarified in the lede sentence. Follow RS descriptions if necessary, but must list at least one of those. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Fundamentally relevant information to bios. One of the first questions a reader is going to have is what nationality is/was a person. Different approaches may be relevant for different articles and depending on sources. E.g. an ex-patriot might have "American-born" rather than "American" and some people born in Scotland might have "Scottish" while others might have "British". There is no one-size fits all for this, a bit of common sense is needed, and correspondence how the person is described in sources. Some articles may not need to state it at all. Again, common sense and individually tailored treatments are appropriate. WP:NATIONALIST clowns can be dealt with as they arise. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME

Sideswipe9th's proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus on whether to remove the Living qualifier and follow Sideswipe9th's proposal. Supporters of the proposal argue that respect for the figure in question should not end while dead, while opponents bring up that our guidelines on righting great wrongs would be violated. I see that both arguments have equal strength, and that the Wikipedia community cannot firmly agree on which direction is best.
I would like to recommend that in order to have a firm closure on the proposal to avoid more discussions on this topic ending up as no consensus, that a new proposal be formed taking into account both sides' beliefs. I see that this is already happening, which is a good sign, but such discussions, considering that the result will have massive implications for the project as a whole, absolutely should be listed at Centralized Discussion. Regular contributors to the NPOV noticeboard could also be a great resource to help mediate and develop the proposal further.
Per the No Consensus procedure, given that there has not been a significant challenge to the qualifier since October 2020 despite it possibly maybe being added BOLDly, the status quo prior to this discussion, which is to include the living qualifier, shall remain in place unless and if so until a new consensus is developed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:19, 11 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)

Notified WikiProject LGBT Studies and WikiProject Biographies about this, as this discussion is relevant to both projects. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support: lots of people seem to be mistaking this for a privacy issue that expires when a person dies, when the larger issue is that using trans people's birth names are actively weaponized against them and that this issue will impact trans people reading these articles who will feel like their identity will no longer be respected when they die, cis people reading these articles who will feel it is acceptable to only refer to trans people by their chosen name to their face, and will allow editors to go out of their way to include trans people's birth names where they don't belong in the interest of discrediting trans identities. trans rights are a big issue in the US right now and anything that can be done to make the climate better should be done, especially when the strongest argument against doing so is that trans people don't need privacy if they're dead or that it would be censorship to omit their birth name, which I find to be a wholly disingenous argument. Tekrmn (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. 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. Both readers and editors can be affected by this. If this information had some encyclopaedic value then we would have to balance that value against the potential distress caused but, as there is no encyclopaedic value, this issue does not arise. In fact, it could serve to make articles more confusing. It is enough for an article to say that a person was transgender for the reader to be adequately informed. The motivations for adding deadnames are very suspect. Justifications demanding "truth", "accuracy" and the like are most often (but admittedly not always) made in bad faith. It reeks of gloating, gravedancing and general trolling. The behaviour of some on the article you mention has been both vile and disruptive. Anything we can do to try to cut off avenues for that sort of disruptive and offensive behaviour is beneficial to Wikipedia's readers, its editors and also to wider society. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:47, 6 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.

  This really isn’t our duty of care, and if it were, we would have drastically different content policies across the board. Any article about a victim of a crime carries the risk of hurting the person’s family and friends, for instance. — HTGS (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  you're ignoring the part that it can effect other trans people- additionally, a victim of the crime was hurt by somebody else and a wikipedia article about it would only be a reflection of that. there's no encyclopedic reason to mention someone's birth name unless it was notable, and then it should only be mentioned in the lead. people can and do go out of their way to deadname trans people in articles because of the word living in the policy. Tekrmn (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  there's no encyclopedic reason to mention someone's birth name unless it was notable

  I largely agree with that, I’m just saying it’s not our place to protect readers from content when that content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We don’t censor content, but we do avoid unencyclopedic content that is unnecessarily offensive. There’s certainly room for avoiding deadnaming in many cases, just not on the basis of protecting other trans people from seeing a deadname. — HTGS (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  that is already written into the MOS, it specifically says the birthname should be mentioned if the person was notable under that name. what we are talking about is cases where it isn't notable, and is therefor unnecessarily offensive content that has no encyclopedic value. Tekrmn (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is a huge gap between "a name under which a subject was notable" and "a name with no encyclopedic value". "A name under which a subject was notable" means that the person, while using that name, received such significant coverage in reliable sources that they pass WP:N and warrant their own stand-alone article. That's an extremely high bar; the point at which it becomes unavoidable to at least mention the name once, even for a BLP, because the name is referred to in so many other sources that readers are likely to come here looking for information on the individual, even long after the subject has transitioned. But most names mentioned in Wikipedia don't meet that test, including alternate names of notable people and all names of non-notable people. It can't be concluded that none of those names have encyclopedic value. We don't include gratuitously offensive content, but we do include content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—even exceedingly so—if it is verifiable and relevant. For articles that are not protected by BLP, the question becomes when a deadname is relevant, not whether the person was notable under it.--Trystan (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  and how would it be relevant if they weren't notable under it? Tekrmn (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  One reason would because reliable sources consider it relevant. For a current example, see the Isla Bryson case example that I posted below. BilledMammal (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see her birth name in this article and I certainly don't see how it would be relevant. it reliable sources consider it relevant than it would be notable. your argument is circular. including someone's birth name where it is not notable (or relevant) /is/ gratuitously offensive. Tekrmn (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  it reliable sources consider it relevant than it would be notable Something 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)

  You have yet to name a way it could be relevant without being notable, and I certainly can't think of one. You're trying to tell me that Isla Bryson wasn't notable under her birthname but it's still relevant despite there being an entire wikipedia article about her under that name, making her notable under that name. Again, your argument doesn't make any sense. what reason would there possibly be to include a trans person's birth name if they weren't notable under that name? Tekrmn (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If reliable sources routinely include their previous name, then that would indicate the name is relevant. Wikipedia-notability is not exactly a perfect bar here. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  then why don't we include all of the information from every reliable source in wikipedia articles? Tekrmn (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If information is included in most reliable sources on a subject, we probably should include it. We don't include everything because Wikipedia isn't meant to be extremely detailed, but a name is a few words at most and not worth excluding on that basis. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  including someone's birthname if it's not relevant is inherently gratuitously offensive. that is why we should exclude it where not relevant. Tekrmn (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  This is circular logic. Obviously we should exclude the name if it's not relevant, as we would do for any irrelevant information. If reliable sources are routinely including it, though, it clearly is relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have yet to see anyone give an example of how someone's birthname would be relevant unless they were notable under it aside from vague assertions that a reliable source might find it relevant. regardless, what this conversation is actually about is the distinction between living and dead individuals and allowing the use of their birth name throughout the article once they die, not when it is appropriate to include someone's birth name at all. Tekrmn (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Elli: I'm not totally sure I agree. Is the standard for relevance just inclusion in reliable sources? It seems to me that there are lots of facts included in many reliable sources that are ultimately left out of a Wikipedia article. For example, on 2023 Nashville school shooting, many reliable sources note that the shooter had driven a Honda Fit to the school, but we don't include that fact in the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Jerome Frank Disciple, I fear you step into strawmanning here, even if it was a humorous one. Not every detail reported repeatedly is inherently notable; we know this. Unless the Honda Fit was outfitted with a bomb and driven into the school, it's certainly not pertinent to the article. But, the shooter's name as reported by police and news and discovered by readers in a Google search is certainly notable in the basic reporting of who, what, when, where, why. Penguino35 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  The article using their former name as the title is about a different person. And the reason is because it is relevant to the article; why it is relevant can vary. One reason, as I gave above, is because reliable sources consider it relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  then how is it relevant to the article? nobody would assume that this Scottish rapist who used to go by the same name as an Oklohoma Democrat were the same person unless you connect the two articles to try to make a point about relevance. Adam Graham is also the name of an actor, but that isn't mentioned in the article on Adam Graham the politician because it's not relevant. Tekrmn (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  The issue isn't that people would assume they're the same person, but that some people might search up information on the case by the name "Adam Graham", since the media is using that name in the context of that case. Excluding the name when sources routinely include it is weird; it's not actually protecting any meaningful privacy interest since the name is as public as can be, and it just makes our article less informative and incomplete compared to what other organizations have published. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  then why did they link me to an article about someone else? sure you can make that argument, but again, we're not discussing what makes someone's birth name worth including, we're discussing removing the "living" qualifier from the MOS so that people's birth names cannot be spread over the entire article the moment they die. Tekrmn (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Their point is that there should be a hatnote on that article as a form of disambiguation, since we have articles on two people who can reasonably be referred to as "Adam Graham". Elli (talk | contribs) 16:40, 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)

• Might the same apply to any name change? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not even all other name changes made for personal safety (organised crime informant, totalitarian regime whistleblower, etc). Deadnaming trans people gives the impression that the shape of your junk is encyclopaedically relevant, which is not often the case. It's also exposing a deep and hurt part of the subject's psyche, like publishing their diary entries. Not only is it irrelevant trivia, it's also creepy. Folly Mox (talk) 03:31, 6 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)

  Theres lots of adjectives you can put before man or woman. Trans men are also just men as trans women are just women. So its not an inherently necessary qualifier. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:28, 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)

  Is this still on the table in any capacity? I very much agree the deadname protection should apply to all people regardless of gender identity. Limiting it to trans and non-binary people is an unnecessary wrinkle at this point.

  1) It technically excludes anyone who falls outside the realm of "cisgender" but does not specifically and publicly identify as trans or non-binary.

  2) There is no objective reason to exclude cisgender people from a protection like this, either.

  If someone changes their name and then becomes publicly notable under exclusively the new name, I don't see what bearing their gender should have on whether the former name holds encyclopedic value.

  Ex: The magician Teller. He's gone by Teller for his entire public career, socially and professionally. Yet his birthname is consistently re-added to his wikipedia page. Penn Jillette recently cited Wikipedia (Penn's Sunday School E909) as a place where people read Teller's deadname (Jillette explicitly used that term), and then repeat it in a misguided "attempt at familiarity."

  What encyclopedic value does that hold?

  What encyclopedic value does it hold that it wouldn't hold tomorrow if Teller came out as trans or non-binary? Thereisnojoyinmudville (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would prefer to go the opposite direction. Wikipedia is not censored, and former names have encyclopedic value. I think there should be a policy about any former name that doesn't have a special carveout for transgender cases. Regarding the question of living, I'm surprised that the only argument is that it might trigger someone. WP:CENSOR: 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)

  You don't seem to understand what trigger means. Do you mean "upset" or "offend" perhaps? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was referring to this comment above: "it can hurt their living friends and relatives. It can also distress other trans people". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Two questions:

  1. For a trans or non-binary person who was never notable under their former name, what encyclopaedic value does including their deadname after their death add to an article?
  2. For any person, who changed their name and was never notable under their former name, what encyclopaedic value does including their former name add to an article?

  Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  This issue is simple. Notability is a test of whether there should be an article or not. Notability is not applied to verifiable contents. The argument here is for privacy of changed names, and that is governed by WP:BLPNAME, and that policy does a great job of addressing non-essential details like former names. What I'm opposed to is this MOS entry that says that in the case of trans people, original names are censored. Applying that policy, most cases would turn out just like you're requesting, without the original name.

  I'm not sure how to answer your question on encyclopaedic value, as this seems obvious to me and in non-trans cases it is unquestionably standard, like Prince (musician), J. K. Rowling, Kirk Douglas, Meg Ryan, etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  In my view, this presents justification to extend the policy to cisgender and other non-queer individuals as well, to generalize as un-notable or unnecessary names. See for example Asmongold, where a name was removed for similar privacy concerns to the deadname situation. (Or, one time I read on Apple News that Stormy Daniels would rather her birth name not be as publicized (but unfortunately I can't find a source for that). I see no reason why this differs from a similar situation where an LGBTQ+ person has a non-notable prior name.) casualdejekyll 22:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Just linking a relevant RFC from 2021: RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people--Trystan (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• I think the close of the 2021 RFC is still valid. The need for the privacy protections of WP:Deadname do fade over time. So… I have to OPPOSE the proposal to extend it forever… however, I would support including a warning that DEADNAME also covers the recently deceased. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  The closure of that RfC made a recommendation that a subsequent RfC be held, on a narrow question of extending the BLP protections inherent in GENDERID for deadnames, after determining what that period of time should be. So in light of that closure, if it is to be a finite period, how long do you think that time period should be? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "Recently deceased". Lets say that a trans person dies today. On what date do I get to stop treating them with the respect and decency that the WP:DEADNAME policy asks of me? Like, when in the future do I get to stop doing the proper and right thing? That's important to know. Recently is rather vague. If I want to start deliberately disrespecting a trans person, how long after they die do I have to wait before I do that? --Jayron32 17:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sarcasm aside, WP:BDP covers this. — HTGS (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  But unlike most of what BDP covers this feels weird to add ever. There's a very obvious reason why we can add someone's previous address years after their death and only then: by that time they're not living there any more, nor does their estate even, so they have no privacy interest remaining in that address. And most privacy interests covered by BDP are similar.

  However, a previous name is a different sort of privacy interest, which doesn't expire. The reason for not using it is the same decades after death as it is when the person is still alive: they asked people not to use that name for them. And also, by doing so, they make it an incorrect name, reducing the encyclopedic value of including it significantly. There are few situations I can think of where a name excluded under MOS:DEADNAME would be useful to include without it. Loki (talk) 15:54, 7 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.

  One obvious encyclopedic value for including the birth/former/dead name is to allow our readers to do further research about a person, in particular before the name change. Just because the trans person's earlier life is not notable enough for Wikipedia, it does not mean that our readers won't be interested in learning more about the person's early life. This is particularly the case where we specifically mention the difficulties the person had pre-trans.

  Just because a person changes their name does not mean that the previous life - in which they used their original/birth name - ceases to exist. (If it's almost always relevant to include someone's birth date, then why is their birth name less relevant?) We may not cover it, but our readers should not be prevented from learning about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  we're not preventing readers from learning about people prior to their transition by not including their birth name. presumably, if there is anything remotely worth looking up from before their transition then their birthname will be in the sources which they are easily able to click on.

  to use your misdiagnosis analogy, 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. when we refer to trans people prior to their transition we don't start using their birth name because that was what people were calling them at the time.

  date of birth tells you a lot about a person, especially in the context of an encyclopedia. the time period a person was alive in is very relevant. a name they used to go by but no longer do is not relevant unless notable. Tekrmn (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  This response is very confusing. At 2023 Covenant School shooting you are aggressively advocating for removal of the birth name of the perpetrator despite repeated and continuous use in reliable sources. But here, you say 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)

  as you are well aware, I was advocating for the remocal of his birth name in a third location. It belongs in the lead and in the bio template, but there is no reason to put it anywhere else. Tekrmn (talk) 05:09, 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)

  your analogy would only make sense if being female meant having a vagina. as it stands, your logic is flawed. a trans woman saying she was always female is not saying she was born with a vagina, she's saying "use this language for me." likewise, a trans woman changing her name is not saying she was never called by her birth name, she's saying "use this name for me." they're exactly the same. in either case you would not refer to her by what she was assigned at birth because they were never a reflection of her identity. it's called a deadname because you aren't supposed to use it anymore. Tekrmn (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Now your reading your own interpretation into what someone says. (Admittedly that someone is my hypothetical example, so she may not be an accurate representation.) A trans women saying she was always female isn't saying "use this language", she is saying "I identify as female and have always been female". Can we find specific examples? The National Center for Transgender Equality's FAQ says that "Some people can trace their awareness [that their gender identity differed from what they were assigned at birth] back to their earlier memories", (my example, Mary knew she was female). Are there any examples of a trans person saying "My name has always been Mary and was never John"? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  your response does not address my point, and your argument still doesn't make sense. yes, a trans woman's gender has always been female, therefor that is the word we should use to describe her. no, a trans woman's birth name did not fit her identity, therefor that is not a word we should use to describe her. Tekrmn (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removing the qualifier, but agree that this should apply to the recently deceased as well. Treating this as an extension of the protections that BLP offers that's relevant to trans/non-binary people is the way to go here. Getting stricter than that, or expanding this to anyone whose name has changed, only makes our site less useful to our readers without protecting a similarly compelling privacy interest as we do here. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at the RFC, one issue with applying DEADNAME to deceased people involved figures from the past who didn't have as clear of a distinction between name and deadname in the sources. I don't think it's reasonable to apply DEADNAME to someone from the 18th century who may or may not have considered their birth name a DEADNAME and when reliable sources are providing both names. That said, for more recent cases, given evolving expectations and understandings, it would make sense to continue DEADNAME provisions after death for someone not notable under their prior name. (Basically something like Option B in the 2021 RFC, but I don't know if 1920 is the right place to draw the line.) At the risk of CRYSTALBALLing it, I think we're likely to see reliable media sources more commonly excluding deadnames from coverage, which may make some of this moot. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I oppose extending the BLP-based protections in WP:DEADNAME to dead people (beyond the period for which WP:BDP applies). As I said in the RFC, the guideline against mentioning a deadname is explicitly grounded in the very strong protections of WP:BLPPRIVACY. We mention a deadname of a person covered by BLP only when absolutely necessary, to identify a name of prior nobility. Based on the privacy concerns, we exclude the deadname even if it is of some relevance. Once BLP ceases to apply, those privacy concerns end as well. I don't think James Barry (surgeon) or Billy Tipton would be improved by removing the deadnames. Both articles discuss their subjects in ways that would be horribly intrusive for a living person, but are appropriate for a detailed exploration of a life lived in a very different time from our own. For Brandon Teena, the deadname seems to have been removed without much discussion, despite the name being explicitly referred to (without being given) in two important contexts and its clear relevance to the various chosen names the subject went by. That said, 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.--Trystan (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding 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)

  I would say no, routine encyclopedic completeness should not be considered sufficient for relevance in this case. I think it the standard should be something like "significant, detailed focus in reliable sources on the subject's pre-transition identity (beyond standard biographical details like birth and family)." For example, James Barry (surgeon) § Early life could in theory be rewritten to obfuscate the birth name, but it would be very convoluted, and I don't think leaving it out could be defended on the basis of it being irrelevant. I admit it would be very challenging to get consensus for such a standard, as many editors would support never including it, and many editors would support always including it.--Trystan (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  For James Barry, I would tentatively agree that including what we consider to be his deadname is of encyclopaedic value. However that is only because Barry's story is unusually complicated.

  For Billy Tipton however, the question that needs to be asked is under what name did Tipton become notable? According to the article, his transition was a surprise to all of those people directly involved with his life as they only became aware of it after he died, and his name change occurred some time in the early 1930s as his music career was beginning. With the possible exception of Non Earl Harrell, none of his later romantic partners were aware of his transition, and the only reason we're even aware of it today was because it was discovered by paramedics while attempting to save his life in January 1989.

  Perhaps there's more in the sources that I'm not aware of, but on the surface it looks to me as though Tipton was not notable under his former name. If that is the case, then as a follow-on question, what encyclopaedic value does including his former name add to the article? With regards to the rest of the article content, excluding his former name would not prevent us from discussing all of the other details surrounding his transition, nor would it I think cause confusion to readers by not including it. On the surface it looks as though he used the name for a relatively short period (approximately 20 years) with respect to the rest of his life. So what vital encyclopaedic value does including his former name add to the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Once the privacy concerns relevant to a BLP are long over, I don't think the appropriate test is either vital encyclopedic value or under which names they were notable. Simple, concrete relevance of the name - as determined by fairly summarizing the way the subject is generally discussed in reliable sources - is what I would argue for. Billy Tipton might well be an article worth reviewing, as the coverage of the subject's pre-transition life is actually very brief, and the birth name doesn't come up in any specific ways. But any applicable guideline should require assessment of relevance on an article-by-article basis.--Trystan (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blueboar, and for the same reason we have different policies for living and deceased people generally. GiantSnowman 15:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems to me that there are two importantly different issues being conflated here. Sideswipe9th argues that non-notable former names are not encyclopedically notable, whether for transgender persons or otherwise, and that's at least a cogent position to take. If we're really just discussing offering guidance that such names should not usually be given, the same as we don't usually refer to biographees as "Dr", for example, well, the stakes are fairly low here.
  That's very different from recognizing a privacy interest to deceased persons, and suggesting (though I doubt the MOS actually has "jurisdiction" over this) that such information should be oversighted or revdelled, as opposed to just removed as part of style cleanup.
  Revision deletion is an extreme measure that goes against the presumption of openness in the encyclopedia and should be used only in cases of grave necessity. Non-administrators can't in general even find out why a revision was deleted; they just have to trust. I don't think the privacy interests of deceased persons rises to that level. --Trovatore (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  For the vast majority of articles, I would not see the temporary inclusion of a former name of a deceased person as rising to the need for oversight suppression or revdelling. In those cases, I would envisage GENDERID (or NAMECHANGE if there was consensus to broaden that) to be a reason to exclude mention of a non-notable former name from the article by default, without a need to revdel or suppress it, while also allowing for a per-article consensus to include it.

  There are some exceptions however, like the killing article I mentioned in my opening post, where the addition of a former name would only serve to denigrate the deceased. In the context of that article for example, readers do not need to know her former name to know that 1) she was killed, and 2) she was transgender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I would oppose oversighting that article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• I would oppose this, per Blueboar. However, this guideline does need to be revised. It needs to be expanded to cover other name changes where a privacy concern exists, it needs to clarify that it covers the recently deceased, and it needs to have an exception added for when the former name is WP:DUE - for example, we should include a hatnote at Adam Graham to Isla Bryson case, and we should include the name Adam Graham in that article, because that name is considered relevant by reliable sources, such as the BBC, the Glasgow Times, the Herald Scotland, and the National, and we are expected to follow the sources.
  I am also concerned about WP:NOTCENSORED issues; the arguments in support of this change appear to be directly in conflict with that policy and could be applied to other arguments where editors have argued for censorship, such as of images of Muhammad. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Even were it not for DEADNAME, there would be a strong presumption against such a hatnote. If BLPNAME applies to a war criminal who shot multiple unarmed civilians in the back – and consensus is that it does – then it surely must apply to Bryson, who would be just as notable as the other thousand or so convicted rapists in the past year (i.e. not) if it wasn't for this culture war bullshit gripping the UK (and US) at the moment. Which is why the hatnote was revdeled from the Adam Graham article, of course.

  Just because people off the encyclopedia are using these thin edges of the wedge to justify a bigoted culture war doesn't mean we should follow their . We are not tabloid journalists muckraking for profits or notoriety in a changing world; we are an encyclopedia. Cooler heads should and must prevail. Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Referencing WP:BLPNAME here doesn't make sense; we already identify the individual by using their current name. I see that an edit on the article was revdeled, but it can't have been for that reason.

  Journalists at reliable sources like the BBC aren't tabloid journalists muckraking for profits or notoriety in a changing world. BilledMammal (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC are demonstrably just as at risk of the culture war brainworms (and related institutional capture) the rest of British civil society seems to have contracted over the past few years (thanks a lot, Boris Johnson); after all, what was "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" if not exactly that? Sceptre (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If you think the BBC is unreliable for trans topics than you need to open a discussion about downgrading it at WP:RSN. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. --Jayron32 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support and I'm frankly surprised by all this opposition. The only cogent argument against the change I've seen is in cases of long-dead figures whose trans status was not entirely clear like James Barry. I'd support adding a caveat about that, but in general there's nothing about this guideline that is unique to living people or otherwise BLP-related. Loki (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Even if a trans person died long ago, if they never gained any notability under their deadname we have no valid reason to include it in this encyclopedia. Avoiding deadnaming is not just a matter of privacy for the immediate subject being written about, but respect for all trans people. Yes, I expect to be accused of bias (being trans) and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS etc., but truly, I see no encyclopedic value in including non-notable deadnames. Funcrunch (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment If this is going to become a formal discussion with !votes then it needs to be opened as an RfC, probably at WP:VPP. I would also suggest that you include alternative revisions, such as those proposed by Blueboar and myself, to fully comply with the requirements of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  It might come to an RfC, but we've already seen from the 2021 RfC that more than two options would split the vote in a way that makes consensus nearly impossible to determine. I've no objection to us workshopping an RfC if we truly feel that we need it, though we will need to consider ways to appropriately "chunk" this so that a consensus can later be determined (multiple narrow sequential questions maybe?).

  That said, there are many ways to arrive at a consensus, and an RfC is but one. If we can reach a consensus here without one, then do we truly need one to cement it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes; for a proposal like this we need the input of uninvolved editors that a formal RfC would bring, and because it would overturn the result of a previous RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, as can be seen above and in the above-linked prior RFCs, this is a situation where there are so many views it's difficult to even get consensus on what question to ask, let alone get consensus for any answer to a question, because various people would rather ask various different questions. I mean: in answer to this question about removing the "living" qualifier from DEADNAME and applying it to dead trans people, some people have commented above that they would rather the question have been about removing the "transgender" qualifier and applying DEADNAME to all former names, whereas other people have commented they'd rather remove DEADNAME and apply it to no names at all.
  Another complicating factor is ... while it seems obvious to many people that because a modern person like Laverne Cox's deadname is non-notable and including it would serve no purpose but transphobia, it's perverse that policy/guidelines say if you murder Laverne Cox you then are allowed to insert her deadname into her article two years later (or earlier, depending on interpretations of BDP) ... not only do some people disagree and think it's good for policy/guidelines to say that ... but there are also, separately, questions about whether it should apply to people who lived and died long before the modern era, and yet, do people agree on where to place a cutoff, given that some people don't agree on whether to place a cutoff, but for mutually exclusive reasons, either thinking it should apply without cutoff to all names, or thinking it should apply to no names? I would be fine with removing "living" (few if any of the reasons for not using someone's non-notable deadname are changed by someone murdering them), but I think there are too many moving parts for it to be likely for this to reach a consensus on anything.
  Regarding Brianna, I would point out that if the news articles which would be cited for some piece of information are still live but have been updated to no longer include that specific information, it seems pretty shaky for Wikipedia to include it—can we be sure it was accurate, and wasn't removed because the paper realized it was inaccurate or unverifiable? Here, it might be helpful to think about a less-politicized example: if a news article says a shooter was seen leaving the scene in a white car, and the site later updates the article to say the shooter was seen leaving the scene in a black car, or to not mention the color of the car, do we cite the archived version to say in our article that the shooter was seen leaving in a white car? The information — Brianna's deadname or the car's color — would presumably also be WP:UNDUE (if the only available RS was revised to not give it any weight), and Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. -sche (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the back-and-forth above about whether a name being "notable" and being "relevant" can possibly be different standards: well, let's not let perfect be the enemy of good, if we can agree to something like "For [non-recently] deceased transgender people, do not include their former name if it is not relevant." that'd be an improvement. And it might help with issues around modern vs historical people. (Sure, let me anticipate the likely response, that people will just disagree on whether a name is relevant: people also disagree everywhere across this encyclopedia every day on whether things are DUE, FRINGE, NPOV, BLP-compliant, etc, etc, etc, but guidelines are useful nonetheless.)
  (At a minimum it would be helpful to add some language, whether in a footnote or in the prose, clarifying that merely referring to a dead person does not mean a deadname will/must be included, since there are all the other policies and guidelines linked above to consider.) -sche (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  your proposed clarification would not make any difference. if there is any precedent that does not specifically prohibit unnecessarily including someone's birth name then people are going to do it. Tekrmn (talk) 17:02, 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)

  Adding intentional ambiguity to our guidelines here is about the last thing we should be doing. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  how is the word specific any more ambiguous than no word at all? Tekrmn (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  How is "specifically relevant" different from "relevant"? We don't define "specifically relevant" anywhere. It's just going to lead to more arguments over its meaning, when we should be striving for a more objective standard here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  as Trystan said, it conveys a higher standard for what can be considered relevant. I think the bigger issue is the "living" in the MOS, but this comment thread is already largely about what constitutes relevance (which everybody seems to want to protect but nobody can define). I think indicating that there has to be a specific reason the person's birthname is relevant in the article beyond "reliable sources used it" is a step in the right direction. Tekrmn (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced a bar of notability is always equally useful for all dead, especially historical, people. How about something about significant (nontrivial) encyclopedic value and/or common use in RS? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, procedural and otherwise - as noted above, this RfC in Aug.-Sep. 2021 covered basically this issue, and did not find consensus for a change. To actually change it should only happen after an RfC overturning that. In all fairness, the closure (by a panel of 3 admins) did leave the possibility open for that, but contained pertinent advice in that regard. As for my own position on that matter, I explained it in that RfC and feel no need to repeat it here and now, but I do emphasize that this in no way is carte blanche to include deadnames for those who are deceased, as this should be decided based on each article's circumstances, and in many many cases, including the article OP is concerned about, is WP:UNDUE or even not reliably source-able. Indeed, claims appearing only in past versions of sources and that were later removed should be considered retracted claims and not reliable enough to even pass the WP:V threshold, let alone NPOV/DUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  people are using this as carte blanche to include deadnames whether or not that is your intention in keeping this wording. Tekrmn (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Where? People misuse guidelines relatively commonly, in good and bad faith, but that isn't a reason to change them. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  the 2023 covenant shooter page for one has been full of people using any excuse to include the shooter's birthname and old pronouns in places where it doesn't belong. the article is currently fairly respectful of the shooter's identity but it's still an ongoing conversation and it took a lot more effort than it should have to get it to that place.

  There's no good reason to keep this guideline though, the main argument I'm seeing is privacy, which may not be relevant to the deceased but it is relevant to trans people all over the world, and in many cases people who knew the deceased.

  additionally, it seems like we are coming toward a consensus for a change now so I'm not sure how relevant an outdated talk page is. Tekrmn (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see anything that looks close to a consensus for any particular change. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like the discussions and edit-warring over the deadname at 2023 Covenant School shooting is what prompted this discussion (the article is Fully-protected right now because of that). As others have mentioned already, similar issues have been previously addressed in this 2021 RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2021 archive#RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people. Some1 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  While that article is a problem with respect to the commonly held interpretation of the GENDERID guidance, and a good example for Crossroads' question of where editors are misusing the guideline, I was pretty open in my opening post about what prompted this discussion. As other editors present here can attest to, this issue of the deadname guidance ceasing to apply when BDP ends is something I've been discussing on the Wikimedia Discord since October 2022. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support I don't see this a privacy issue, but an accuracy, dignity and style issue. I do not see a good reason to have separate practices simply because the person being discussed is no longer living. Its surprising to see people argue in favor of separate style policies based on such arbitrary criteria as the concerns MOS:DEADNAME seeks to address are much broader than simply those of BLP. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support. Jayron32 so eloquently put it: 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)
• Oppose on the basis that WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE makes the matter redundant after death. Our encyclopedia should follow our sources, and this feels like editorializing for the sake of it. If our sources consistently use a name for one of our subjects, then we should as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: We treat living (or recently deceased) people differently to dead people, as laid out in WP:BLP. I don't see why birth/former names should be treated differently to other privacy issues. It's not disrespecting a dead person to mention the simple (presumably verifiable) fact that they had a different name for the first part of their life. (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.) The fact of a person's birth name is an intrinsic part of that person's biography, just as much as the date of their birth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the birth name has encyclopedic value because it allows our readers to do further research about a person, in particular before the name change. Just because the trans person's earlier life is not notable enough for Wikipedia, it does not mean that our readers won't be interested in learning more about the person's early life. This is particularly the case where we specifically mention the difficulties the person had pre-trans. Just because a person changes their name does not mean that the previous life - in which they used their original/birth name - ceases to exist. We may not cover it, but our readers should not be prevented from learning about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mitch Ames: 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)

  The proposed new version (at the start of this section) says that for all trans/non-binary people, including dead ones, 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)

  @Mitch Ames: If their deadname was notable though, the policy says it can be mentioned. I guess my confusion is why you think we should mention a non-notable deadname for people who are deceased, but not living people? Why would deceased people not be afforded the same respect to the preference of their own name? ––FormalDude (talk) 08:16, 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)

  it is not about privacy, and someone's birth name is not relevant without specific reason Tekrmn (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  without specific reason Identification, 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)

  it is different than including a maiden name or a legal name for a performer who uses a stage name. it is unnecessary and harmful to the trans person in question as well as the entire trans community. Tekrmn (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Encyclopedias are historical records for people. If you believe recording historical facts is "unnecessary" and "harmful", you may not be clear on what our purpose here is. This is part and parcel of why WP:NOTCENSORED exists. We don't self censor to avoid offending people. Whether it's through explicit images, or in this case, identifying someone by their former name if reliable sources do as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The thing about NOTCENSORED is that it's a reason to not remove content that some readers might find objectionable or offensive, but it is not in itself a reason to include content that others find objectionable or offensive. Citing NOTCENSORED as a reason to include a dead trans or non-binary person's deadname is a misuse of of that policy and the related offensive material guideline. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I’m sure you’re aware, but I did state we should follow our reliable sources. And as I’ve said previously elsewhere, we should follow WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE, when dealing with such content. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  NOTCENSORED is a reason to avoid excluding content when the argument for exclusion is that people deem it to be harmful, offensive, etc, and that is the general argument for the position of "almost always exclude deadnames" here. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  and what is the argument for inclusion? Tekrmn (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DUE —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole: Going to use Laverne Cox here as an example, as a couple of editors elsewhere in the discussion have mentioned her previously, but this question would equally apply to Rachel Levine (the other example listed in GENDERID), or any other trans or non-binary person who was never notable under their deadname. BDP notwithstanding, if Cox died right now, why would we need to include her deadname? What identification purposes would including whatever her deadname is that wouldn't already be solved by searching for the name by which she is solely known?

  I can think of plenty of reasons not to include it. She was never notable under that name. She doesn't use that name, and has as far as I know gone to some effort to not reveal it. There's no information about her early life that we would need that name to find. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or trivia. So what is it about her death that would mean that it's now content that we should include? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:35, 11 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)

• Oppose The dead expect nor fear nothing, meaning no disrespect, no privacy and no harm, among all other real world problems. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support If it is inappropriate to include a deadname when the person is alive, then it remains inappropriate once they've died. Otherwise we'd run into situations where people would then add in the deadname the moment the person dies because they'd claim this MOS no longer applies. Which is blatantly dumb. Also, several of the Oppose votes above seem to be making arguments that would run afoul of the current wording in regards to living people as well, so their claims should be disregarded as not relevant. Silverseren^C 04:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  By that logic, it's inappropriate to embalm, burn or bury a dead person since it would have been a few minutes before they transitioned. If you look at human rights, you'll notice a pattern of preferential treatment for the living. This is a feature, not a bug. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blueboar, Crossroads, and InedibleHulk. — Czello 08:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Mitch Ames. The article should be written using the person's most recent chosen name, if known, unless they were overwhelmingly known by another name. However I don't see any "disrespect" in stating the neutral fact that their parents named them with a different name, and reporting what that name was. It's not usually going to be one of the most important things about them; I wouldn't put it in the first sentence. But it's very standard to report birth names in the "Early life" section, whether the subject liked the name or not. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, Per InedibleHulk and Blueboar. Koltinn (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is not a privacy issue, but one of basic dignity. It is inline with editorial practices of major publications. Further, the current exemption/loophole has an affect not just on the subjects, but on the general atmosphere of the project and transgender people generally, including readers and editors. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • While we are not formally !voting here, if we were, this would be a duplicate !vote. On the merits, I haven't seen anyone explain in what way reporting a birth name is an offense against respect or dignity. --Trovatore (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the former name can be reliably sourced then there is no problem with including it, as with any other name change. This is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedias include such details. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Emotive rhetoric aside, there’s been no attempt to give a lucid argument as to why the real or imagined privacy needs, in death, of one minority group should be privileged above numerous others' equally speculative claims to privacy. For the sake of close relations (the only purpose of the "recently deceased" clause) an argument could be made for formalising that phrase in some reasonable number of years (>10) for certain categories of information. The notion that encyclopaedia articles not discuss the birth name of dead historical figures, an implicit result of the above proposal, is absurd. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Blueboar, Crossroads, and InedibleHulk. I wholly endorse Jayron32's comment that 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)
• Support. The spirit of the MOS:DEADNAME policy is that failing to acknowledge respect the totality of a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity; the taking up of a new name as part of transitioning has greater meaning and greater importance than the taking up of a nom de plume or the like, because the deadname – even when given with the best of intentions – is an extension of the 'mistaken' gender assigned at birth. I see no reason why our respect for this principle should end at any given person's death, as Jayron32 so eloquently puts it. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC), ^{edited 11:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)}

  That said, I do accept the concerns that some editors have expressed regarding the effect this change could have on our coverage of long-dead subjects. In general I support the "recently-deceased" sunset we apply in the BLP policy, but in this specific topic – given my rationale above, and recognising that most change in social and medical attitudes to gender has occured comparatively recently – I would instead suggest that DEADNAME should apply to all people who are currently alive or who were alive for any amount of time after a certain fixed point in the twentieth century.

  On the whole though, I still support the proposal at the top of this section and would prefer that it was implemented and then tweaked to better handle historical coverage, rather than endlessly deferring acceptance and implementation because we get caught up in options paralysis. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I really like this suggestion of the 20th century and onward as it generally reflects the modern conception of deadnames. I can think of a few gender people who existed prior to this who expressed similar feelings about past names but still feels like a good easy point to use for an MOS. Filiforme1312 (talk) 01:01, 13 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? that should be mentioned in the transgender article, but that doesn't mean we need bring it up on every article that mentions a trans person. Tekrmn (talk) 02:31, 13 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.

  Just to be clear, I do not agree with XAM2175's statement ("failing to acknowledge ... infringes their essential dignity"), I was merely pointing out that it's not a very good argument for suppression of the deadname. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  In retrospect using "acknowledge" was a poor choice, and I have edited my original post to better reflect my meaning. The gist is that I don't believe that encyclopaedic completeness is sufficient grounds to include a deadname; rather, only when said deadname already has notability attached should there be a presumption of inclusion. In respect of the principle of least astonishment for our readers, I would feel in general that the fact the subject of an article has a deadname at all need not be introduced unless necessary – as while I completely agree that the principle should be observed as fully as possible, I don't wish to see it used as a coatrack for deadnaming. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I should make it explicit that I support the spirit of this proposal, although I'd prefer mine! There are limited reasons why we should be deadnaming trans people; the current rules we have regarding trans peoples' deadnames have been formulated over many years in line with the principle that a person's name is integral to their identity, which is a topic where we should, at least, take note of the sensitivities involved. I'm not convinced that death of a subject changes the balance regarding inclusion of deadnames that drastically that a distinction necessarily needs to be made; the special protections of BLP are a sufficient reason to exclude UNDUE information, but not a necessary reason before exclusion can be justified. Basically: unless you can justify it editorially, it's best not to include deadnames, and if you're looking for an excuse in policy to do it, then you probably can't justify it editorially. Sceptre (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a matter of basic respect and dignity. Any case where including the deadname would actually be relevant is covered by the "notable under former name" clause. I also think this discussion can be converted into an RfC. Galobtter (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:RGW gone overboard. I can get on board with the idea that we as a project should not be willfully inflicting harm on a person. And I accept that using a deadname or misgendering does do that, so I can get behind the idea that what we usually say, (we follow the sources, we are not here to change the world but to document it, our opinions do not matter, what matters is what the weight of the reliable sources) should not always apply, but that should as be limited as possible to avoid the harm while not turning our long established practices upside down. This does that though. When the considerations of BLP pass, we no longer have a reason to not follow our policy on WP:WEIGHT. When the sources shift in one direction or another, we follow. We dont lead. For a living person who may suffer some actual real injury as a result of that, then absolutely we take that in to account and give that substantial weight, so much so it overrides our non-negotiable policy. When that possibility of harm is removed then that policy should revert to being the controlling one for a discussion on what should our article say. nableezy - 23:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy, Locke Cole, Crossroads and Mitch Ames. I’ll add my opinion that the current guideline is to protect living subjects from being exposed to their deadname if not notable. If the subject is dead, they won’t be exposed any more. Consideration of how other people feel, who are not the subject, I do not feel it is relevant, because they may feel negative towards either the old or the new name. So, we should follow sources, what they report. starship.paint (exalt) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is the simplest solution and would result in a single policy that gets applied everywhere; it also reflects what's increasingly the most common practice among the highest-quality sources, making it a reasonable inclusion in our MOS. And many of the concerns above seem misplaced - obviously, proper sourcing would still be required for the fact that it is their preferred name; sourcing indicating that they were notable under their deadname would still be reflected in the article, and so on. Likewise, I don't agree with the arguments above that this would somehow make our articles less accurate - in high-quality sourcing, using the correct name is how you cover trans people accurately; it is linguistically correct, beyond all else (hence why this is fundimentially a MOS issue.) We would not include archaic or excessively informal language in our articles, even if vast swaths of lower-quality sources could be found using them; similarly, it makes no sense to argue that we should disregard a basic principle of modern, high-quality academic writing simply because sources exist that use lower-quality language. --Aquillion (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment You say "using the correct name is how you cover trans people accurately", but that's about using rather than mentioning. I don't think anyone is proposing to actually refer to deceased persons using a name other than their chosen one, at least in the usual case. The question here is whether it should be forbidden to report the birth name, if the person was not already notable when using that name. --Trovatore (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    I would say it applies for mentioning their name as well. In my field, we’ve been writing about trans people just fine without the use of deadnames. It is a bit odd to see how wikipedia is lagging over a decade behind academics in this area. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I think MOS:DEADNAME takes the wrong approach by treating trans people as somehow different from everyone else. IMO, name changes should not be treated differently depending on whether or not the person is trans. I realize this is an unpopular opinion, and I've avoided certain areas because of it. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per User "Adoring nanny" above....I think having the policy in the first place (even for living people) was a mistake - one which prioritized ideology and went against (what had been) core Wikipedia principles - making a mockery of things like "NPOV" and "not censored." If a person is notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia, their birthname is inherently notable. As far as I'm concerned, a trans person who changes their name should be treated no differently than a woman who changes her name when she gets married, or a author/artist/musician/performer who has a pen/stage name (which in some cases they legally change their name to). The article of course should primarily use the new name, but the old/birth name should be noted if reliable sources can be cited for it. In any case, I oppose the proposal as it would simply be the expansion of a bad policy to cases where there's even less justification for it. This proposal seems to have been inspired by the Nashville shooting, where the media has primarily used the shooter's birth name, but where some people want Wikipedia to exclusively use the shooter's new name. -2003:CA:8708:3F10:A06:7FE8:46B0:8C69 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  No, I don't think that's circular at all. Whether or not a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography article is determined by its own set of notability guidelines, which have nothing to do with whether or not the birth name is included. What I'm saying is simply that IF a person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, their birth name is inherently worthy of inclusion, as it's a basic fact about that person, which should always be included in a biography. This is why we include, for example, the birth names of married women who changed their names, even if they changed their names before becoming notable. Most biographies have sections about the person's childhood, which usually happened before they became notable (with some exceptions for child actors and the like). And it'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!

  Like I said, the only legit reason (in keeping with "NPOV" and "not censored") for omitting someone's birth name is if there's not a reliable source to substantiate what it is. Anything else is simply purely ideological - an Orwellian attempt at rewriting or denying basic historical facts. -2003:CA:8708:3F1A:2506:B0AD:F222:26D5 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  But why is their birth name inherently worthy of inclusion? It seems to me that you're just restating the same thing as evidence of it self. It's "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)

• Oppose If sources also mention the person's birth name, then so should we. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blueboar, Crossroads, InedibleHulk, and Mitch Ames. There's nothing wrong with stating the simple, neutral, verifiable fact that a trans person's parents gave them a different name at birth than they chose later on, mentioning it once (maybe twice?), and using the preferred name for the majority of the article. Anything wrong with it is either a WP:RGW or a WP:WINC issue. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

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.

---

A different approach?

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 (edit | 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 (edit | 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)

I agree with this proposal, and if the above proposal doesn't pass I'd like to add an explicit mention that this applies to living or dead people. Loki (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is already covered further down: 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)

That still talks about just living people, but I'm not convinced that all the reasons for non-inclusion of deadnames all vanish upon the subject's death. Sure, there's a privacy aspect, but that's only one aspect. As -sche points out, it feels rather perverse that if Laverne Cox ended up murdered, we would be able to include her deadname after two months despite no editorial reason for including it other than "because we can". Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

(It's not even unique to murdered trans people. If she died of a heart attack we'd still have the same problem.) Loki (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

(That's not unique to MOS:DEADNAME; all BLP protections expire shortly after the death of the subject). BilledMammal (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How about amending the fourth paragraph to say "In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name..."? 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)

Thanks Trystan -- I think this is in the right direction. Since not everyone is familiar with the use–mention distinction in those exact terms, I might reword slightly to clarify that this does not (at least in itself) ban merely reporting the birth name. I could support that if the non-ban on reporting the name, for deceased persons, is made sufficiently clear. --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Proposed RfC questions

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)

• C, at least as it pertains to the lines which specifically and explicitly apply to the living. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk: In response to your edit summary, this isn't where we !vote - this is just the WP:RFCBEFORE to determine what questions the RfC should ask. The RfC itself I believe should be at WP:VPP. BilledMammal (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh. Support the first question. I consent to having my vote copied and pasted by anyone, when appropriate, as long as it's in whole. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 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)

  You make a good point, but I'm not sure how to word it - although it seems that if we word it correctly we may be able to merge question two and question three. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• The scope of the second question is unclear. Is that an intended changed to MOS:CHANGEDNAME (applies to everyone) or MOS:DEADNAME (applies only to trans/non-binary people)?
  Similarly the third question has a problem with scope. 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)

  The second question is to MOS:DEADNAME; I've modified it to make that clear.

  The third question does need further work; I've struck it for now. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've added insertion markup to the second question, so the modifications are visible (without having to use diffs). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think the reference to BDP in the options for the first question unnessecarily complicates things. BLP continues to apply for a period after death, and this RFC isn't going to change that. I would propose asking "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)

  At the moment, MOS:DEADNAME stops applying the moment the person dies. We need an option between that and applying forever, and the option that has garnered considerable support in this discussion is to apply WP:BDP. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's not clear. As far as I can tell, the status quo is that WP:BDP already applies. Loki (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  That interpretation doesn't align with the current wording of MOS:DEADNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  It does however align with the more commonly held interpretation and application of GENDERID. For example, see the February 2022 RM for Gloria Hemmingway where the guidance for the deadnames of trans and non-binary people who were notable pre-transition was applied to that article and its name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• The first question is the same as the last RfC, less than 19 months ago. I don't think it was an enjoyable experience for anyone. Has something substanial changed since then to warrant going through it all again? I don't think so. The closure of the last RfC recommended "a subsequent RfC that frames the subject very narrowly: 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", not re-running the whole thing. So something such as:

  For how long should MOS:DEADNAME apply after the death of the subject?

  A: For a finite period that is in line with WP:BDP

  B: For a finite period that is longer than required by WP:BDP

  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)
  I agree that having three questions is too many, I don't think it makes any sense to have two options that are basically no different than each other. the whole point is that someone dying doesn't make it okay to deadname them for no reason, so whether that changes one year or 10 years later does not matter, the questions should be do we keep "living" qualifier or do we get rid of it. Tekrmn (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd support that yes/no question. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I support this question, and don't like any of BilledMammal's questions. As a participant in that RFC it's clear that any alterations to MOS:DEADNAME need to put to very specific questioning or responses will be all over the place. Loki (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  I agree with EddieHugh, the first proposed question by BilledMammal is a re-run of the 2021 RfC with slightly different phrasing. That RfC was closed with no-consensus because, as the closers of that RfC stated, having multiple mutually exclusive options makes determining a consensus significantly harder.
  I somewhat like Eddie's proposal of a narrow RfC on two options. A finite period in line with BDP, or a finite period that is longer than BDP. Though naturally, as per my opening comment in this discussion, my ideal would be an infinite period after death. As much as I'd like to add a third option to Eddie's proposal for an infinite period, I think that would again be a re-run of the 2021 RfC with different phrasing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• In so far as the second question goes regarding WP:DUE, I think the question has it backwards: WP:DUE already overrides this, if editors here want this guideline to have a carve out for deadnames that explicitly excludes WP:DUE concerns, that should honestly be part of WP:NPOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that WP:DUE overrides this, but it is often not considered in discussions. Because of this, I think it would be beneficial to make it clear that MOS:DEADNAME is overruled by DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm putting most of my thoughts (including about the proposal to include 'due' names of [even] living people, which seems like a separate issue) in the subsection below, but will say here I think the approach above would need careful consideration/revising if we were going to go ahead with it... although, in some respects—perhaps a sign of how complicated it is to construct a question about this—the area I think might need the most reconsideration is also the one which might already be presenting things in the neatest way, which is options B vs C. Since they're presented as separate, C comes across as overturning or carving out an exception to BDP § Recently dead to make recently-dead trans people less protected than other recently-dead people, which it's not clear we could do ... yet since it seems other people think B is rather the option that'd change things, perhaps just presenting them both like this and going "which one?" really is the tidiest way of asking about them (and leave it to the closers to figure out what's a change and what's the status quo, ha). But on a balance, I'm nonetheless more inclined to an approach like the one in the subsection below, which seems to address the range of possible criteria better than the smaller set of options above. -sche (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Eddie's oversimplification, because there's no option to treat lines specifically about the living as inapplicable to the dead. Of all the many types of comparable people, living people and dead people by far have the least in common. That's not debatable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  That makes you opposed to WP:BDP, which is a policy on a different page (WP:BLP), so would have to be discussed there. It makes an exception in some circumstances 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". EddieHugh (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  BDP is a bit oddly worded, but otherwise fine. It says such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Someone's birth name is hardly that kind of material, especially in cases where living relatives and friends use that name. On the other hand, the case that spurred this talk has all sorts of questionable material about suicide and gruesome crime. I think BDP can only reasonably apply to some parts of BLP-related rules or suggestions, and certainly not those explicitly pertaining to the living or rights, duties and privileges more broadly afforded to them exclusively (for obvious reasons). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• A. I don't see any magical time period when the policy should stop applying. --Jayron32 13:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: this isn't an RfC; it's proposing the questions for a future RfC. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Madeline's RFC proposal

Idea:

When should a deceased transgender person's deadname be mentioned?

1. Only when they were notable under that name (same as for living people).
2. Only if it has a specific/nontrivial relevance to their biography as shown by common usage in recent reliable sources.
3. Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time.
4. Always.
5. No guideline (status quo).

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

nobody is arguing we should never mention trans people's birth names. currently, for living people it is supposed to be mentioned once and only if it's notable, but once they die you can use it wherever you want. the argument is that the rules shouldn't change when people die. Tekrmn (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What part of my proposal are you addressing? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

all of it, your questions address whether or not we can use the birth name at all, but the topic at hand is where the birth name can and can't be used. Tekrmn (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it, though? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not yet, but I would like to in the RFC. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I like this formulation, and I think it has the best prospect to lead to a constructive RFC discussion .--Trystan (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a good format as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this format; the above discussion has produced two alternative options to revise the current guideline. This includes one of them as option 1, but excludes the second. Option two and option three are also vague, and question two can apply to living individuals as well as deceased ones - it should be split off as I propose above into a second question. BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I also like this formulation. Loki (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: further discussion has convinced me that five options is probably too many to achieve consensus. So, while I like the general idea here, I think it needs some more work. Loki (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I like this question, but I worry that with 5 mutually exclusive options, determining a consensus outcome will be incredibly difficult.

Arguably you could merge choices 1 and 2 together, as they're I think describing the same thing. For a trans or non-binary person who was notable under their deadname, adding their deadname would have specific and/or nontrivial relevance to the article, in the same manner that it has for living trans and non-binary people. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but not necessarily the other way around. For example, certain historical trans people were not notable under their deadname because they became notable for transitioning, but the deadname may in some cases arguably be relevant to include. I.e. not entirely trivial, but not notable on its own. I'm not sure what I think of this, actually, but I wanted to leave the option available. I'd much rather have an RfC with five mutually exclusive options in the opening statement, than one with two and a bunch of respondents adding their own slight variations. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

That said, I think Madeline's approach is also good. Let's consider how to word option 3, though: what idea are we trying to cover with this option? A previous RfC had an "Only if they died before a certain time" option, which covered the idea that historical people from before a modern understanding a trans people might merit different treatment, whereas "Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time" suggests we can't deadname Brianna Ghey yet but it'll be fine twenty (or however many) years from now — is that an option some subset of people want?
BilledMammal, when you say that Madeline's proposal only includes one of two options for revising the guideline, what is the option you say is excluded? Is it the question you proposed above about adding a guideline to include 'DUE' former names of [even] living [and not just dead] people? IMO that feels like a separate issue, changing the existing guidelines that affect living people vs. the rest of this discussion being about adding a guideline about dead people, so it might be better suited to being asked separately, IDK (this requires more thought). -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)

• Oppose This has already led to more questions than answers, some about the questions and some about the answers. Too complex. Nice try, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• This proposal is also a re-run of the last RfC less than 19 months ago, and does the opposite of what was recommended in its closure: it adds more options. EddieHugh (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

-sche's proposal

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?

For dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be included only if they are specifically relevant.

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)

I also support this question, and for similar reasons to what you've outlined. I could even see clarifying further what "specifically relevant" means. Loki (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no, absolutely. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My first shot at a clarification would be ...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)

Your name is LokiTheLiar and you introduce yourself to readers as Loki. I'm not complaining. But you of all people should know that anything can confuse some of the cowriters some of the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For the most part I like this question. My only concern is specifically relevant is 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)

• Oppose, the question seems to be whether or not the privacy concerns for a transgender person's former name should be extended beyond what is already covered in WP:BLP. The consensus is clearly against the proposal, so an RFC is kind of pointless. This particular wording tries to exclude the mentioning of the former names "only if they are specifically relevant", which I would interpret as "notable", which under the current MOS they would be included anyway. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree that consensus is anything like "clearly against the proposal". Loki (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• This clarifies nothing because "specifically relevant" is unclear. Depending on how you can interpret this, it's either too restrictive (compared to what consensus is clearly against) or redundant to what we already have. Strongly oppose having an RfC with this question. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Next steps

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:

1. I proposed removing the word "living" from the second and third paragraphs of MOS:GENDERID.
2. Sceptre proposed adding a paragraph between the first and second paragraph of GENDERID, to ensure that when a deadname is included in an article, it is "done sparingly and is editorially justified"
3. BilledMammal proposed an RfC on whether GENDERID should apply after the death of the article subject, with 3 answers.
4. Madeline proposed an RfC on when a deceased transgender person's deadname should be mentioned, with 5 answers
5. -sche proposed an RfC on adding a single sentence to GENDERID, which states that deadnames for deceased trans or non-binary individuals should be included only if it is "specifically relevant".

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)

For myself, I tend to favour the 3 yes/no proposals from Sceptre, -sche, or myself. When looking at the close of the August 2021 RfC on extending GENDERID/DEADNAME in a similar manner to this discussion, the closers of the RfC remarked 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 narrowly on 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.

As no follow-up RfC to the one in August 2021 has been held, it seems reasonable that the RfC that emerges from this discussion fulfils that requirement. Accordingly that would rule out BilledMammal's proposal, as it seems to be a re-run of the August 2021 RfC with different phrasing, and Madeline's proposal, as it has 5 different !vote options. Of the remaining three proposals, all would fulfil the requirement to frame the subject narrowly, as they are each asking for consensus to either subtract (my proposal) or add (Sceptre's and -sche's proposals) to the existing guideline, and the only options are either yes or no.

However, where all three of these proposals fall down in some way is on the second part of the recommendation from the August 2021 RfC closure, on 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.

If instead I look at taking one of these 3 narrow proposals forward for further refinement, I think -sche's proposal would make the best base to build off of. In doing so, I would suggest that the phrasing be amended to something like For dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be included only if they are specifically relevant were notable under that name or a period of [to be determined] has passed since their death. 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 like in-line with WP:BDP, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years should 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.

In terms of venue, holding it here is fine. The August 2021 RfC was held here, with a listing at WP:CENTRAL, and many related discussions and RfCs on other aspects of the GENDERID guideline have been held here. I don't see a specific need to hold it at one of the Village Pumps, though notifying them once it is launched, along with at least the Biography and LGBT WikiProjects, would be prudent. Regardless of venue we could also look at listing it on CENT if it is felt to be necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) amended to clarify modifications to -sche's proposal Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm personally not a big fan of a time limit. I feel that time limits are trying to grasp at the fact that the previous names of historical figures that have been conjectured to be trans (like the Public Universal Friend) often have much more encyclopedic value than the previous names of recently dead trans people who weren't notable under their previous name (the example that comes to mind is Sophie Xeon).

Maybe let's try something like 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)

Mmm, I take your point on time limits. I dunno if I see any other way to square the August 2021 RfC closure though without one in the text. Unless we ignore that part, and just focus on the recommendation that any future RfC on this particular issue be narrow in focus?

Is your proposal a full replacement for -sche's? Or is it to be amended into it in some way?

On 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)

The criticism of some concrete encyclopedic value is 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:

• Chelsea Manning's deadname is mentioned in her article even though she's still alive, because the event she's primarily notable for happened when she came out. This will not change after her death, so we should still mention her deadname.
• Christine Jorgenson's previous name is mentioned briefly to say it's the same as her father's name. Alone, I don't feel this would be enough; however, it's relevant to note that Christine Jorgenson did not have the same concept of a "deadname" as modern trans people, and therefore did not have any qualms saying what her previous name was in her own words in her autobiography.
• The Public Universal Friend's previous name is mentioned because it's an important part of the story of their alleged death and rebirth, and because other Wilkinsons appear in the article and without the Friend's previous name the reader would be missing information as to why this is relevant. Also, while the PUF did not want to be called by their previous name in the present tense nor did they acknowledge being the same person, they didn't have any trouble acknowledging the previous existence of a person named Jemima Wilkinson.
• Sophie Xeon's previous name is not mentioned even though they are dead. Even though the article has an "early life" section, it's very brief, and there doesn't seem to be any real informative value to including names in it.
• Tokugawa Ieyasu is not a trans person, but a historical figure who went through several name changes. His previous names are all mentioned, but to be honest they are mentioned so briefly there doesn't seem to be any real information conveyed in most of them other than the mere fact that he changed his name. And because the change is reflected in a change of how the article refers to him over time, the name changes actually make the article more difficult to follow, in my opinion. The important info here is that he used to be part of the Matsudaira clan, he changed his name several times, when he changed his personal name to Ieyasu and what it means, and when he changed his family name to Tokugawa, what that means, and why he did it.

So some general principles I'm starting to pick up on here are: we should mention a previous name if it gives the reader important context about part of the subject's life such that the reader might be confused or misinformed without it, or if the name or the occasion for changing it is meaningful in itself. We should not mention a name if the name has no importance outside the mere fact that it was changed, or if such a mention would cause the reader to be more confused than not mentioning it. Loki (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose any stricter standard for reporting a birth name simply on the basis that the name change was gender-related. I don't see that any adequate justification has been offered for such a restriction. The claims that it's about "respect" or "dignity" are entirely unconvincing. That said, I am happy to agree that we should use the most recent chosen name to refer to the person. --Trovatore (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like if the current standard is being properly reflected in the article on Tokugawa Ieyasu, we probably need a stricter standard for mentioning any name change, because the name changes in that article are quite frankly a bit gratuitous. This is entirely aside from any idea of respect or dignity: from just a basic WP:PLA standpoint it's confusing to mention that he changed his name and then almost immediately changed it to something else. That feels like it could have been handled by the footnote at the top of the page if even that.

Aside from that, I don't think that there's much of a problem on any of our previous articles, but I would still oppose reporting it in a page like Sophie Xeon's because I don't think there's any point to adding it. The appropriate standard definitely drops a lot after someone dies, but it doesn't go to zero. Loki (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, one thing is you don't think there's any point in a particular article. That strikes me as a case for editorial judgment at a particular article, not so much for centralized rulemaking.

Birth names in general are usually seen as a point that readers find interesting, whether or not they need to know it to understand the article. Fibonacci was born Leonardo Bonacci; Tartaglia was born Niccolò Fontana. You don't really need to know that to understand their lives, but it's an easily digested point of focus to lead into the discussion of their early lives. For Tokugawa I don't know if I'd list all the names, but I'd keep the birth name (and yes, I agree that readability is better if the article doesn't keep switching).

The claim that the names of trans persons should be an exception has not in my judgment been well substantiated; it strikes me as a political claim, one that it is not really our role to promote. --Trovatore (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would also keep Tokugawa's birth name, but mainly because for him specifically it's important to note that at birth he was part of clan Matsudaira and changed his clan name later when he became more prominent.

Fibonacci's birth name is important because it's an important part of the derivation of his nickname Fibonacci. Tartaglia's birth name is, in my opinion, not particularly informative (except I guess for clarifying that Tartaglia is a nickname).

While I do think trans names should be an exception, I'm increasingly convinced that the standard for including birth names as a whole should be raised, because I feel like they have greater potential for confusion than the guidelines currently seem to consider. Loki (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I like Scepter and sche's proposals best so far (with the caveat that sche's needs a much clearer criteria than "specifically relevant"). I don't like BilledMammal's proposal because past RFCs have shown that any future RFC needs to be brief and tightly worded to have any hope of achieving consensus. Madeline's proposal is okay in that it's the most tightly worded of any of them, but as a consequence it has too many options to achieve consensus. Loki (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I realised after reading this message that I didn't make it clear that I had amended -sche's proposal when I quoted it. I've amended it now to strike the text I removed, and made my addition to it in bold.

Otherwise, yeah I agree that "specifically relevant" is such a vague and undefined criteria that it would lead to endless per-article discussions that guidelines like this are supposed to minimise or avoid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

As I commented above, I think there is the possibility for two RFCs. One on the difficult question of when to mention a deceased trans/nb person's deadname. (My preference is for -sche's original proposal, as I think "specifically relevant" is reasonably clear for a guideline, and certainly clearer than "encyclopedic value".) And a second one to clarify the guideline on the use of a deadname (i.e., to refer to the person by the name). It would be fairly straightforward to amend the first and fourth paragraphs of MOS:DEADNAME to clarify that using a trans/nb person's former name, whether they are living or dead, is only acceptable when the individual clearly expressed that as their preference. 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 a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name... I 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)

I like the idea also having an RFC on what name to use, and your proposal of how to revise the guideline to accomplish it is nice and concise. :) As you say, it should be a separate RfC because it addresses something quite different. (Whether a person thinks deadnames should be mentioned in dead trans people's articles, or shouldn't, there's no denying that the question of whether to mention them keeps coming up and would benefit from being resolved, independent of what name to use as the main name to refer to someone.) you may already be thinking about this, but I would suggest that any RfC about what name to use spell out very clearly in the introductory/explanatory text that it's about determining what name to use as the person's main name to refer to the person, e.g. in sentences like "Two years later Name became a pilot", and spell out that this is a separate question from whether to mention former names, because otherwise (even if the RfCs run concurrently) I suspect enough people will mistake such an RfC as being about whether to mention / include former names that the results will be quite muddled. -sche (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If we are trying to work from the closure of the last RFC (and not simply re-poll the same question for a new result), then any RFC question should probably suggest a specific length of time and reconcile that number with the actual need for privacy for the person’s family (in line with, but as an extension of WP:BDP), and—to align with comment about victims in that close—should also seek to have the new guideline distinguish public figures from low-profile individuals. — HTGS (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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:

1. Interpretation 1: a person must have been notable when they identified as their "deadname" for that name to be included. Under that reading, the fact that a person's deadname was widely reported would not confer notability unless, at the time of that reporting, the person identified as that deadname.
2. Interpretation 2 would essentially flip the inquiry on its head: It would allow a widely reported deadname to be used if the person was not previously notable under their most recent self-expressed identity.

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" [1]).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue with the yes/no is that it excludes the compromise option of applying BDP, which has seen a lot of support in this discussion; I don't think excluding such an option and presenting this as a binary choice is compatible with WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

And, to restate what I've said above, if we are going to be asking editors to discuss revisions to this guideline, we should take advantage of the opportunity to ask about other aspects of the guideline - such as whether we should make it clear that WP:DUE applies, and that names which the individual was not notable under but whose inclusion are WP:DUE should be included even for living individuals. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately we already had the RfC on applying BDP back in August 2021 alongside the options of applying to all and applying to all who died after 1920, and as the closure noted having a three way choice split the vote such that a consensus was impossible to determine. That particular RfC recommended that a future one be held on a narrow basis, which would be some form of a yes/no or other binary choice question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That close recommends a binary choice question about 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?

If we need to limit the RfC to a binary choice I also think this would be better than suggesting that we have to chose between two extremes, and I suspect that even if the BDP option isn't included at the start it will be by the end, as I and, based on the above discussion, many others, would be !voting for it as our first choice. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that wouldn't answer the question at hand. BDP covers people who died in the last "two years at the outside", but the issue we've been discussing here (and which gets raised repeatedly around this encyclopedia) is whether to mention dead trans people's former names. (I.e., at all.) An RfC on whether to mention the former names of people who died in the last two years would only answer a tiny sliver of the question at hand. -sche (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

The problem with BLPNAME is that it applies to private individuals, not public figures. For people who are notable enough to have a biographical article about them, like the two named examples of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine currently in GENDERID, they are are public figures and not private individuals. BLPNAME does not apply to them, though it does apply to their family members. In order to remove the two paragraphs on former names from GENDERID, a similar paragraph or two would need to be added to BLPNAME to allow it to apply to public figures and cover the same circumstances where an individual changed their name prior to becoming notable.

Plus even if we did all that, which would I think be an improvement for how we handle non-trans or non-binary name changes, we would still have the issue that after death, someone could include the previously excluded by policy/guideline name whenever BLP ceased to apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 13 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 death, irrelevant private info is still private and irrelevant whether the person is alive or not. However, if their name and status become widely covered in RS as part of their dying, or after their death for reasons we may not be able to wholly foresee, we should be free to ignore the letter of MOS:DEADNAME - or we cannot cover the topic clearly. This isn't substantially different from what we would do in any other circumstance with info that might be regarded as 'private'. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. BLP deals with all the issues we're debating here, and does it better. If a person is a public figure their privacy is different, etc. If we just apply BLP to the case of transgender former names, most would not be included, but when former names are widely documented in RS for public figures, they *probably* get included in a neutral and factual way, while referring to the individual by their current name and pronouns. When someone has died, the rules change. I think if we need a change, it is to reduce the scope of GENDERID. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:07, 14 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)

I’d expect it to be if our RS documented it and such inclusion was an NPOV concern. This doesn’t mean we suddenly start misgendering them or use the deadname excessively, it should be proportionate to its use in RS. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 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 death While 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)

I think you are arguing for excluding the original names because they are offensive, and that reasoning will fail. Wikipedia includes information that is exceedingly offensive all 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)

So first, we don't include material because it's offensive either. See WP:GRATUITOUS.

Second, the argument here is not really about offense. To give an example based on Aquillion's formulation above, we have many many different ways of spelling Shakespeare's name in primary sources, because at the time English spelling was not standardized. But we don't even mention the spelling "Shakspere" in the article, even though we have several sources where it appears in the title. Why not? Well, because there's really not a lot of encyclopedic value in listing every single spelling of Shakespeare's name. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If a former name isn't important to a person's life story, then it's trivia, and we don't have to include it.

It's the same reason we don't generally include complete lists of medical issues or addresses in biographies: there's just no good reason to do so. Loki (talk) 20:33, 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)

My issue is that the discussion on Sideswipe9th proposal already looks pretty split, and so I don't think an RFC would gain consensus. If we're going to make a decision based on what Sideswipe9th's RFC looks like, we can just make that decision based on the discussion above. Loki (talk) 20:35, 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)

It is not that the birth name "suddenly becomes" of encyclopedic interest. It was always of encyclopedic interest; I would maintain that birth names always are. The standard of DEADNAME is not whether the name was of encyclopedic interest, but whether the person was encyclopedically notable under that name. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Trovatore: Well, how do we define encyclopedic interest? I feel that the birth name in these situations is WP:INDISCRIMINATE - it has no bearing on any of the other content of the article and is super unlikely to be even mentioned outside of the lead. How would the knowledge of the birth name help a reader? In the case of trans and queer individuals, I highly doubt anyone even wants to know the birth name - I know I wouldn't ever be looking for it. And even with cisgender people - I can't see why this has any more relevance then saying what they had for breakfast on November 7th, 1997, even if there was a reliable source for it. At the end of the day, I think notability measures the lasting impact of a topic or person on the world - and therefore we should be covering a person primarily from the perspective of the stuff they did and why they did it. 100 years from now, will anybody care about the deadname? At all? (I don't know but I believe I have a very solid guess: No.)

All of this poses the question of why this is in the MoS and not some other policy page. How is this explicitly information-related policy considered a formatting choice? casualdejekyll 23:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

casualdejekyll I don't think it's indiscriminate in the "Early life" section, basically because it's part of the standard stuff encyclopedias report. Birth name, birth city, parents' names — none of this is really essential to understand the person's life, but it puts particularity to the circumstances of their early life.
As I said elsewhere, I would not ordinarily put this stuff in the first sentence of the article, but I think it fits well in "Early life". --Trovatore (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I can think of contexts where this information would be of supreme interest for historical subjects, even (or perhaps especially) for those who are looking to understand and respectfully appreciate the legacy of trans individuals. A case that stands out to me from my own editorial experience (having been RfCd to a relevant discussion) is Albert Cashier. For those looking to do research on such a figure, eliminating any reference to the deadname (though arguably the birth name is a little more nunaced in such historical circumstances and we have less certainty in the wishes of the subject, but in any event, the alternative name) hinders the ability of the reader to do follow up research, and arguably removes some of the context of the important historical context of the subject's story, because there is more to the name than it's mere arbitrary existence: the fact that this name was forced on them (or at least possibly so) is a part of that story, so removing all reference to it would be damaging to the reader's interests--and arguably the dignity of the subject, to the extent we consider that an encyclopedic interest (mileage may vary on that, but clearly DEADNAME would not exist unless the community as whole considered that value added).

As others (Tcr25, Trystan, and Trovatore) have expressly noted or touched upon above, we seem to be conflating multiple issues here, and I can't help but feel that maybe the solution/change to the policy language needs to be a little more nuanced than Sideswipes proposal, even if we mostly agree that it identifies something that needs to change. There are different editorial concerns for modern individuals covered by modern sources under a modern lens than we face with anacrhonistic sources and historical topics. For the latter, the deadname (or again, whatever we call the given name in this context) is much more likely to be an encylcopedically relevant part of the person's story and the historicity of research about them, regardless of which name is more associated with the nexus of their notability. The Cashiere example I raise might not even be the ideal case to underscore the point I am making here, because it is at least debatable which name/identity he became notable under, and their trans nature is a big part of their notability, but there are undoubtably subjects that could be impacted by a well-intentioned but overbroad use of policy language which would mandate removal of a second name without a more refined and context-sensitive rule governing the application. I have to think there's a more nuanced approach here, though I have to admit a more ideal wording is alluding me at the moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought it would have been obvious from context that I was specifically referring to situations where a person was not notable under their former name. If the name was notable, then it's worthy of inclusion for sure. That wording was bad, actually. What I'm trying to say isn't that ALL uses of it are indiscriminate, so much as saying that MOST of them are. casualdejekyll 02:15, 15 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)

I admit that you're right on your latter point, but Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY compels me to ignore it.
Regardless, I'm beginning to realize that my personal passions in this area are getting in the way of civility and such, so I think I'm going to withdraw from this discussion. I apologize for using your time. casualdejekyll 02:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll No, please don't. Your points have been good! It really is true that deadnames are not usually of particular encyclopedic value.

There are exceptions of course, and Albert Cashier definitely is one of them. In fact they're a difficult case, because they were not notable under their deadname but their deadname really is of enough encyclopedic value that it should be included anyway. But they don't prove that that's true for every trans person, and in fact I rather think they're an exception that proves the rule: the reason their name has encyclopedic value is exactly because of their exceptional life story, and so that implies that the names of other people without similarly exceptional circumstances would not have encyclopedic value. Loki (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And for the record, I generally agree with this. The question is how we word the policy language such as to codify the standard rule while also leaving flexibility for the more complicated historical cases. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't appear to be making progress here, in part because people disagree over what questions should be asked and what options should be provided. To address this I think we just create a list of areas of MOS:DEADNAME/MOS:GENDERID that editors disagree with and ask one question for each of those areas, with the various options for those questions being all those that have sufficient support to have a chance of gaining consensus. In some cases this means we won't be able to reduce the number of options to two, but we can't anyway - even if we exclude an option if it has sufficient support editors will !vote for it anyway - so I suggest we don't try to and instead ask editors to preference their !votes; if the result is "no consensus" we can then hold a second RfC, excluding all but the two options with the strongest support. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we're not making progress here. I think we're both too involved in this discussion to make a determination if there is or is not a consensus towards any one specific proposal, or a hybrid of multiple proposals. I wonder if we might make an unusual request at WP:CR, where we ask for someone uninvolved to assess the consensus state of the current discussions without actually closing them?

I don't think running multiple RfCs, particularly in quick succession, is a good idea. WP:RFCBEFORE pretty clearly states that RfCs are timing consuming and editor time is valuable, and running multiple RfCs on this back-to-back would consume a lot of editorial time and good will. Sure we can do it, but will editors actually attend the follow-up RfC if the first one results in no consensus? Or will the response to a second RfC be the wiki equivalent of Brenda from Bristol? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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)

I have two main objections to this framework

1. It doesn't distinguish use from mention, and we've seen from the discussion that some people think the argument is more about whether former names should be used to refer to the person, and others think it's more about whether we're allowed to report it.
2. It tries to make a one-size-fits-all rubric for all articles, not leaving room for editorial choices at particular articles.

My position would be that it should not be forbidden to report former names, and that they're presumptively of encyclopedic interest on the basis that it's a standard piece of information about early life, but that we should not ordinarily refer to the subject that way — and I certainly wouldn't say they "always" should be included, just that there should not be a rule against mentioning them. --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

My objection is that many of these options are mutually exclusive, making this not significantly better than the last RFC for assessing consensus.

I understand the desire to resolve all the issues at once but IMO that is a trap. We should ideally ask one yes-or-no question. I don't know what question exactly, but it should definitely be a single question, and if it falls to get consensus either way, then we should ask different questions until we see what the community agrees on. Loki (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If we want a single RFC with a yes/no question, my preference would be to clarify not using deadnames to refer to trans/nb people, living or dead, unless that was their clearly stated preference. Resolving the use issue first would make the mention issue (when to include it) cleaerer.--Trystan (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we could run simultaneous separate RfCs on "use" and on "mention", since they are different issues. But are people currently using deadnames in any article that an RfC about anything discussed above would result in different guidance on? The only examples I'm calling to mind offhand are ones where the person died so far in the past that there's also disagreement over whether the person was trans, so it's unclear that editors would decide a guideline about trans people applied. Mentioning deadnames, on the other hand, is clearly an issue that comes up a lot all around this encyclopedia, so it'd be beneficial to try to resolve it. -sche (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any articles where using deadnames is currently a problem, and agree that typically indicates a guideline is working well without the need for changes. However, there does seem to be some use-mention confusion in the above discussion, so thought clarifying the guideline with respect to use might help to somewhat simplify a difficult issue. Perhaps it wouldn't be contentious to clarify that the guideline against using a deadname also applies to deceased subjects, so wouldn't need a full RFC?--Trystan (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Use and mention are different issues, but also interrelated ones. To use a deadname in an article, you first have to mention it. If the guidance forbids mentioning the deadname in certain circumstances, then you would also be unable to use it in those circumstances.

That said, I'm not sure that use of a deadname is a major issue here, as the use of a name after the first mention is covered under the separate MOS:SURNAME guidance. Minus the exceptions for mononyms, patronyms, pseudonyms, nobility, royalty, etc., our articles really should only be referring to a subject by surname and pronouns only after the first use. Historical examples like Public Universal Friend aside, are there any modern examples of articles where we would refer to Jane Doe as Jane instead Doe in 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)

First name mentions can be necessary in content that mentions people with the same last name, such as family members (see Zelda Fitzgerald). Schazjmd (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I could see a use guidance that supplements MOS:SAMESURNAME and maybe also MOS:SURNAME and MOS:GIVENNAME being warranted in that particular circumstance. But at the same time, we don't need to reinvent the wheel of the circumstance specific guidance, so:

As the first paragraph of GENDERID already requires us to use the 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.

Obviously my wording is nowhere near final, or maybe even representative of what we might find consensus for. Just think of it as a starting point until something better comes along. It also still leaves us with the conundrum over the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary individuals, but it would at least clarify the use-distinction issue that some here have raised. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is the sort of change I think would be very likely to gain consensus, as well as amending the later portion of MOS:DEADNAME that applies to use: In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...--Trystan (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. One other benefit of this approach is that we don't run into circumstances where, because of the current phrasing of GENDERID, editors can make arguments over using the former name of a trans or non-binary person, but with their post-transition gendered terms and pronouns. Ie, we won't run into a situation where we use the name John Doe to refer to a trans woman, while also using she/her pronouns and feminine gendered terminology.

For that particular RfC, the question would be a pretty straightforward yes/no binary of something like 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.

That still leaves us though with the other problem to resolve of mentioning the former name of deceased trans or non-binary individuals, and under what circumstances it is or is not appropriate to mention. Regardless of the proposal that we eventually wind up with on that, it should I think be a separate RfC that could run in parallel or separately to the one on use of the former name. But even for this discussion, if we can more clearly define which RfC is about use and which is about mention it might make it easier for us to come to a consensus on what questions to bring forward to an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree it'd be good to add guidance about not using deadnames. Note that some trans people change surnames as part of transitioning (e.g. Fallon Fox), so the requirement to use WP:SURNAMEs does not, on its own, inherently or entirely preclude deadnaming. -sche (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolving the use issue first would make the mention issue (when to include it) clearer Would 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)

It goes without saying that we can't use it if we don't mention it, but I think warrants clarifying that we shouldn't use it even when we do mention it.--Trystan (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Trovatore, former names should be reported and they have encyclopedic value. BLP already handles the various sensitivities, including the living/dead distinction, and GENDERID should not make a special case to exclude former names of transgender people just because they changed gender. GENDERID should simply clarify that the encyclopedia uses a person's preferred name and pronoun. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because we already don't use deadnames, and no one is seriously proposing we should! The only issue where there is actually debate is whether we should mention the names. Obviously we aren't going to be deadnaming people in wikivoice. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:35, 21 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.

The NPOV way is to follow the sources and WP:DUE. This will usually result in us aligning with the individuals preference, but not in all cases and if we allow our own judgement to determine what these exceptions should and shouldn't be then we would be violating both WP:NPOV and WP:OR - two non-negotiable core policies.

I also think you are looking at this the wrong way for mentions; it doesn't make sense to mention SOPHIE's because reliable sources don't mention SOPHIE's. It makes sense to mention Caitlyn Jenner's, because reliable sources do mention hers.

If our rule is just to follow reliable, independent and secondary sources then we won't have a problem - bad actors may try to squeeze it in with primary sources, but so long as the rule is clear that primary sources are unacceptable for this then we can easy reject those. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with what you're saying, because there are absolutely reliable sources that mention SOPHIE's deadname. I'm not going to post them here both because it feels disrespectful and because I don't want to get rev-del'd, but you can easily find big WP:NEWSORGs mentioning her deadname within five minutes on Google.

The simple fact is not every fact that can be sourced belongs on Wikipedia. We rarely include a deceased person's address even though that's often reliably sourceable because it usually has zero encyclopedic value. (So for instance, even though this lady's house is now a museum we don't mention her former address in her article, only the article for the house.) Many trans people's deadnames are similar: there's really just no reason to include them. Loki (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

And how many sources mention it? Would it be WP:UNDUE for us to do so, or would it be WP:DUE? I should have been clearer, but I didn't mean a single source is sufficient to mention SOPHIE's name, nor that a single source not mentioning Jenner's would be sufficient to exclude it.

What I am saying is follow WP:NPOV. If the name is WP:DUE, as it is in the case of Caitlyn Jenner, then we include it. If it is WP:UNDUE, then we don't. What issue can there we with that? BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Santos's claims to a Jewish ethnicity has nothing to do with the principle I'm talking about, because he was making a statement of fact that can be, and was, disproven. If Santos made a statement of Jewish faith, though, then the only WP:DUE response would be to include his statement of faith and no others.

A core principle in polite society has been, for a very long time, that an individual is the final arbiter of their own identity in certain cases, which includes gender identity; as much as American and British conservative politicians are trying to push this as part of their culture war, I don't think this principle has appreciably changed. The second principle is that referring to someone by their deadname often (not always, but often enough) goes hand-in-hand with denying their identity. Hence, the starting position should, I believe, be against inclusion.

However, there are circumstances which can, and do, tip the balance; for example, it would be entirely justified to include the name "Bruce" when we're talking about who won the 1976 Olympic decathlon.

I agree that we shouldn't be engaging in instruction creep. That's why I believe my proposal is the best one; it keeps to the principle that an individual is the sole arbiter of their own identity, but allows for common sense deviations where justified if – and only if – it can be justified. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your example was an individual claiming to be Scottish over British? However, regardless of whether Santos claimed the ethnicity or the faith we should follow reliable sources. For example, some Black Hebrew Israelites claim to be Jewish, but whose status as such is disputed by reliable sources. In those cases, we can and should reflect both their claim, and the fact that reliable sources dispute it.

From a practical point of view, do you have an example where the inclusion of the deadname would be WP:DUE, but it shouldn't be included? BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, like religion, sexuality, and gender identity, national identity (in the context of Britain, at least) is also one of those things where it's understood to be personal and subjective to each person; as such, you're not going to get prosecuted for making a false declaration on the census if you put yourself down as Scottish! (Which is a decent rule of thumb, I think.)

Secondly, in the case of Black Hebrew Israelites, we just say they're BHIs; they're often very outspoken with saying they're as such!

Also, practically, no, I don't think there are cases where inclusion would be DUE but shouldn't be included under either the current or proposed versions, but – like I've said – I'm concerned about bad faith actors trying to lawyer against the spirit of the rule without an explicit backstop. Sceptre (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

My issue with this is NPOV does not require is to WP:paraphrase or use the exact same words as RS. Filiforme1312 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Small proposal

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 a living trans 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)

I have two objections to this. First, there are cases where for historic individuals their most recent expressed gender self-identification is disputed. In those cases we should follow reliable sources. Second, this will be interpreted as a prohibition on mentioning the name. We should make it clear that this is only a prohibition on using the name, not on mentioning it.

If it is reworded to account for both of these, then I have no objection. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

So, if the ellipses are removed, the first sentence would read: "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)

I think I like this version from Jerome better than Trystan's. Though I can understand the purpose, I'm not sure if I like putting the if dead portion into an ellipsis. It's something that I think could be more naturally phrased into the rest of the paragraph. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support (though, as a minor note, I'm not sure I see the need for the second sentence alteration—seems redundant to me). I was actually really hoping this would get addressed. It's not at all rare to see the argument @Trystan is attempting to address—I've only seen 4 or 5 discussions concerning naming, and I think I've seen the argument in all of them. And, if we're getting into wikilawyering, I have to say it's not an unreasonable argument: What they say is that the phrase 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)

I don't think it's really necessary with WP:DUE as described below. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not sure yet on the phrasing, I think that the intent of this proposal for clarifying the use of deadnames is definitely something we should bring forward to an RfC. I like the idea of something that integrates smoothly into the existing first paragraph of GENDERID, as we can put that to a straightforward yes/no RfC that has the highest chance of finding a consensus for or against. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Sensible. --Jayron32 12:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposal - Follow WP:DUE

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)

As I mentioned upstairs, I do think we need some sort of formalising the starting position should be against inclusion, because — especially in the current climate – not doing so would allow for bad faith actors. Maybe MOS:IDENTITY could do with some sort of explanation of the "in cases of subjective identity, an individual's own views are king" principle that we apply to other cases such as faith and sexuality (and – in some cases – disability and race). Sceptre (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, do you have examples where following WP:DUE like I describe would require us to include a deadname that should be excluded? If there isn't a circumstance then I wouldn't be concerned about bad faith actors, because they will need to demonstrate that inclusion is DUE and won't be able to. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(1) Would your proposal also replace MOS:GENDERID as it pertains to living subjects? (2) I'm not sure just saying "use WP:DUE" covers things. The debates I've seen have sometimes concerned how often to reference a birth name, not just to reference it all. Does WP:DUE really resolve, for example, whether a birth name should be in an article lede, an infobox, a specific section, or all of the above?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(1) No. (2) It would; DUE isn't just about whether content should be included, it is about how prominent it should be. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree as to WP:DUE, but, generally, that comes up when we're deciding, say, whether to devote one or several paragraphs to a subject. How does DUE address how many times a name should be mentioned? What amount of coverage translates to one time? Two times? Three times? That matters because that's often the scope of these debates—"should we say the name 2 or 3 or 4 times?"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a set rule as it depends too much on the specifics. It would have to be determined on a case by case basis, as with all NPOV decisions. BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But, as to dead subjects, the current limitation on references to deadnames doesn't apply, meaning, in a sense, all we have is an amorphous WP:DUE inquiry ... and the guidance WP:DUE provides has clearly not been sufficient to consistently resolve debates—which, I'd suggest, is why so many of these debates are ending with "no consensus."--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The version I propose would address that; it would make it clear that for borderline cases (as no consensus tends to be) we should err on the side of exclusion. Finding consensus in those discussions is also made harder because editors often don't consider WP:DUE; we can help with that by making it clear that DUE should be considered. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I appreciate the elaboration, but I'm gonna have to go with oppose. I don't think that the borderline rule + DUE really addresses whether to mention a name 1, 2, 3, or 4 times. Take a debate where some editors say 0 times, some say 1 time, and some say 3 times. Let's imagine that 50% of editors fall in the 0 or 1 category, and 50% fall in the 3 category. What do we do? Is the borderline number the 3rd mention, or the 2nd? Does the policy ultimately because that each mention of a birth name has to be supported by a consensus? (That's actually intriguing, but I don't think that's what you're actually meaning to propose, and, regardless, I expect it would ultimately prove unwieldy.) I think more guidance, not less, is needed.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you believe a single mention should be decided on the basis of WP:DUE, but whether we include multiple mentions should be decided on the basis of something else? Do you have a suggestion for the something else? BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, MOS:GENDERID runs afoul of WP:DUE regardless of its good intentions. I'm open to seeing some examples where WP:DUE wouldn't have worked, but in all the ones mentioned so far I haven't seen a case where DUE wouldn't have worked if applied appropriately. I do think one thing GENDERID should do is clarify that for trans/non-binary individuals we should give more weight to recent sources for pronouns (similar to WP:NAMECHANGES does for names). Other than that, it's far simpler to remind editors to give DUE weight and follow NAMECHANGES as appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Examples of where DUE would not have worked, or would have resulted in lengthy per-article discussions on inclusion versus exclusion because DUE is subjective.

• Laverne Cox
• Nicole Maines
• Jazz Jennings
• Liz Fong-Jones
• Brian Michael Smith
• Ed Le Brocq
• Stephen Whittle

All of these individuals have had their deadnames published in varying numbers of reliable and unreliable sources. Despite this, all of these individuals were not notable prior to their transition. Some of these individuals had not used their deadname for years or decades prior to becoming notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any of those individuals or the coverage about them. Are you saying that including the deadname would be DUE for all of them? BilledMammal (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that for these individuals there are enough sources that have been published that mention their deadname that making the deadname guidance based solely on DUE could result in us including them where we currently exclude them for privacy concerns, or at the very least result in numerous lengthy per-article discussions on inclusion versus exclusion of them. In some circumstances, should those discussions result in inclusion of a name that was previously excluded, there are serious risks of harm to the individual, their privacy, and their dignity.

Such discussions will result in inconsistent application of the guidance, because how DUE is defined in each article's circumstances will be highly dependent on the editors involved in those discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Are you saying that for these individuals the inclusion of the deadname is DUE, isn't DUE, or is borderline? Alternatively, are you saying that it is debatable? BilledMammal (talk) 19:00, 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)

This seems to bring us back to my comment below: 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.

For example, until it was bluelocked Lia Thomas' BLP frequently saw editors (typically IPs and those who had gamed autoconfirmed) editing the article to insert her deadname (can't give examples as these have rightly been oversighted), preform mass pronoun changes, and insert all sorts of anti-trans dogwhistles. Because there exist sufficient numbers of low quality reliable sources on Thomas' deadname, a straight DUE based guideline will result in endless discussions and RfCs on the article talk page on inclusion or exclusion of what we currently consider to be a non-notable deadname. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There will always be bad faith actors. However, as I said above, relying on DUE should prevent them from causing issues; if including the name doesn't meet the criteria of DUE then they won't be able to prove that it meets the criteria of DUE.

Considering your example of Thomas it might result in one RfC but it shouldn't result in endless discussions and RfC's; that becomes a conduct problem (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing) that can be handled by contentious topic procedures. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

but it shouldn't result in endless discussions and RfC's Please 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)

Continually reopening a settled question is a conduct problem. However, it isn't a problem unique to this topic area; look at Talk:Adam's Bridge for a different example; there are dozens of requests each year to rename it to Ram Setu. We handle it there by referring editors to the FAQ and established consensus, and don't need to waste time on endless discussion - the last real discussion was years ago. What we don't do is handle it by setting aside a core policy. BilledMammal (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, the possibility that WP:DUE alone would provide sufficient guidance and not "result in endless discussions" ... is a little undercut by what's happened to this section, which quickly blown up and currently features a majority of editors asking, "What? How would this work?"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:44, 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)

The problem with DUE is that it's an entirely subjective measure. If you ask 100 editors how they measure it, you will likely get close to 100 different answers back. Some editors feel that only a couple of sources are needed to demonstrate dueness, others think that it requires many. Some editors will base it entirely upon volume regardless of quality, others will give credence that one high quality source is worth 5/10/20 low quality sources. Some editors will make arguments against inclusion based on how recent a thing is, which for self-declared name changes would be almost unworkable. To base this entirely upon DUE would result in hundreds or thousands of redundant discussions over how to accurately refer to trans or non-binary article subjects, with the definition of accuracy being highly personal to the editor making the arguments.

Later in this section, you asked for an example of where a DUE based guideline would 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)

To be clear, this proposal is only in regards to MOS:DEADNAME - when to mention the individuals deadname. Most of your reply appears to be concerned with when to use the deadname, which this proposal will not change. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you've misunderstood what I've said about Shupe. In order to use Shupe's current name, we need to be able to mention it. However a straight DUEness based guideline would have either prevented us from mentioning it (and by extension using it) until at least March 2023 because the only sources available for it until that point were self-published by Shupe (well over a year after she retransitioned), or it would have required extensive back and for discussions on the talk page between editors who believe that self-published sources can contribute to due weight, and those who believe otherwise or that multiple sources are required to support due weight, alongside a possible WP:IAR and BLP exemption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this would apply to that; whether to include their current name doesn't have NPOV considerations, and WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. However, if you are concerned that this would have prevented that we can easily make it clear that this only applies to an individuals former name:

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.

BilledMammal (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this wording would largely solve the problem at Shupe's article but it brings us back to the subjective problem of how you measure DUE. How I measure if a fact like a name meets DUE differs from how you measure it, and how we measure it very likely differs from how other editors measure it. There is no objective measure of this, and that is a problem for mentioning what is in life a privacy and dignity concern for trans and non-binary individuals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 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) 18:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

DUE governs balancing significant viewpoints found in reliable sources. It doesn't provide meaningful guidance on whether to include individual verifiable facts at a granular level. If 2 out of 20 reliable sources say that a subject obtained a degree in economics at the University of Toronto, and the other 18 sources don't discuss education, it would not be constructive to remove that cited fact from a brief mention in "Early life" on the basis of it being UNDUE. However, if 90% of reliable sources have a specific editorial policy not to mention deadnames outside of certain circumstances, that is good reason for Wikipedia to consider adopting a similar editorial policy. But it doesn't flow automatically from DUE.--Trystan (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The two significant viewpoints here would be to include and to exclude the former name. DUE is perfectly suited to handling that. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. In the first case, WP:DUE is only about how one should consider representation of a viewpoint, but does not mandate how that representation is to be determined. It neither mandates, nor prohibits, anything. It just provides some general guidance for how people should frame the discussions around an issue where there are competing viewpoints. Secondly, the debate around a name is not a "viewpoint". A viewpoint would be "Henry VIII is regarded as one of the most powerful kings of his day". This is not that kind of discussion. There is a general agreement that the person in question was known by that name. WP:DEADNAME is a specific policy that establishes specific guidelines on when and how to use that name. It's a very specific set of instructions, and we just follow them. If you want to abolish or modify the policy directly, then do so, but trying to find a loophole or a way to bypass even dealing with it, just don't. Take a stand against the policy itself and get it overturned, or follow what it says. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. It's a waste of time. --Jayron32 19:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That's this discussion though! We're trying to clarify the meaning of the guideline, so "it would change the meaning of the guideline" isn't really a good argument against any particular proposal here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the correct link is wp:BALASP. That is really the section most editors mean, myself included, when we say DUE. That said, I do not favor this change. If it's purely a MOS issue then presumably local consensus can overrule following it. However, DEADNAME is often treated, even on talk pages, as a hard rule then I would oppose because it's a BLP issue rather than purely a style issue. In either case applying that rule to people for whom the BLP protections don't apply (ie dead for a while) means we can't justify it as a BLP protection. At that point BALASP should be the driver. Springee (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: To be clear, I propose making WP:DUE (or, as you point out, WP:BALASP) the main driver for both living and dead people. BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggested RFC Questions

Okay. I think an RFC needs to cover three distinct things:

1. how we principally refer to a trans person,
2. when should a birth name should be included, and
3. if a birth name should be included, how/how often should it be included

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:

1. 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)
2. Should we always exclude the birth name of deceased trans persons who were not notable prior to transitioning?
3. 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)?"
4. 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)

On the format, would this be one RfC with 4 questions? Or two to four RfCs depending on how you chunk the separate questions?

On the proposed questions, I think questions 1, 2 define the scope of what we're seeking consensus on, but that these particular issues are I think better addressed by making a straightforward yes/no proposed change to the existing guidance. If we ask those questions, as written, then I think a lot of the comments will be along the lines of 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.

I'm not so sure about the scope of 3 and 4 though. Have the where in the article and how many times in the article questions really come up that often in our now lengthy discussion on this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say one with four—I think we can manage separating them off.

Response regarding questions 1 & 2

As to questions 1 and 2, I think there's some value is simplifying the question to the core issue. First, regardless of wordings proposed, I think they are binary questions. In other words, agreeing to Trystan's proposal would be the exact same as agreeing to question 1—if an editor would want more nuance—as you suggested would be the case with your "maybe" editor ... they'd have the same response to Trystan's proposal. Same story with question 2 and your proposal—unless I misread (a distinct possibility!), your proposal doesn't allow for discretion as to persons who were not notable prior to their transition—you only introduce discretion for persons who were notable pre-transition. And, given that, I think separating the questions like this is more likely to yield a consensus than presenting full alternative proposals. As we've seen on this page, "I agree with this in principle but I like this phrasing better" isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence! I think proposing phrasings is more likely to yield a phrasing debate. I've tried to formulate the questions as to get to the essential issue. Again, given that the proposed phrasings don't present more nuance, if there's not a consensus as to that essential issue, there's not going to be a consensus on the phrasing.

Response regarding questions 3 & 4

I think questions 3 and 4 have gotten a fair amount of attention, both on this page and others, but, as you can tell, I did try to split up my "Issue 3" into two different questions—once again, because I think doing so is more likely to get some consensus. In terms of number of references, I think the discussion under BilledMammal's proposal got into that quite a bit, but I also think Sceptre's "editorially justified" proviso implicitly (though necessarily) spoke to number of references. 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. (The current version of 2023 Nashville school shooting doesn't follow that rule, but I think a majority of people on the talk page who say the shooter's birth name should be mentioned do say it should be in the lede.) Again, I think the opportunity to provide better guidance should be taken. But I also think question 4 has a chance. Frankly, in general, we use surnames to refer to persons after the first reference, and in most, though not all, cases, a trans person's selected name will keep their surname. There just aren't that many reasons to use a first name at all, so, from my perspective, it's fair to say that each invocation of a birth name should be justified by context. (As a simpler alternative, I suppose we could also say that a birth name should be paired with each recitation of the person's full name, but I haven't seen that suggested, and I didn't want to introduce totally new proposals with these questions. As stated, I tried to base them off the proposals that have been made.)

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

agreeing to Trystan's proposal would be the exact same as agreeing to question 1 Yes 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 transition Do 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).

The problem I see with question 4 is that if we were to incorporate it into GENDERID, it would need to be compatible with the existing guidance on MOS:SURNAME, MOS:SAMESURNAME, and MOS:GIVENNAME. Those particular bits of guidance already codify how we should refer to a person after the first mention of their name. In my comment above at 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC) and those before it, I suggest that if we want to incorporate this that we should draft a specific addition to GENDERID that recommends a default input for which you should apply the other more relevant and already existing guidance.

TLDR; version, I think we're better served by making this RfC ask for concrete changes to the existing guidance in the typical "change X to Y" format, than open ended questions that ask if we should make changes but not actually ask what specific changes we should make. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we have to be realistic. I mean, take a look at just the comments your proposal got here. Given the division, I'd guess—and it is just a guess—that the chances that proposal attracts a supportive consensus at an RFC are relatively slim. My operating theory is that consensus will be hard to come by, and we're best served by an approach that's most likely to yield as much consensus as we can get. I'd say a consensus on questions 1 and 3, for example, would be better than a "no consensus" on everything. And I think breaking down the issues into their elemental parts, as much as possible, is the best way to get any consensus. It avoid a scenario in which, for example, one proposed phrasing has multiple implications, and maybe a consensus exists to support one of those implications, but the proposed phrasing is ultimately rejected because no consensus exists to support the other. Phrasing debates, as you said, will detract from the ability to form a consensus. I mean, hey, both you and I have already made "but what if" comments under Trystan's proposal—and we support that proposal!

As to the discretion—of course not! I wasn't saying that your proposal should have discretion on that point. My point is that the question posed works as a stand in for your proposal. The question I presented doesn't leave room for discretion. If your proposal did have room for discretion, then the number of people who support your proposal could, theoretically, be greater than the number of people who'd respond yes to the question I posed. That would make a consensus less likely. But since neither has room for discretion, then, at the very least, anyone who'd support your proposal would also say "yes" to the question. (And, since there's no room for phrasing debates, I think it's fair to think that more people would say yes to the question.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe that it would be best to have a specific phrasing, and generally to be as specific as possible. I don't think the problem with the proposal above is that it proposes a specific phrasing, but just that it's not very popular.

While it might seem at first like vagueness might be useful to get a broader consensus, any consensus achieved that way is illusory. If two people vote "yes" to a vaguely worded proposal meaning two totally different things, then trying to get them to agree on a specific phrasing later will be impossible, and the alleged consensus will never be able to be converted into any actual change to the guideline.

The advantage of a specific phrasing is that once the RfC passes, it's passed, and the guideline can be edited right then and there. And remember, Wikipedia does not require unanimity: some people can oppose a proposal and there can still nevertheless be a rough consensus for it. Loki (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I'm using vagueness, so much as I'm asking the question "Should we do x, y and z" rather than "should the policy say x" (which may or may not happen to cover x, y, and z. But I suppose I agree that the above proposals may just not be popular enough to go forward at all (though I'd hold out hope for Trystan's proposal, given that I think it's already what's used in practice). Unfortunately, I'm not sure this "let's talk about what we would ask an RFC" thread, which is already fairly large, is getting any closer to starting a viable (i.e. likely to yield some consensus) RFC--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over a lot over the last couple of days. I think no matter what RfC we run, there are going to be people opposing. There's a few mutually exclusive perspectives on handling this, and there's no real way to reconcile those.

Loki is correct when they say that any consensus from a vaguely worded RfC will be illusory, because as soon as you go to the next step of trying to define what form that should take, the consensus breaks.

To get progress on this, I think we have to do something a bit unusual. With all due respect to editors who would oppose broadening GENDERID's deadname provisions in any way, regardless of how it's phrased, I think for the purposes of this discussion of finding consensus for what RfC question to ask, we need to discount them. That's not to say that their contributions are unwelcome or invalid in any way, it's just that this is the wrong discussion to say things like "I oppose any change to broaden DEADNAME" or "I think we should get rid of DEADNAME entirely".

Instead what we should do is look at the contributions from editors who are in favour of changing the guideline, but disagree over which proposed change to take forward to an RfC. From those editors we can figure out which proposal has the strongest consensus to bring forward to an RfC, tweak the proposals wherever necessary. Then if/when the RfC launches, those editors who either oppose any change to broaden the guideline, or think we should get rid of it entirely, can make their cases at the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

My personal preference is to start by defining a ladder of possible proposals. Then, start with the rung on the ladder most likely to achieve consensus. If it doesn't, then nothing can. If it does, then progress to the next rung of the ladder, and so on. Wherever we stop is the largest change that could plausibly achieve consensus.

The disadvantage of this is that it will take a lot of time and energy. But also running a bad RFC will take a lot of time and energy, and that won't get us a useful result at the end. Loki (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make one final pitch, if you two will indulge me. Just this one paragraph:

It's actually not the case that "vagueness" will doom a question. In fact, it's often just the opposite. In law, this is the eternal tension between "rules" and "standards". You'll notice that my questions started with what I said was probably the least controversial aspect. And, as to that aspect, question 1—you might also have noticed that the question I propose is maybe the least vague proposal here. "Should we always do X" isn't vague—it's a solid rule, no room for discretion. And it's not vague precisely because I think a consensus of editors will be willing to agree to that hard rule. Conversely, as to the more controversial subjects, my proposals are more wishy washy. "Justified by context" is a standard—it's wishy washy. And it's also there for a reason: Why? Well, we likely have a non-consensus of editors who think a deadname should never be mentioned after the first reference. And they wouldn't be willing to vote for rule that says "a deadname can be mentioned all the time." We also likely have a non-consensus of editors who think a deadname should be freely mentioned after the first reference. And they wouldn't be willing to vote for a rule that says "a deadname can never be mentioned." But both groups might think that they can justify their preferences by providing some context. Standards aren't as clear, and they provide a bit less guidance as to the right outcome than rules, but they're still better than nothing.

Still, if you all think you can get a consensus some other way, I'm all for it. I think we already have a "ladder" of proposals, right? Trystan's, Sideswipe9th's, Sceptre's. I'd say, of those, Trystan's probably has the highest chance of getting a consensus. After that, it's more difficult—more people have responded to Sideswipe9th's proposal, but that proposal's thread doesn't make it seem like a consensus is anywhere close. Sceptre's proposal is more vague than Sideswipe9ths—Sceptre says that a deadname should be used "sparingly and [only when] editorially justified". For the reasons I said above, that makes me think it's more likely to get a consensus. There are probably editors who want to use deadnames a lot who still think they can fit their preferences within that rule—even the most ardent editors who want to use deadnames freely aren't likely to thing it's necessary to do so more than 3 or 4 times in an article. They can argue that such use is "sparring" and "justified".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: My proposal would cover the deadnames of both living and dead non-binary individuals; while it could (and should) be argued that it already applies to both as the MOS can't overrule a core policy, some editors argue it doesn't. BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. When I asked "Would your proposal also replace [the current] MOS:GENDERID as it pertains to living subjects?", you said, "No." I have to say, I'm really skeptical that it's even worth putting a RFC forward that suggests changing the policy as to living subjects. Frankly, aside from a few spare comments, I haven't seen a ton of debate around that issue at all.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect MOS:GENDERID (first paragraph), it would affect MOS:DEADNAME (second paragraph). My impression of the discussion is that there is some support for allowing more flexibility on when we can mention a living individuals dead name, such as at the Isla Bryson case; I believe it is worth considering. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure I see that, and, if it's there, it should probably be a separate RFC. After all, this talk has all occurred under the subsection "Remove the 'living' qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME", and I think the vast majority of the discussion has been devoted to how we treat deceased trans persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Doesn't WP:DEADNAME already address the three points at the very outset of the OP? Taking each in point, with the relevant quote from WP:DEADNAME: 1) how we principally refer to a trans person, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with 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, 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." when should a birth name should be included "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... and if a birth name should be included, how/how often should it be included "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"." It's pretty straightforward already. Why do we need an RFC on this? --Jayron32 11:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi @Jayron32:! As to your first bold point, I agree with your interpretation, and I think a consensus of Wikipedia editors do. But it is a recurring point of debate, as I mentioned in my Strong support vote under Trystan's proposal (link to section). (Sorry—I don't mean to send you all over the talk page—the fact that I'm so spread out here is my fault, but I don't want to overload the talk page by repeating my points too much). In short, many editors argue the phrase "gendered words"—partially given that it identifies the type of words it addresses—(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)
    • Oh, that's simple as can be. Simply remove the qualifier "living" from any and all parts of WP:DEADNAME. --Jayron32 12:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Well, that's what Sideswipe9th proposed (or, at least, proposed proposing), though, as you can see, there's a fair amount of opposition.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Though, as you can see, I voted in that discussion some time ago. --Jayron32 16:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
        • When and how to use former names is at WP:BLP. This MOS is censoring information to avoid offense, which eventually will be changed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure if that was meant as a response to me, but this comment confused me. As I understand, this RFC is focused on deceased trans person (and all of my proposed RFC questions were specifically directed to the treatment of deceased subjects). With the exception of potential application via WP:BDP, WP:BLP wouldn't cover those cases. (I do know you've, in other cases, opposed to any MOS:GENDERID policy and said we should follow whatever a majority of sources use(d), so I assume that is still your position.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

            Sorry if the communication was confusing (this section has 333 comments!). Yes, the proposal was to remove the "living" qualifier. There seems to be confusion over whether the current MOS censoring former names is due to privacy or to avoid offense. If it is privacy, then BLP handles everything, including recently deceased. If it is offense, then Wikipedia is not censored. Either way, this MOS should eliminate the special censorship of transgender former names, and certainly the idea of expanding it to deceased individuals is a non-starter. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

          While I agree that MOS is most certainly the wrong place to have these policies - "censoring information"? Isn't that only a bad thing if the information should be included? casualdejekyll 15:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

          Can you elaborate, of course noting that not every decision to exclude information is censorship, on what this "censoring information to avoid offense" is? --Jayron32 16:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

          What you see as a matter of offense and "special treatment" I see as a matter of respect for a marginalized group. Referring to a trans person by their deadname is not only disrespectful to them, but to trans people as a whole, as we have to constantly defend our identities.

          Now, you may accuse me and other trans editors of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:ACTIVISM, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. Others have. I'll say in response that conversations that ignore or minimize the well-being of our trans editors and readers diminish the usefulness of this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 18:58, 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)

I'll rephrase that sentence to clarify my stance then. Mentioning the former name of trans person who did not gain notability before their gender transition is not only disrespectful to them, but to trans people as a whole. Funcrunch (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The "respect" rationale has been mentioned before, as has "all trans people". I'd like to see a reliable source for this. If (a reliable sources says that) a specific person has stated their request not to have their deadname mentioned, then that specific person's wishes are known, but where's the reliable source that says all trans people do not want their deadnames mentioned? Where's the reliable source that says mentioning one person's deadname disrespects all trans people? Isn't such generalisation just stereotyping people, which I thought would be considered a bad thing. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is where surface level familiarity with the topic cones into play. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; I'd like to hope Mitch is incredibly out of his depth rather than sea-lioning or concern trolling, because that sort of comment is like editing a hurricane WikiProject article without knowing how wind works. Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If I asked for information about a specific feature of the wind in a discussion about hurricanes, where that particular feature was fundamental to the discussion, I would hope that somebody would be able to either point me to a reliable source on the matter, or at least point me to the relevant (sourced) section of a Wikipedia article that covered the matter. Presumably (the other) participants here are all familiar with the specific issue, so it ought to easy enough to find such a source. So let me ask directly:

• Do all (or most?, or many?) trans or non-binary people object to their deadname being mentioned (not used)?
• Does mentioning one trans person's previous name disrespect all of them? Why? Surely they don't all "think the same and have the same opinions"? If a trans person does not have an opinion of the matter, aren't you just foisting your own opinions onto them by saying they must have be disrespected?

Reliable sources (and/or relevant section of Wikipedia article) that address these specific questions - preferably a direct quote to support the assertions - would be helpful here rather than unsupported assertions. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a side note: I've seen the "but isn't that implying that all X think Y, a stereotype?" argument before, and I really find it unconvincing. We're allowed to make style choices based on the majority. The note at MOS:RACECAPS that we shouldn't use "old epithets" is not at all contingent on a finding that 100% of persons who could be described as those epithets would object to that description. I've yet to see anyone say "BUT DOESN'T NOT USING THOSE EPITHETS AS A RULE TREAT PEOPLE AS A MONOLITH, A BAD THING?"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this is covered in the deadname article, its sources, and related articles. While I will inline link to parts of it and other relevant articles below, I would suggest reading the articles in full would better inform you (and any other editors).

Most trans and non-binary people object to their deadname being mentioned, whether accidentally or on purpose. Depending on the environmental context, the mentioning of their deadname can out them as trans or non-binary to people who did not know. It can lead to risks of psychological and physical harm from individuals who are ideologically opposed to trans and non-binary people existing. The act of deadnaming also has a measurable and well known harmful psychological effects on the individual [2], with people whose name and pronoun changes being respected having a significant drop in the rate of suicidality and self-harm.

On the group, widespread deadnaming is one of many factors that result in many trans and non-binary people remaining in the closet. It's a similar effect to how many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people would remain in the closet until the wider acceptance of non-heterosexual sexualities from the early 2000s onwards, as coming out as non-heterosexual had significant risks of physical and psychological harm. As almost any trans or non-binary person can tell you, the act of seeing others being deadnamed and disrespected is one of several powerful factors for why they may feel that it is either not safe to transition or that there's no point at all in transitioning. Afterall, what is the point of coming out, saying "Hi my name is Jane, please use she/they pronouns when referring to me" if everyone around you is going to disrespect you by continuing to call you John and use he/him pronouns, or vice versa. Widespread deadnaming in the media is frequently seen as creating a hostile environment for non-cisgender gender identities [3], which is why there are often public outcries when the media needlessly deadnames, misgenders, or otherwise minimises or disrespects the gender identity of a non-cisgender individual or group. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm probably just going to step out of this topic because I don't have a firm grasp on all the issues but if I can gain an understanding I would !vote in an RFC. To me, if there is encyclopedic interest in a person's prior names, that should prevail, and if there is not, respect and kindness to their wishes should prevail, and if such wishes are clear (e.g. a modern day trans person vs. a farther back historical person whom we are retroactively interpreting as trans? maybe not the best example?) there is no reason not to honor them after the person is deceased. For me I think I need to see some examples, concrete or hypothetical, as again I don't have a good conceptual understanding of this topic. I know some have been discussed here already and I'll admit I may just not be prepared to understand all the issues because I can't entirely make sense of it to be honest. I do think an RFC with multiple choices is a valid idea, and people can support one or more choices as they see fit. I don't think that unfairly makes it hard to find consensus (or lack of) for a close. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think your general summary of what Wikipedia's priorities should be is basically right, but to explain:

  The modern trans community, in general, does not like previous names to be revealed. Part of this is just a general discomfort with that previous identity (the same discomfort which caused them to transition) and part of this is out of a fear of harassment, as one of the most common ways for transphobes to harass a trans person is to call them by a previous name and pronouns. You can see if you look at the page of most prominent trans people that there are a larger than normal number of history entries that have been rev-del'd; these will be from trolls adding a deadname to the article.

  This is all fairly simple when dealing with living trans people: the fact that real life harm is involved means we don't include previous names unless they were previously notable under that name (which both significantly reduces the amount of real-life harm we're doing by including the deadname and significantly increases the encyclopedic value of the deadname) or the person in question is explicitly okay with us including their previous name. However, a few factors complicate this when dealing with dead trans people:

  1. The risk of real-life harm from deadnaming a dead person is, if not gone entirely, certainly significantly less.

  2. In the case of historical trans people, or especially historic people conjectured to be trans, it's often unclear what their wishes actually were. So for instance, Albert Cashier adopted a male identity for most of his life but doesn't seem to have given specific instructions outside of that. He also lived long before the norms of the modern trans community were set. What would he think about us mentioning his birth name? It's very unclear.

  3. Especially but not exclusively in the case of historical trans people / historic people conjectured to be trans, it's sometimes the case that their birth name has encyclopedic value even if they weren't notable under it. So for instance, the birth name of the Public Universal Friend is a pretty important part of their life story, for reasons that should be clear from the page.

  4. The modern trans community is young enough that there just aren't a lot of examples of notable dead trans people from the modern community. To the extent the issue has been considered, the modern community is still strongly against deadnaming people even after their death, largely because transphobic relatives often do this.

  5. In the case of someone like Leelah Alcorn whose death was directly connected to transphobia and being misgendered, it feels very wrong on an intuitive level for us to also misgender her. That's probably why that featured article does not contain her deadname, even omitting it from quotes.

  My personal feeling on this is that we should have separate guidelines for modern trans people who are dead and historical trans people. But I don't have a great idea for what the separator should be other than maybe year of death. Anyone who died before around 1950 would be a historical figure by this standard. Loki (talk) 19:20, 27 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)

  While the use-mention distinction is important (and the foundation of much of our policy on this stuff), I don't think that it is the only important thing here. Mentions can still in some cases be harmful. Loki (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Question of pronoun use for nonbinary non-caring

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)

• If the subject has not stated a preference, follow the sources. Note - not any one specific source … you need to look at the pronouns used in aggregate by lots of sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd largely second this. The only thing I'd add—and this is strictly hypothetical, but so is your question :) —is that we should be careful to distinguish between "a subject not caring what pronouns others use to describe that subject" and "a subject not expressing a gender self-identification." I.e., there's a distinction between "I go by he/him, but I don't really care if people call me she/her" (in which case the article should use "he/him" pronouns) and "I have absolutely no preference as to my pronouns."--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    My apologies for not making clear:

    • The subject has explicitly expressed that they don't care what pronouns are used.
    • This is not hypothetical. This is in direct response to Chris Tyson and their lack of interest in their own pronouns.

    Padillah (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    • My mistake! I misread the "made up that classification" as implying the issue hadn't presented itself. So, assuming no preference as to pronouns has been made, then I'd say combine -sche and Blueboar's suggestions. If the article is already one thing, consider leaving it in place, but if a clear majority of reliable sources use another, switch to that. (By default, I realize that approach is likely to leave assigned-at-birth pronouns for people who transition, but if they're genuinely declining to self-identify and, instead, saying they prefer any pronouns, then I think "leave it as is" makes the most sense.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Jerome Frank Disciple: In case of Chris Tyson all RS, from what I've seen, use they/them. (see my responses at Talk:Chris Tyson)

      Also, what do you think of the notion that what Tyson's pronounces is doing should be treated as a neopronoun (to me it seems to be in that spirit), which would warrant they/them usage under MOS:NEOPRONOUN. I think in a situation where there wasn't a clear or unanimous usage in RS then NEOPRONOUN might be best to follow, which would result in they/them usage. Though, that is getting into the hypothetical. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:—if that's the case, I'd probably follow that! (Don't want to imply I'm somehow an authority on the subject, but I think my "proposed" solution of "in case of no preference: keep as is unless a clear majority of articles use certain pronouns" rule would endorse "they/them" if all of them do. :) ) As to the neopronoun issue ... I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you twice in one thread. I don't think I have enough subject-matter familiarity to give an informed response. It doesn't strike me as entirely unreasonable—in my experience, the "generally keep the article as is" rules can create cycles of edit warring—I remember, way back, there used to be frequent bouts over American/British spellings. "In case of no preference, use 'they/them'" certainly might be a cleaner approach!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(e/c) In the past, when it's come up that someone is fine with any pronouns and has no preference between the pronoun people had been using and some other pronouns, articles I'm aware of have kept using whichever of he or she they had been using (there being no reason to change), e.g. Rebecca Sugar's article uses she (and has a footnote that she uses either she or they). As discussed on her article's talk page, some people think all nonbinary people use they, but that's not always the case. In the case that prompted this, someone was referred to as he pre-transition, came out as gender non-conforming and said any pronouns were fine. If we were to speculate about the WP:FUTURE, then given that the person is on HRT I wouldn't be surprised if the person later expresses a preference for she or they — starting out with "any pronouns are OK" to be as accommodating as possible, and later realizing and expressing that only one specific pronoun is right, is a common trajectory. But that's something we can accommodate if it happens; right now, the person has said "any pronouns" are fine, the person's friends have kept using he, and sources have either used he, used they, or avoided pronouns. One editor interprets GENDERID as recommending they/them. I don't see that it recommends any change at this time. -sche (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: with due respect to your response, I'm not aware of any sources that use he/him in regards to Tyson. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Of the seven articles I could find (that were not other wikis or pure fan pages) four of them use he/him.

The biggest issue I have in defending this is the lack of RS coverage. I'm beginning to think this point is moot when compared to the notability of the subject. As far as I can tell (from a quick Google) Chirs is notable for being on MrBeast and being trans. For WP that's not enough. @-scheand @Iamreallygoodatcheckers you have both posted your opinions, both here and on the talk page, let's give others a chance to weigh in and develop this discussion. Padillah (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of professor

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)

I actually hadn't noticed that portion of PEOPLETITLES before. From memory, I had thought that the policy applied to subsequent mentions ... but I may have to go through some articles I recently worked on and fix that! Either way, I do think your edit was mistaken. "Professor" is being used as a title in the diff you link—even in your version; you're just making it a lower-case title (which MOS:JOB allows for "commercial and informal titles", e.g., "OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan". So, if the issue is that academic titles shouldn't be used, then the appropriate edit would be to say, for example, "and Patrick Nuttgens, a professor" ... not "professor Patrick Nuttgens". If it is permissible to use "professor" as a title on first mention, I'd read the guideline to require capitalization.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense, thank you! So since it states that academic titles shouldn't be used, it looks like I should edit it to say "and Patrick Nuttgens, a professor".

Thank you again, and I hope you have a great day! HeyElliott (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course "Professor" should be capitalised in front of someone's name. I agree the section in MOS:PEOPLETITLES is confusing, but I believe what it actually means is that we should not refer to someone as "Professor Smith", but only as Smith (and also that we should not include academic titles inline in the first line of someone's article). It's perfectly acceptable to include an academic title when referring to someone in an article not about them for the first time using their full name (Professor John Smith), just as we would include a military rank (General Sir John Smith). "Blah, a professor" just looks ridiculous, incidentally, and is completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the follow-up input. I'm not sure I'd agree with the "ridiculous" comment ;) (after all, it's not that unusual to list a job description after a person's name— "John Smith, a professor at UCLA, said" ... "Jeff Smithy, a construction worker at a nearby power plant, left ..." etc.) But otherwise, your understanding of the section was what my recollection was; I just have a hard time squaring that with the text of the section. If this guideline only covered subsequent use, wouldn't MOS:SURNAME be sufficient? It says: "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)

The problem here is that "a professor" in American English tends to be a euphemism for "an academic". Whereas elsewhere "professor" is only an academic title restricted to the most senior academics (full professors in American parlance) and is not used as a generic term for academic staff. You could say "John Smith, professor of English" if he does indeed hold a chair in English, but "John Smith, a professor" is certainly not a good alternative for the far more natural "Professor John Smith". I agree with MOS:CREDENTIAL being fairly pointless, except where it refers to the first line of a biographical article and use of postnominals for degrees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have made some changes that I think clarify what most people understand MOS:CREDENTIAL to be getting at, and how we seem to apply it generally. As always, correct me if I am wrong. — HTGS (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, to be on the safe side, I did regret that edit. Ultimately, I'm concerned that it touched on far more than what was discussed here (changing the policy for post nominals and also suggesting an "attachment to the institution" change that I didn't see anyone here discuss—and, based on what we did articulate, that rule wouldn't be consistent with my understanding or Necrothesp's understanding). Maybe those statements are how we apply the policy generally, but I'd like to see a bit more evidence. I think we should probably discuss the specific changes before we make them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Jerome Frank Disciple. I appreciate that not every change I made was discussed—and in fact, much of it wasn’t a direct response from to this discussion, but an attempt to make the guideline reflect what I see as convention and good practice—but what I hope is that none of it was unreasonable or disagreeable. If you disagree with the particulars, please revert those, but sometimes it’s just better to let the guidelines move forward, rather than hold a debate on every word. If you are amenable, would you consider putting back the changes that you would agree with? Or otherwise let us know which changes go against your own preferred practices? — HTGS (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I realize sometimes shortcutting the deliberative process can be far more efficient, but I also think we have to take the pains of deliberation when necessary, and I'm currently leaning towards thinking that it's necessary here, though as a compromise I've tried to work back in some of your proposal. As I said, I know you made a claim about how your proposed changes reflect how "we seem to apply" MOS:CREDENTIAL generally, but I'm wary of that claim given the lack of examples. My more specific concerns are: First, why did you take out "at their first mention" from the post nominals section? Are you aware of many articles that include post nominals after the first reference? Second, I think the language of the intro you added didn't make much sense. "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)

Hopefully it’s evident that I wanted to parse the division in how we treat the subjects of biographies and how we might introduce other people (typically experts) in other pages (whether the biographies of other people, or not). As the two paragraphs run, I wanted to make clear that the first was for subjects of bios, and the second for other people.

To your questions:

1. Did you mean that I added "at their first mention"? I added this because I don't see that for the typical case where we mention, quote or otherwise include a person, that we need to give their title more than once. At best, this is a principle that maybe we could leave unsaid (per WP:CREEP), but I don’t subscribe to CREEP as much as many others, and it fits easily enough in there where we are (trying to be) being quite clear in how we credential people.
2. Yes. 100%. I don’t find your version as clear, but as far as I can tell, they mean the same thing.
3. I genuinely didn’t have any good idea where to put that (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.
   As to the actual addition: our attitude is generally “don’t add credentials or titles without good reason”, but, per above, there is clear interest in keeping (eg) “Professor Patrick Nuttgens” on the University of York page. Affiliation to any pertinent institution seemed the best reason to include such titles; there may be other reasons.

Oh and to be clear, I’m entirely happy to be disagreed with, or corrected on phrasing, but I didn’t have a clear impression you did disagree, and I would hate for us to have to deliberate on such wording for no reason haha. — HTGS (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

My mistake on "at their first mention"! I'm okay with that being re-added. Also, I'm in favor of some of that paragraph being clarified, because quite frankly the use of "subject" is confusing. "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)

Reverts

@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! First, in reviewing this, I did notice something I missed the first time. When User:Surtsicna reverted you [4], it was because you suggested pope could be capitalized even if not used as a title.

But I still wonder what your addition does except extend the table. By my reading, MOS:OFFICE isn't complicated or ambiguous on this point. Prior to the table, it says that positions are not capitalized when referred to generically and are only capitalized in certain circumstances, included when used as a title or to address a specific person. It then provides quite a few examples, pope included, to illustrate both those exceptions. Then, the table provides three different examples of formal positions, showing where they would and would not be capitalized. Your proposed inclusion ... just added a fourth example. But what extra insight or helpfulness did it provide?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you could say the same for the "president" examples, couldn't you? And considering the fact that pope is often falsely capitalized (as in my previously erroneous example ... was cronwed Pope) when deemed solely a title, this fourth example for the sake of clarification probably would not really hurt, would it? Hildeoc (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

First, is position often mis-capitalized? I haven't seen that—and, frankly, I'm not sure you adding a mistake to the MOS (and being promptly reverted) shows that this is a recurring issue. Second, and more importantly, even if the pope is often mis-capitalized, is that because the MOS is unclear or because the editors mis-capitalizing it haven't reviewed the relevant portion of the MOS? I strongly suspect the latter, and adding an extra example to the table will do nothing to change that. You haven't stated how the MOS is not sufficiently clear as is. Are there long debates I'm not aware of in which people argue about whether the pope should be capitalized according to the MOS?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are you being so fastidious here? Check out this or that, for instance. And why don't the president examples seem to bother you, even though they are already invoked in the text preceding the table? Hildeoc (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

... I'll be honest I didn't expect you to link to random grammar articles on whether the pope is capitalized. I meant on Wikipedia—but fair enough! My fault for being ambiguous. My position is that we don't need a fourth example to the relatively longstanding three that we have—specifically, that the example offers no clarity not already offered by what's been there. In theory, we could also have new rows for many positions—attorney general? pastor?—but none of these examples would add clarity; they'd be redundant and detail for the sake of detail. Happy to have other editors weigh in if they think the pope row is an improvement.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove bold for honorific titles in lead sentence

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.

Eg: Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill versus 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)

Because titles like "Sir" and peerages are almost always included when people are referred to. It's a title, not an honorific. It would be ridiculous to bold a nickname, a full name or a former name and not bold a title. If we're only going to bold parts of a name that are used in the article title then we should presumably debold all these other elements too (Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that “titles like "Sir" and peerages are almost always included when people are referred to”; I frequently hear knights referred to without their titles. Winston Churchill comes easily to mind. I also disagree that even if these are titles (and not honorifics—whatever the distinction means), that that should preserve them in bold.

Again, I have no goal to remove these titles, but I do think the name is easier to parse without the bolded title. We bold the whole name, but I cannot see the title as part of the whole name (again, with the stated exception for Sir Samuel Hood and the like). — HTGS (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

In Britain, you very rarely see knights or dames referred to without their title. Because it would be incorrect. After he was knighted, Winston Churchill was no longer Mr Churchill but Sir Winston. Nothing has changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Winston Churchill was no longer Mr Churchill but Sir Winston We don't bold-format (or even include) "Mr", so why should we bold "Sir"? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have no intention to remove the word Sir (or Dame, etc.) from any of these articles, so it’s hard to say if we’re on the right track here. But, for reference, the International Churchill Society does not appear to prefer the title consistently in its own use ([5]), nor does the Encyclopaedia Britannica use it at the start of its article ([6]; though I fully appreciate there are distinct styles at play there). — HTGS (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this proposal, since editors who aren't familiar with honorific titles might, for example, think Sir is a part of Winston Church's full name since it's bold. I'd also support removing honorific titles in general from lead sentences (unless the title is part of the subject's common name, but even then, it should not be bold). Some1 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe there’s any confusion here, but to be clear: removing honorific titles from lead sentences is not part of this proposal (and if it were to become the subject of debate it is not something that I would have the MOS dictate). — HTGS (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I also support removing the bold format from "Sir", because it is not part of the name, and not part of the article title. Necrothesp says that it is "a title, not an honorific", but it is actually both; the first sentence of MOS:SIR says "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, ...", and the linked articles say "Sir/Dame is a formal honorific address". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I would point out that most of what's bolded in the first line isn't part of the article title! Only bolding what's in the article title would be a massive change in Wikipedia's style and making an exceoption for "Sir" and "Dame" would make no sense and would smack of favouring the opinions of those who don't like titles. The fact remains that in Britain and some other Commonwealth countries they are still a big deal and almost always used where appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out by HTGS, higher titles of peerage, baronetcy and knighthood replace lesser titles such as Mr. We don't put Mr. in articles because it is the default title for men.

If using deferential style, one would refer to Sir Winston Churchill in the first instance, and Sir Winston in subsequent references. Winston Churchill's unknighted grandson would be referred to as Mr. Winston Churchill in the first instance, followed by Mr. Churchill. But with the MOS style, subsequent references are to Churchill for both men.

There is no reason to capitalizebold Sir in the first mention. It's a title, not part of the name.

TFD (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

One presumes you mean to say bold, not capitalise, @The Four Deuces. — HTGS (talk) 06:07, 16 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:

• UK Passport Office guidelines "Titles of nobility are part of a person’s name and identity"
• Deed Poll Office (a private firm, not a government office) " “Officially recognised” British titles are considered a part of a legal name in the U.K. This includes: ... holders of knighthoods"

Mitch Ames (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I assume the example of Lady Gaga was a joke? Because I really don’t want to have to explain how and why that example is unhelpful.
Again, this change is limited in scope, and does not need to affect the duke or the king. (Although I don’t personally see that change as problematic for the duke. It would be very easy to note that he is “also well known as the Duke of Wellington”.) — HTGS (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

But why do you want to make a limited-scope exception for pretitles? Sir Winston Churchill was as much Churchill's name as Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, was Wellington's. More so, in fact, as the latter was pretty much exclusively referred to as simply as the Duke of Wellington (and the same goes for most peers). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Great question. Primarily because I see that as a compromise and the less contentious change, but also because I am more interested in the far more common modern articles, where the subject is not well known as Dame this, or Sir that, and also because it leaves avenue for people with your point of view to advocate for moving Winston Churchill to Sir Winston Churchill (I could easily ask you why, if he is so known as Sir Winston Churchill, his article isn’t at that page). If it were my encyclopaedia it would look a little different in many domains, but full disclosure: I would personally prefer to have Arthur Wellesley’s name bolded, immediately followed by explanation that he was also known as the Duke of Wellington (in bold). But it’s not my project, and that isn’t my hill, and so I’m respectfully not trying to change those articles which I read as being particularly concerned with the full title of someone’s name. — HTGS (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I have never advocated that the pretitle should be included in the article title (except for baronets for disambiguation purposes, and only with "Xth Baronet" appended) and I have actually moved many articles away from such titles over the years. I would also point out that most modern knighhts and dames are known by their titles. Maybe not in the USA, but certainly in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this exemplifies the misapprehension I set out above. You speak of "Arthur Wellesley" as though that somehow remained his only real or valid name, with "Duke of Wellington" as something he was merely "also known as", as if it were some kind of nickname or stage name. He wasn't "known as" the Duke of Wellington: he was the Duke of Wellington. That was his name. Legally speaking, it actually replaced his surname (he would have been described in legal documents as "Arthur, Duke of Wellington"). Proteus (Talk) 17:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@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'm afraid that sounds to me like a recipe (a) for inconsistency (by design) and (b) for endless tedious arguments about whether someone is best known with or without "Sir" or "Dame" in their name. It also lacks a principled basis: if "Sir" is part of a person's name (which is is), then it should be in bold regardless of whether it's commonly used or not, because our policy is to put names in bold, even when they are rarely used full forms of names. We don't remove the bold from middle names simply because they're very rarely used. Obviously if someone rarely uses a title (as with many recently knighted actors), then that should be noted, but that doesn't stop it being part of their full name. Proteus (Talk) 17:36, 31 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)

RFC re: MOS:GENDERID and the Deadnames of Deceased Trans Persons

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)

Where is the agreement on asking these questions? There's a lot of discussion above, but I don't see agreement, and now the questions – not agreed on – have been raised on another page. I don't see this as being a respectful approach. EddieHugh (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize! Certainly wasn't my intention to be disrespectful. When discussion died down on the the above RFC (which was an RFC as to the proposal ... that spent a fair amount of time discussing what should happen next ... and then pivoted towards whether deadnaming should be limited at all), I decided to be bold and just suggest a different RFC. (I thought it might be a bit too much to essentially have an RFC for what an RFC should say, particularly bearing in mind that everyone is free to propose alternatives to an RFC's proposals!) I worked with User:Sideswipe9th, who proposed the last RFC, split the inquiry into three questions, and tried to incorporate proposals or ideas that were mentioned above and that were discussed in the discussions I had seen. Fortunately, the newest RFC has attracted a fair amount of attention and—at least for now—it appears a consensus might be possible on each of the questions—with other users suggesting one beginning (I can't emphasize enough it's very early) to look like a SNOW close. Hope you can participate!--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Excessive clutter of Gaddafi example

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 (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)

I support this effort, but I also think it is wise to use good examples, rather than make them up (we are after all, trying, when possible, to enshrine good practices that have community support, more than dictate good style from on high). If you don't have a good example to quote, it should be straightforward to create one. I do engage in this sort of edit on occasion myself, but I cannot think of a good example off the top of my head. — HTGS (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

My objection to the Gaddafi example is that it pushes the information that he was the ruler of Libya too far down. That should be mentioned right up front, as it is what is most notable about him. Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt I don't understand said objection. My edit had the same information in two sentences as the current first sentence. In addition, those two sentences were 25 words (174 characters) in length, whereas the current first sentence is 32 words (222 characters) long. If anything, the latter seems to push the information more than my version. What gives? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In my view, his leadership of Libya should be in the first sentence, as it is what makes him most notable. An opening in which the main claim to notability is pushed down so far may not be one we want to cite as an example. Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Therefore, I modified the first sentence of the Gaddafi page. I think it would be a good example to avoid clutter, if the change sticks. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented[7]. Any questions let me know. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Horrible convoluted example Moxy- 13:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific and point out issues that bother you please. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation notes

added for section, signing so as not to hinder archiving later — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation of titles

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)

Nope! Per MOS:JOBTITLE, they are only capitalized when coming before the person's name.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, per JOBTITLE, that exact construction could be capitalised in most contexts, as it uses the proper title. — HTGS (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a proper name for a unique office and is therefore capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Conflict between JOBTITLE and SURNAME

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)

Really interesting pickup! ... I would personally say, here, go with the capitalized version. Per WP:NCROY, royalty often use titles in lieu of surnames. As such, the title is part of the name. Though subtle, I think there's a distinction between saying, for example, "William, Prince of Wales" vs. "Charles was the prince of Wales". Notably, capitalization seems to be standard practice around the various articles: In this ongoing RFC discussing how a list of funeral attendees should be presented, no one is suggesting lowercasing titles. --Jerome Frank Disciple 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I do think there's a discrepancy between what the MOS states and actual Wikipedia practice; a reasonable reading of JOBTITLES would give 'William, prince of Wales' and 'Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester', but actual practice would fully capitalise both.

I am sympathetic to the NCROY argument that as royals often don't have surnames we should treat their titles as such and so capitalise them, although that doesn't translate to the nobility, like Dudley. Interestingly, another conflict is that NCROY suggests not using numerals, so 'Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester' rather than '1st earl of Leicester'. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I could have this wrong (if so, someone correct me)… but… My understanding is that the capitalization really depends on context. We would entitle his bio article: “William, Prince of Wales”. In running text we would also use: “William, Prince of Wales, attended…”(as that is referring to him by his formal royal title). However, in a different context we would write: “William became the prince of Wales in 2023”, because that is more of a job description. Hope this is correct and helpful. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have comes here from Talk:List_of_guests_at_the_coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla#RfC_on_capitalisation_and_peerage_format where I have expressed the view that MOS:SURNAME should guide us in the capitalization of, for example, William, Prince of Wales. It seems that MOS:SURNAME and many examples of usage on Wikipedia treat William, Prince of Wales as a name but that the conflict comes from,

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

which tells us that we can only count it as part of his name if the title comes before his given name rather than after. Would it be reasonable for this sentence to say something more like,

• When they can be considered to have become part of the name, i.e. when combined with a person's name to form a title: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII; William, Prince of Wales, not William, prince of Wales

This would remove the conflict between the two sets of guidance but perhaps would have other unintended consequences. Mgp28 (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Celia Rose Gooding § RfC on pronouns

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Celia Rose Gooding § RfC on pronouns. — HTGS (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that there are two dominant arguments (including my own), and that either of them should probably set precedent here. — HTGS (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC on JOBTITLES

Should the "Positions, offices, and occupational titles" section be changed to reflect actual practice, namely capitalising titles adjacent to names? ~~~~ A.D.Hope (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• CLOSE for longer RFCBEFORE or OPPOSE ... but might support some rephrasing of the guideline. For context, this discussion started above, with #Conflict between JOBTITLE and SURNAME. The proposer noted that, though JOBTITLES says to only capitalize titles before names, we do, in practice, capitalize some post-name titles, like "William, Prince of Wales". Above, I noted, "Per WP:NCROY, royalty often use titles in lieu of surnames. As such, the title is part of the name. Though subtle, I think there's a distinction between saying, for example, "William, Prince of Wales" vs. "Charles was the prince of Wales". Notably, capitalization seems to be standard practice around the various articles: In this ongoing RFC discussing how a list of funeral attendees should be presented, no one is suggesting lowercasing titles." I'd amend that to note, as NCROY does, that a similar title-in-lieu-of-surname practice is often used for non-royal nobility or consorts (Albert, Prince Consort). That said, there are a few exceptions, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell has both a surname and a title.
  Regardless of the inconsistency, I think the above proposal is too broad. I'd oppose an approach of capitalizing all adjacent titles (I'd prefer "George W. Bush, president of the United States at the time, ..." to "George W. Bush, President of the United States at the time, ...". I might support some explicit clarification to account for the type of British nobility titles OP has mentioned, but I think such an amendment should be tailored to those titles (and probably discussed at the relevant Wikiproject—Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility?—prior to an RFC).--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Over the past few weeks I've had a number of discussions about exactly when to capitalise titles; despite JOBTITLES the general consensus on English Wikipedia seems to be to capitalise them when they're directly adjacent to a person's name, except when they're commercial or informal. Rather than contradicting this, as JOBTITLES currently does, would it be worth updating the section? Although my preference would be for the current wording, I don't see any realistic prospect of either changing how titles are capitalised in practice or updating the thousands of articles which must technically be in violation of the MoS. Thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:JOBTITLE already reads:

  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.

  What change is being proposed? —Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Captalising when a title follows a person's name. JOBTITLES would currently have 'Richard Nixon, president of the United States', but I propose changing this to allow 'Richard Nixon, President of the United States' to better reflect how Wikipedia editors seem to capitalise in practice. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this proposal. To my eye, the example above is improper for English and promoting it would gradually lead to such words always being capitalized, more as in German. To try to "reflect how Wikipedia editors seem to" do something is not, in my opinion, a rational or sustainable way to organize the MOS.Dayirmiter (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The above example isn't improper English, to my knowledge, although admittedly it wouldn't be endorsed by the Chicago MoS. I do see your point, but then organising our MoS to work with editors rather than against them is both rational and sustainable, surely? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, I think most editors would use an article there, "Richard Nixon, the president of the United States, ...." Would your proposal also require capitalization there?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, it wouldn't. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, so just so I'm clear: "Richard Nixon, President of the United States at the time" but "Richard Nixon, the president of the United States at the time"?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. I know it's anecdotal, but that's the style a lot of editors seem to naturally adopt. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's a well established principle in a number of style guides where the title preceding the name is capitalized, but not when it follows the name. So "President Nixon" and "Richard Nixon, president of the United States," but not "Richard Nixon, President of the United States." I'd argue that where you see the later happening, it's both against the MOS and generally incorrect. More often, I've seen people misread MOS:JOBTITLE to say that "president Richard Nixon" is correct, probably confusing something like "the president, Richard Nixon," where it would be lowercased. That said, royal titles like "William, Prince of Wales," are a different case in part because you would never say "the President" in running text without the president's name, but you would say "the Prince of Wales" because of how the title acts as name. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mostly agree with your comment ... although I do want to caveat you would never say "the President" in running text without the president's name seems ... which I suppose might be true if you mean "on Wikipedia", but certainly outside of Wikipedia, "the president announced" is quite common.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that you should write "the President" in running text [w]hen a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office (the second bullet point of MOS:JOBTITLES). Rosbif73 (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for this! I was wondering where I had seen that—I wrongly assumed I had seen it in a third-party style guide, but I actually found that most style guides disagree! (In a 1999 article, William Safire announced that the NYT would be joining the AP in not capitalizing president even when referring to a specific person; he said his preference was to capitalize in such a case, though he said the approach was "no longer stylish".[8]) CMoS, AP, and NYT all seem to now agree to lowercase it. I must have seen that passage in MOS:JOBTITLES and just forgot it was there!--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, at the moment our MoS is very clear on 'the President' rather than 'the president' when referring to a specific person. Again, although that usage seems to have fallen out of favour among style guides it does still seem to be popular on Wikipedia, so changing it is a question of balancing stylistic trends with how editors actually write. As I understand it neither usage is really wrong, after all.

  I do wonder if the best thing would be to make the MoS itself less absolute on this issue and title capitalisation, and aim for consistency within a page rather than across the whole enyclopedia? I think @Mgp28 will back me up when I say that there are pages where the main editors would resist the MoS as currently written being strictly imposed, and not unreasonably. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hurm, the examples there are "Queen" and "Pope", which seem a bit different to me than president, mostly because royal (and to a degree ecclesiastical) titles seem to be referring to the person, while president and governor would refer more to the office (i.e., one is more about WHO it is, the other is about the person's position). But that also sounds like I'm stretching for a rationale ... :) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it would feel totally wrong to write "the king" or "the pope" (referring to a specific person at a given point in time) but somehow more acceptable to write "the prime minister" or "the bishop" in the same context. If we are to change the guidance, we need clear rationale for the distinction. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have followed this discussion around a few different conversations since Talk:List_of_guests_at_the_coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla#RfC_on_capitalisation_and_peerage_format. At that point it applied to princes, earls, lords and so on. MOS:SURNAME advised to capitalize these names. I was unconvinced that MOS:JOBTITLE should apply to all of these people but there was a possible contradiction so I suggested above that it might make sense to rephrase the example for when the title has become part of the name:

  • When they can be considered to have become part of the name, i.e. when combined with a person's name to form a title: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII; William, Prince of Wales, not William, prince of Wales

  I still think this could be reasonable, but only in the context of the title being part of the name in that position, not generically whenever a title follows a name. I would not think we should expand it to "Richard Nixon, President". Also, as presently phrased it might suggest capitalizing job titles that are never used as part of a name, "Adam Smith, Butcher", which I don't think it the intent. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Noteworthy" or "notable" roles in the first para/sentence

In December 2020 the "Opening paragraph" section ended its list of what should be included with:

4 "The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; (Linking WP:NOTEWORTHY for "noteworthy")

5 Why the person is notable. (linking Wikipedia:Notability (people))"

Today the equivalent text, now called "Opening sentence", reads:

4 "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (linking Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for "noteworthy")

5 The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) (linking Wikipedia:Notability (people))

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)

Can we stop misgendering neopronoun users?

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)

So we had a huge discussion about this last year, which is footnoted in the guidance. I would personally also take exception to the idea that not using a person's neopronoun in the running prose of the article constitutes misgendering. Pronouns can be representative of gender identity, but there's not a one-to-one mapping. Folly Mox (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY

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)

There is often overlap, but… Nationality/citizenship is not identical to Ethnicity. To give an example, say someone is a French citizen with Japanese ethnicity… In the lead sentence we would say “Jean Doe is a French photographer”. We might note his Japanese heritage somewhere else in the article (perhaps in an “early life” section), but we would not include it in the lead sentence. Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

To me, the key tension/contradiction is between the first sentence and the second. The paragraph assumes that the context for the activities that made the person notable will 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.

So we have the carve-out for the UK "home nations", but at the same time editors stumble long doing OR investigation or making heroic assumptions about the presumptive "citizenship, nationality or permanent residency" of academics who have multiple legal citizenship, and whose context of notability may not be especially tied to any nationality. On enwiki we also accept contrasting treatment of similar biographical figures depending on just how far editors are willing to ground the opening paragraph in the balance of the "context of notability" documented in the highest-quality sources available, or rely on a fundamentalist reading of MOS:ETHNICITY that, in the hands of some editors, would accept only an identity accompanied by a passport and a seat at the UN.

While I do recognize tensions in the rest of the section as well, I think the key elision happens between the first sentence and the second. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The first two sentences read fine. The problem is that some will ignore "in most modern-day cases" and treat it as "in all modern-day cases". And there's anyways WP:IAR to customize individual situations, when there is consensus that it makes sense for that page. —Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As Blueboar said, ethnicity is different than nationality. If we were to list ethnicities, many Americans would have some strange "ethnicity" attributed to them, which may actually be legitimately discussed later in their "Early life" or such section after the lead. It is quite relevant and important to identify what nationality people are (or what country of the UK they are from or associated with, if any, in the case of the UK). Ethnicity per se should not be in the lead unless the person is notable for their ethnic background or something related to it. An indigenous activist might be notable for their ethnicity (vs. nationality) but someone who is merely indigenous but not notable for anything related to it does not need to have that listed until details about their background are handled after the lead. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The question here is not whether or not to recognize that 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.

It seems to me that "citizenship, nationality or permanent residency" is not intended in this guideline to override the 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)

GENDERID - When to include deadnames, post-RfC discussion

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)

Surely not... we've only just finished discussing this after 2 months. And less than 2 years after the last time. Last time, the closing recommendation was: "we recommend considering a subsequent RfC that frames the subject very narrowly: 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." This wasn't pursued. Why pursue part of the more recent close? Could we not all have some peace for a reasonable amount of time? EddieHugh (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the closer actually suggested that there be a follow up to topic 2 after workshopping some ideas; I actually think there's some argument for using the momentum and information gleamed from the RFC rather than waiting and potentially no longer having a sense of the community's position.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion that was just closed came with the recommendation for further discussion on the narrow issue of what the barrier for inclusion should be, to quote from the closure 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.

As for why we should follow the recommendation from the more recent closure, it's a simple matter of consensus changing over time. The just closed RfC is more representative of where the community consensus currently lies than the closure of the RfC from two years ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it? We could re-run the one from 2 years ago (joking). EddieHugh (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)