Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

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".[1]) 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)

• Now that's its become clear this is about writing ""Richard Nixon, President of the United States" instead of "Richard Nixon, president of the United States", I hvae to oppose, because the comma separates them into separate clauses, and the title is no longer directly connected to the name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we stop misgendering neopronoun users?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has gotten quite heated for one in which most participants substantially agree. I'm going to attempt an involved close here before this devolves into something worse. If anyone desperately feels that this should continue, feel free to revert me (just please copy this comment to the discussion itself); but hear me out first.

• There was a strong consensus in the November RfC to generally use they/them in lieu of neopronouns, and to the extent that a discussion like this can serve as a straw-poll of change in consensus, it seems that that remains by far the prevailing view in the community.
• The question of whether this constitutes misgendering is probably a red herring, but regardless most participants felt that it either doesn't at all, or only conditionally does.
• No one has identified any specific articles where they/them is used over the subject's explicit objection. No one seems to be arguing that, in such a case, we must use they/them, compared to an alternative of surname-only or even, potentially, using neopronouns as a one-off case. (A local consensus for the latter seems unlikely as of this writing, but would not contradict the guideline.)
• Concerns about editors' conduct can be raised at AN/I or AE (cf. WP:GENSEX, WP:ARBATC) as appropriate, but I'm hoping that closing at this juncture can prevent that.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The current policy is to use they/them when someone uses neopronouns, which is very confusing because one of the main reasons people have to use neopronouns is that they want a gender neutral pronoun but are uncomfortable being called they/them. I think the policy should be to use whatever pronouns are requested, with the exception of satire. Example of satire: when Michelle Malkin said her pronouns are "u/s/a". Afroswordguy (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

This is the English language Wikipedia. Hence, it should use English words, not phantasy words. Linguistically, Pronouns are a closed word class. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This kind of statement baffles me from both the perspective of Wikipedia's mission statement and just overall the entire concept of language and its evolution. Words are not handed down to us from on high, they emerge naturally as people use them, and those words then change over time thanks to linguistic drift.

Just because a pronoun is made up doesn't make it not a real word, for the same reason that just because the word "yeet" is made up doesn't make it not a real word. Words are words because people use them, not because some higher authority decided they are words. IcarusAvery (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@IcarusAvery: True in Engliish, though not in e.g. French, where there actually is a governing body (the Académie Française) that holds authority over the official definition of the language, and is responsible for deciding which words are standard French and which are not.

You're correct, though, that the English language is entirely defined by usage. English dictionaries are reactive, not prescriptive: They document the evolving language after-the-fact, based on usage encountered "in the wild". New words enter the English language the same way every existing word did: when it becomes common usage. There is no such thing as a closed word class — what an utter "phantasy".

(I especially love it when people use the phrase "made-up words", like that somehow makes a word not "real". ALL words are made up!) FeRDNYC (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's not be silly. I do not believe for one second that you do not know that what is meant is "recently made up words", i.e. MOS:NEOLOGISMS. The objection is to their lack of broad acceptance in the language, not to the fact that someone coined them, because of course everything in language was ultimately coined by someone at some time. You're basically engaging in a fallacy of equivocation and a subtle form of straw man, in attacking a carefully selected meaning of a phrase when everyone here knows that it was not the intended meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(Wikipedia's List of language regulators is quite long, and amazingly enough English appears to be the only firm "None" on the list! Though there are surely many other languages that are "None"s by omission.) FeRDNYC (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you discern which are satire and which are not? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: how do you discern whether a public figure stating their birthday is satire? (Example of satire: James Acaster on Sunday Brunch.) WP:BLPSELFPUB with a dose of WP:IAR suffices. There's nothing special about pronouns. — Bilorv (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Cisgender gay male ally of transgender and nonbinary people here: To start with, using "they" instead of whatever pronoun a given nonbinary person has prescribed for use for themselves isn't misgendering them. Calling someone "they" instead of "ze" or "ter" or "xe" or any of the other forms that have been proposed over the years isn't misgendering them, it's simply failing to, or refusing to, use an idiosyncratic pronoun. "Ze" doesn't imply a different gender from "they", they both convey that the referent individual falls outside of the male-female dichotomy.

Setting aside that terminological comment: Over the years there were various proposals for nonbinary pronouns. A long time ago I read a claim that the community seemed to be settling on "ze", "zir", "zeir". That seemed great to me. But in the end, the consensus came around to the reuse of the plural pronoun. I've always thought that was dumb, by the way, but that's the reality of it, and in English it's a fait accompli that "they" has become the nonbinary pronoun.

Suppose that in 1950, a self-identifying cisgender man had announced that he wanted to be referred to as "zoom" instead of "he"—expecting people to remember it (and also to remember similar requests from many other people, if self-tailored pronouns were to become the fashion), and being offended if people didn't know or didn't remember or chose to ignore his preference. It would have been asking an awful lot. It would have amounted to his having unilaterally declared, based on his own preference, a transfer of pronouns out of the realm of grammar and, like people's names, into the realm of individual identification. To me, the idea seems impractical and unreasonable.

That being my view in that scenario, it isn't different for nonbinary people. For that reason, I support uniformly using "they" for nonbinary people on Wikipedia. It's the established pronoun for that purpose. If they say they're being misgendered by that, I consider that to be an objectively false assessment of the situation. Largoplazo (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude - I'm sure you're arguing in good faith and don't have any malice here - but as someone who was there when using "they/them" pronouns was considered contentious (to be frank, they still are, just not as severely) hearing the phrase "if they say they're being misgendered by that, I consider that to be an objectively false assessment of the situation" feels very much like that old meme "I thought was experiencing transphobia, but thank God I had this cis person here to tell me I'm wrong."

You (that's a general "you", not you specifically) do not get to decide if someone else isn't actually being misgendered. Using "they/them" for someone who you know uses "fae/faer" or whatever is equivalent to and just as bad as using "they/them" for someone who you know uses "she/her" or using "she/her" or "he/him" for someone who you know uses "they/them." You are actively denying someone a part of their identity. If someone uses neopronouns exclusively, those are the pronouns you use for that person.

In the case of "this person uses multiple sets of pronouns, some neopronouns and some more traditional ones" I can see the argument being made to primarily use the more traditional ones (especially using just a single set of them) in formal writing like Wikipedia just for ease of reading, but if Jane Doe over here uses "fae/faer" and no other pronouns, using "they/them" for faer is misgendering faer unless fae comes out and says "I don't personally consider that to be misgendering me" or something along those lines. IcarusAvery (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but - no. "They" is a perfectly acceptable neutral pronoun to use in a catch-all capacity. Wiki editors (and people in general) are not expected to remember and recite any esoteric, obscure, and even conjured neopronoun. "They" is, by its very nature, a neutral way to refer to anyone. — Czello ^(music) 23:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

More generally, Wikipedia readers cannot be expected to be able to read and understand made-up and non-standard words. That is why MOS:NEO states that neologisms "should generally be avoided". Neopronouns are by their nature neologisms. Singular they is not; it has many centuries of history of usage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:NEO should apply to neopronouns, personally, and I think the policy at MOS:NEOPRONOUN may eventually come to be seen as stuffy and behind-the-times. But, that's probably to be expected, as it's an encyclopedia's job to be a little bit stuffy, and relatively slow to react to changes in the world.

(Because, the world is changing, in terms of its views on personal pronouns. It doesn't really matter what people of my generation think. (I'm 48.) We'll all be dead any moment now — on a geological time scale — and many younger minds have very different views on this subject in particular. Those views will likely come to dominate, eventually.)

And TBH, I actually find it refreshing that the world at large — even the older generations, for the most part — have grown to embrace singular "they" as readily and as widely as we collectively have. There was a time, even just 10, 20 years ago, when you'd have had people arguing that the only singular pronouns are "he"/"him" and "she"/"her". All bases are covered by those two, they'd have insisted, and when in doubt just use "he"/"him" because patriarchy. We've already come a long way since then, actually, and only fairly recently. FeRDNYC (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

As a principal editor of MoS for over a decade, I can assure you that neopronouns were definitely part of the rationale behind MOS:NEO; they are not excluded for a reason. You're possibly correct that "MOS:NEOPRONOUN may eventually come to be seen as stuffy and behind-the-times"; all of MOS:GENDERID once did, as did several other MoS passages that have since changed (including MOS:POSS and MOS:JR, etc.). They changed when real-world practice had overwhelmingly changed, and these changes were then reflected in the academic-leaning style guides that MoS is actually based on (Chicago, Garner's, Oxford/Hart's, Fowler's). That hasn't happened yet with neo-pronouns and quite possibly never will, because changing the inflectional morphology of a language, including very basic words like pronouns, is extraordinarily difficult to engineer. (It's linguistically very different from coining a new noun, verb, or phrase.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to echo IcarusAvery and say that misgendering is something that's defined by the individual, not by your personal opinion on what constitutes misgendering. people use neopronouns because they want to be referred to by neopronouns. if they were okay with they/them pronouns then they would use they/them pronouns instead of or in addition to neopronouns. you may not agree that this is the case, but it is harmful to use they/them pronouns to refer to someone who, for example, comes out as a trans woman and expresses that she wants to be referred to with she/her pronouns. she's told you what her pronouns are and intentionally using different pronouns (outside of situations where you would use they/them pronouns for anyone) is probably going to feel like misgendering to her. the same goes for people who use neopronouns.

I would support a proposal to use neopronouns for people who use neopronouns. I understand the reasons we don't do so now but I don't think it ultimately makes sense that we're drawing arbitrary lines about whose pronouns we respect. Tekrmn (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That means "misgendering" under your personal definition – which is clearly not the one in general use in the language, frankly – would be an idiolect matter, and WP is not and cannot be written in idiolects, or readers will not understand the material. This is very closely (via the concept of microaggressions, etc.) tied to the notion that "an attack" or "violence" is entirely defined by the alleged victim. This is a sometimes a useful notion in entirely individual contexts such as a psychotherapy session ("all trauma is trauma", "your feelings are valid", etc.) but has no applicability to more objective contexts like legal systems or encyclopedia writing; you don't get to randomly punish other people for "attacking" or "doing violence" to you that are not more objectively defined as attacks or violence by the community/society in which you are operating.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

you brought this topic to my talk page, where you said you weren't interested in continuing to engage with me on it. I have no interest in continuing to discuss this with you either, so I'd appreciate if you would not seeking out previous comments I've made on the subject, or otherwise try to continue a discussion with me on it. Tekrmn (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a public discussion page. You cannot expect what you assert here to go unaddressed. Discussion and consensus formation does not work that way. There is no "right to speak your mind unchallenged on Wikipedia". And the behaviorial issues I raised in user-talk are completely severable from the substantive matters I am addressing above; they're barely related at all. And you directly asked me to come to your talk page about these matters[2], and even said "if you can clarify why you feel it [Tekrmn behavior in this topic] is any of those things [objections SMcCandlish made to that behavior] I'd be more than happy to consider any insight you might provide"[3]. I did so rather patiently, even identifying exactly which wording came across as aspersion-casting and name-calling, and how to avoid that; but then you just censored the entire thread away without comment. So, this is coming off as just a bit disingenuous, along WP:1HAND lines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

you've already addressed the very same assertion on this talk page, without responding to any of my other points and while accusing me of a myriad of logical fallacies and then going on to accuse me of a myriad of bad faith behavior.

your summary of the events is pretty seriously edited. Tekrmn (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes, my editing is usually serious. Yes, I raised a behaviorial point here, and you said you'd rather discuss it in user talk so I took it there, then after offering to engage you did the opposite. (And having said my piece I had dropped the behavioral matter entirely.) I'm now trying to address content-specific matters here, but you're dragging our attention back toward to the behavioral dispute. Is there any kind of point to doing that?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

again, a mischaracterization of what happened, but my point is that I'd like you to stop seeking out every possible opportunity to start an argument with me. Tekrmn (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you’re unable to address SmC’s comments on your “misgendering” statements. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

there have been points raised about the practicality of using neopronouns when many of our readers do not speak english as a first language, which I found quite compelling, so there's no reason for me to continue this discussion. being "unable to address" another editor's comments is far from the only reason one might not engage with said editor, especially when the discussions have been contentious. Tekrmn (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have nothing to add you could simply stop replying? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In your argument you conflate the pronoun with the gender. If your analysis is correct, is there one gender to which all people who wish to be referred to as "they" belong, one gender to which all people who wish to be referred to as "fae" belong, and are those different genders? I suspect not. Conversely, if there is a gender (other than male or female) with which multiple people identify and, of those people, some wish to be referred to as "they" and some as "fae", then, since my premise is that they're of the same gender, how can using "they" for someone of that gender who prefers "fae", or vice versa, be misgendering them when both pronouns are in use to refer to people of that same gender?

It's the same as the cis man I put forth in my previous remarks who wants to be referred to as "zoom". He isn't denying that he's male, a man. Therefore, no matter how upset he might get when people go right on referring to him as "he", any argument by the self-identifying male that he's being "misgendered" when he's referred to using the standard pronoun for referring to self-identifying males is counterfactual. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Colloquially, referring to someone using the wrong pronouns, like ascribing the wrong gender identity to them, is an act of "misgendering". It's not literal, since you can't actually gender someone... how would that even work? But in languages (like English) where certain pronouns are traditionally associated with certain genders, pointing to someone and saying, "this man", or using "sir", "he", or "him" to refer to that person, when they don't identify as a male using he/him pronouns, all constitut pretty much the same offense.

How (or whether) that extends to other pronouns that don't necessarily fall into those traditional gender divides — like singular "they" — is a topic of discussion and debate. There's no definitive answer on that, and opinions will vary. But holding up someone your strawman and claiming zoom is wrong or being logically inconsistent simply because zoom's views on pronouns and gendering are different from your own feels like a losing one. FeRDNYC (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Already regretting not using "strawperson".) FeRDNYC (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If that's what "misgendering" means colloquially, then when you say I'm "misgendering" somebody by using a pronoun that isn't the one they prefer, all you're saying is that I'm using a pronoun that isn't the one they prefer, which is vastly different from what I understand that word to mean, which is to assign them to the wrong gender. The latter is to deny their gender, which is wrong; the former is simply not to go along with an idiosyncratic demand that is independent of gender. Yet your use of that word implies that I'm committing the former. That's a deception. It sounded like you were telling me I was doing something bad, but now you're telling me is that all you're doing is restating what I'd already said using in different terms.

It reminds me of something the comedy writer Alan King once wrote (paraphrasing here): "When my lawyer found out I didn't have a will, he said, 'Alan, don't you realize that if you die without a will, you can die intestate?' He scared the hell out of me until I looked up 'intestate' in the dictionary and found out it means 'dying without leaving a will'. So this genius was telling me that if I die without leaving a will, I'm going to die without leaving a will. That gem cost me $20." (Lawyers' billing rates were much lower in 1961 than they are now.) As in Alan King's story, you used the word "misgender" in a way that implied I was doing something that should be of concern. Then it turned out it only meant that I was doing what I'd already acknowledged I was doing. Basically, this colloquial usage has rendered the word powerless, which is not really a result that you want if you also want to be able to use it to refer to actual misgendering, which I agree is a problem. If people have extended the meaning of the word in that manner, then they've shot it the foot. It should no longer be used in discourse because it can be used to mean one thing while sounding like it means something else. Avoid the word altogether and say what you actually mean. Am I saying we shouldn't feel obliged to memorize new pronouns for people who want to invent them for themselves? Yes. Am I calling a nonbinary person a man or a woman? No. Let's keep that distinction clear. Alternatively, let everyone agree to stop using "misgender" for this new, "colloquial" meaning. It's rhetorically sloppy.

It's like calling anyone who opposes the current policies of the Israeli government (as I do) anti-Semitic. That conflates Judaism, the nation of Israel, and the current policies of the Israeli government into a single thing. I'm proudly Jewish and I support the existence of Israel. To call me anti-Semitic is absurd. To justify it by explaining to me that "colloquially, 'anti-Semitism' is used to mean anyone who opposes today's Israeli treatment of Palestinians" doesn't lessen the absurdity.

My "zoom" example isn't a strawman, it's an analogy that's exactly on point. The rules of rational discourse apply to those of us who are in various non-privileged categories (two of which pertain to me) as much as it does to cisgender male white Christian people. Largoplazo (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Using singular-they for people who use recently made-up "pronouns" isn't "misgendering", it's become normal everyday English practice for both indeterminate cases and as a socially acceptable way to avoid neopronouns. It is also the only way our material is going to be parseable by everyone. We cannot expect readers to understand completely random strings like "xe", "hirm", "fae", "tree" (yes, that's a real case), or whatever as pronouns. And writing like we're on our personal Facebook page will just bring the project into disrepute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC); edited to include the obvious "recently", to put a stop to pointless "all words are made up" responses. 02:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to see a source stating that it's normal and socially acceptable to intentionally misgender people.

I don't think it's crazy to expect our readers to comprehend the use of neopronouns if we state at the beginning of the article that the person uses neopronouns. we're not even asking them to be able to use the neopronouns themselves, they only need to recognize that any of the given 3-4 words refer to the subject. if our readers can't comprehend simple word association we have bigger issues.

also not seeing any connection between neopronouns and the linked policy.

I hardly think that following in the footsteps of harvard university (in 2015 for that matter), the new york times, and many other well-respected organizations and institutions would bring wikipedia to disrepute. Tekrmn (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't respond to ridiculous straw man fallacies. Try formulating an actually logical response instead of trying to insult my and everyone else's intelligence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I directly responded to the points in your comment so I'm unclear on how that's a straw man fallacy. it was not my intention to attack your or anyone else's intelligence, but to point out that your argument that neopronouns are too confusing doesn't bear much weight. I apologize for the way it landed. Tekrmn (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Characterizing other editors and external writers as "stating that it's normal and socially acceptable to intentionally misgender people", when what they actually said is that using singular-they is acceptable as a default and as an alternative to neo-pronouns, is a raging straw man, and also a mix of circular reasoning, begging the question, argument from repetition and ipse dixit. The idea that using singular-they broadly is "misgendering" is your own proposition, which you have failed to prove to much of anyone's satisfaction, and just saying it over and over again isn't going to convince anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

feel free to refer to my answer to this same point that you posed on my talk page. Tekrmn (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Done, on the behavioral matters. More source research, on the substance of what you wrote above:

Extended content

NYT doesn't routinely (or even at all so far as I've seen, and I've been looking for some time) actually use neopronouns; they just happened to have published an opinion piece about them [4] (and publishing articles about stuff, whether the publisher agrees with it or not, is kind of what newspapers exist for). Fox News (of course) attacked them for it. [5] NYT strategy has been to avoid using pronouns at all in cases of subjects who use neopronouns (and the publication was predictably attacked for it by activists [6]). Time actually did use neopronouns in one piece (can't find any evidence of later ones) and caught criticism for it, which was reported on by Daily Mail [7] (which says "a co-founder of Wikipedia" was among the critics, which I would guess refers to Larry Sanger since it sounds out-of-character for Jimbo). Irish Times published something similar [8]; I've not run into any major reaction material about it (which kind of surprises me due to Ireland's majority Catholicism). NBC News published some more straightforward reporting on neopronouns and they [9] (and notably used techniques like repeating the surname, and using they, rather than actually using the neopronouns in the publication's own voice). Other mainstream newspapers have published what amount to counter-essays (e.g. [10], [11] (pushback from a civil liberties expert), and this one [12] which indicates push-back within the LGBTQIA+ community itself (though this one is a regional not national paper). A more neutral piece [13] from a regional NBC News affilliate covers the long history of neopronouns, which go back further than people think; the take-away from this is that attempts to institute them since the 19th century have failed. It notably also shows that even close family members of TG/NB people have lasting trouble with pronoun changes. BuzzFeed News does not use neopronouns [14], and quotes AP Stylebook as the "authority" for why: "[Do] not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and are unrecognizable as words to general audiences." That is certainly the main WP concern. (I don't own the current edition [15], so I don't know if AP has changed on this in the interim.) Speaking of AP, their newswire article here addresses neopronouns without recommending them and says "They are not widely used and are unfamiliar to many people, but they do offer the benefit of grammatical clarity" versus singular-they (but WP editors already have years of practice at using they without producing confusing constructions, so we don't care about that last point, which from a linguistic perspective is extremely dubious to begin with, since there is no basis for interpreting the function or nature of a word that is not recognized as a word!). It also notes that GLAAD and NLGJA both recommend to "use the pronouns that people request" (i.e. probably including neopronouns); this is telling: both are activistic organizations, and AP is defying them, despite otherwise being often over-eager to adopt "progressive" language-reform ideas. This was published after the current edition of AP Stylebook so it probably has not changed on this matter (next edition comes out in 2025 or maybe late 2024). All that said, dredging up competing examples of "what some newspaper or news style guide is doing" is rarely actually useful to do in MoS discussions, because MoS is not based on news style, as a matter of policy (WP:NOT#NEWS, "Wikipedia is not written in news style"). However, exploring this at least demonstrates a few things: mainstream journalism is not broadly jumping on the neopronoun bandwagon, beyond just observing it as a phenomenon, and brief forays into that territory tend to result in controversy (which most news publishers that are not far-right or far-left try strenuously to avoid). On Harvard University: What I'm finding is a short backgrounder [16] on pronouns including neopronouns, which they tellingly refer to as "personal gender pronouns" (i.e., it is a matter of idiolect as I've said elsewhere); but the page's purpose is simply "a reference that provides basic working definitions to facilitate shared discussions"; it is not a policy that Harvard is officially going to write with neopronouns or make students use them. The links on that page that go to other Harvard resources don't help your case; they don't advise neopronouns. The one here says "Commonly used pronouns include: she/her/hers, he/him/his, they/them/theirs" without any mention of neopronouns. Other links there just go to external organizations, most of them activistic about the question. Harvard's workplace inclusivity policy [17] has a section on pronouns, but it does not address neopronouns. Their "Gender Identity and Pronouns" page [18] makes no mention of neopronouns. Their Office for Gender Equity surprisingly has no hits for the word "pronouns" other than staff bios' declarations of particular indiviudals' preferred pronouns [19]. Their "Equity, Diversity, Access, Inclusion, and Belonging" pamphlet [20] mentions a couple of neopronouns, but says nothing that can be interpreted as a policy to use them by the university or to enforce their use by students or faculty. Their Employee Resource Groups subsite, which includes the Harvard LGBTQ+ Faculty and Staff (Queer Employee Resource Group), has no hits for "pronouns" or "pronoun" at all [21]. Their "Creating Gender Inclusive Learning Environments for Transgender and Nonbinary Student" presentation [22] mentions they several times, and mentions the existence of neopronouns without advising anytihng about them (and includes phrasing I think some people here would object to: "non-binary genders (e.g. so-called xenogenders, which do occur albeit infrequently, or neopronouns)". A page on "Creating an inclusive environment for transgender and gender-nonbinary teens" never mentions pronouns [23]. After pretty exhaustive searching, I can find no evidence at all to suggest that Harvard is some bastion of neopronous usage. And as with news style, WP isn't based on some particular academic institution's style anyway, and MoS was not written from any of their style guides (notwithstanding that Chicago Manual of Style is published by the U. of Chicago; it's a style guide for public use, not an internal university style guide).

Anyway, that all took a couple of hours, and I'm going back to working on article content. :-) PS: "if we state at the beginning of the article that the person uses neopronouns" presumes people read our articles from top to bottom like they're reading a book, and we know for a fact from research that this is not true, especially on mobile devices, which now account for over 50% of our usage. We just had an RfC that overhauled our MOS:DUPLINK because of these facts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No one has yet to bring forth evidence that each and every neopronoun maps one-to-one with a unique gender, which is the assumption upon which the charge of misgendering rests. Folly Mox (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"misgendering" is used to denote using the wrong pronouns for someone because mispronouning sounds unpleasant. gender is super individualized, even among cis people. not everyone who uses he/him pronouns is a man and not every man experiences their gender differently. the only thing people who use he/him pronouns necessarily have in common is that they use he/him pronouns. the same is true for any pronouns- an individual feels they fit so they use those pronouns- there's not a one to one relationship between a person's gender and the pronouns they use. it is true that many people experience their gender in ways that are pretty out of the box, which may lead them to use neopronouns. Tekrmn (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Saying "they" isn't intentionally misgendering anyone; it's the opposite of that. — Czello ^(music) 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, there are some traditionalists who refuse to use singular they and feel misgendered when they are called "they" rather than "he" or "she". I would still use singular they for such people in cases where I am referring to them generically or when I am trying to conceal their identity, but I think that in cases where one is referring to a specific and known person, known to have such beliefs, it would be appropriate to use "he" or "she" rather than "they".

As for neopronouns: how about, I don't make assumptions about what gender you are and you don't insist that I use a different and unfamiliar dialect of English, with a different vocabulary, than the one I normally speak? Language is a very personal thing, maybe as personal as gender. Imposing it on other people is rude. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's called idiolect, and WP is not and cannot be written in it on an article-by-article basis. People with unusual pronoun expectations cannot reasonably expect them to be followed by newspaper writers, TV news anchors, or encyclopedists, because we have an actual huge and diverse audience to deal with. Neo-pronouns are for one's self and one's close circle, who have been informed of them and what they signify. Signification is really at the core of this recurrent and kind of tiresome debate: neo-pronouns signify nothing automatically to anyone, as they are not a part of the learned semi-standardized language; they are idiolect devices that signify something only to a small "inside" crowd. They are thus akin to pet names, nicknames, and other terms of endearment. Things might be different if English adopted a set of near-univerally understood additional pronouns, but this clearly is not going to happen, and even if it did, a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway. The very fact that some neopronouns were proposed in a rather organized fashion from the late 1960s yet have a) seen nearly no real-world adoption except at a very individual level, and b) led instead to an ever-grown profusion of idiolect neo-pronouns from the 2000s onward, is clear proof of this. (In my own social circle I'm exposed to dozens of neo-pronouns, and notably zero of the people they pertain to are ever offended by a singular-they because all of them are rationale people and quite well aware that there are too many neo-pronouns for anyone to be expected to remember and use them except among their closest circle.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there is already potential confusion for many readers in articles, e.g. where "trans woman" means someone who was born/assigned as a man and may not be a term the reader understands, where "they" maybe be used as both singular and plural when there is an ambiguous referent (this is a major problem on Wikipedia), where "he" or "she" may refer to someone whom the reader does not understand in that sense, etc.

Mightn't neo-pronouns actually be less confusing than ambiguous uses of "they"? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No. We resolve this problem where it exists by clarifying the prose. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

So there is no case where it could be useful to have neopronouns in an article? We need to have a blanket policy against it? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The only example I can think of is where we make a one-off mention of their neopronouns. I cannot imagine it would make for a good article for us to use them throughout. — Czello ^(music) 18:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We're already doing the one-off mentioning, and it is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with this position, but such a broad generalisation as a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway strikes me as unnecessarily pointed and derisive. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish please strike your derisive comment about your fellow editors (myself included). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I had to read it twice, and do not see anything I'd consider "derisive". Care to elaborate? Otherwise, please strike the false claim. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole - as highlighted by XAM2175, the comment "a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway" is derisive. We don't need drawn out versions of calling people snowflakes. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch, especially considering there are new/recent users here that appear to be following the letter if not the spirit of WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE with endless arguments about GENDERID "issues" (I put it in quotes because IMO there is no issue; follow the reliable sources and apply DUE as necessary; most of MOS:GENDERID is wholly unnecessary instruction creep as it is, adding to it is simply going to create even more potential for conflict). Maybe SMcCandlish's comment belongs in an AN/I or ARBCOM discussion, but ignoring behavior and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on display is disruptive to the project. We're not here to change the world beyond providing a free and open source for knowledge. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is an area with many WP:RGW folks. And I myself get annoyed with the pronoun police. But dealing with those editors is part of the "job" as admin and long term editors. That still doesn't give SMcCandlish the right to call me, fellow editors, and the many good-faith editors on this topic snowflakes who would delight in forcing people to use "made up pronouns". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing "derisive" in noting that people enjoy and take pride in their self-identification and activism activities. Pride Month is called that, and is a big fun affair for almost everyone concerned, for a reason. I'll remind you that I'm under the LGBTQIA+ banner myself (I just spent the last two weekend staffing booths at related events!). I don't need censorious "you're not being left the way I insist the left should be" lecturing from other people under the same tent. The far right is on the rise for a reason, and that reason is that the left keeps attacking itself over insipid, doctrinaire, language-policing squabbles, and this topic area is a nasty mire in large part because of that holier-than-thou behavior. PS: Trying hard to find offense in what other editors write is a form of assuming bad faith.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: And I never called anyone a "snowflake" (which is just your dog-whistle way of trying to imply that I'm a rightwinger – your attempt to cast me as some kind of socio-political ideological "enemy" to go after is unbecoming an administrator). I also never said anyting about "forcing people" to do anything. You're making up bald-faced bullshit out of nowhere. It's ad hominem and guilt by association character-assassination nonsense, and you know it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your tone and message in that original comment do not match how 2 other editors have interpreted it. I don't think I am the one trying hard for anything. Regardless, I'm clearly more on your side with the "insipid, doctrinaire, language-policing squabbles" concerns (see my comment below). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that my actual tone and message don't agree with 2 other editors' personal interpretations. I'm not responsible for how other people bend over backwards to misinterpret things and then to cast people they disagree with on something as ideological "enemies". I will not be browbeaten into self-censoring on a matter like this. Implication and inference are not synonyms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: to say that I'm unimpressed by this full-throttle descent into assumptions of bad faith would be a major understatement, and it's a ridiculously overblown response to a simple suggestion of mine that you had incorporated a single potentially offensive line into a statement of opinion that I otherwise broadly endorsed. Please consider the full sentence that you wrote: Things might be different if English adopted a set of near-univerally understood additional pronouns, but this clearly is not going to happen, and even if it did, a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway.

I suggest that this could be read as you passing judgment on trans and NB people in bulk, because their gleefully coining yet more pronouns would frustrate a resolution to the issue that you believe would otherwise be satisfactory. In such a reading, the actual meaning you've subsequently given – that people enjoy and take pride in their self-identification and activism activities – is entirely absent; replaced by something that can be read as far more derogatory, more of a cheap drive-by shot at a group of which it could appear that you disapprove.

I note with some disappointment that your response to this suggestion appears to echo that which on a previous occasion lead to no small amount of contention within the community and resulted in your publishing this lengthy explanatory essay, in which – amongst a certain number of polemical points on the same lines as your responses above – you do ultimately acknowledge that you failed to consider that your audience might not interpret your writing and understand your meaning and intent as you yourself did.

I would further note that @Locke Cole also appears to have interpreted your original post as being negative in nature, as EvergreenFir and myself did. The major difference, however, is that he appears to believe that the negativity is not only defensible but perhaps even appropriate, and at the very least good enough to act as a COATRACK for his feelings on GENDERID as a whole. That he seems to view such a derisory generalisation as being proportionate in countering what he describes as a [disruptive] WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from a handful of new/recent users here is somewhat concerning. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel a compelling need to be impressed by what you're unimpressed by. "this could be read as you passing judgment on trans and NB people in bulk ... a group of which it could appear that you disapprove" is more leaping to the worst possible conclusion about what another editor wrote and basically engaging in character assassination to make a point; i.e., it's blatant assumption of bad faith at bare mimimum. I agree that it's "concerning" when people rampantly misinterpret material and bend it to toward their own prejudices; I'm just concerned about more than one editor doing it in more than one direction, while you're only apparently concerned with a single editor doing it in a direction that doesn't agree with your position. I'm more evenhanded in my dismissal of fallacious, word-twisting, and motive-assuming nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

All words in English are made up words SMcCandlish, and those that eventually enter the dictionary do so because of their use by others, and not because some body has decreed them to be so. That's not really a strong argument against using neopronouns over singular they. I also don't see the relevance of WP:NOTFACEBOOK here, as we're not discussing an article or user page that's being used as a personal web page or blog.

A stronger argument for or against using neopronouns would be by referring to relevant styleguides. It's important to remember that Wikipedia follows the sources, and doesn't lead the sources. The current edition of the AP Stylebook (sorry, no direct link to this but it is available on Kindle Unlimted) recommends against using neopronouns, and instead recommends using they/them/their. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage hasn't been updated since 2015, and doesn't appear to include any relevant guidance on pronouns. I'm not able to access the current edition of the Reuters' Handbook. The NLGJA Association of LGBTQ Journalists stylebook states that neopronoun use is acceptable but may require additional explanations due to a lack of familiarity. GLAAD's Media Reference Guide recommends using the pronouns that the person uses, including neopronouns. The Trans Journalists Association style guide recommends using a quick, appositive phrase mentioning their pronouns for neopronouns at their first instance and seems to imply that it's OK to use them. The Canadian Government's language portal recommends use of neopronouns, following the guidance of the individual who uses them, even when unfamiliar.

So it seems the styleguides are split. Some recommend using neopronouns, some don't, and some don't mention them either way. Those that are more LGBT focused tend to have stronger recommendations for neopronoun usage. Back in October 2022 we had a well attended RfC on the use of neopronouns in articles, and my feelings on the use of neopronouns hasn't shifted since then. I am still uncomfortable with using they/them pronouns for folks who use only neopronouns, and I am very sympathetic to the arguments put forward for why we should be doing more than mentioning them and actually using them in our articles. However, while there are instances of reliable sources, like Time, using neopronouns in their articles, and even with my preference for using them in mind, I'm not sure if enough general purpose styleguides recommend their usage yet. This is likely to change over time though, if and when their usage becomes more common. The AP Stylebook is due for renewal some time next year, and I would be interested to see if it has a shift in guidance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

These are mostly style guides with no or virtually no influence on MoS anyway, and concluding that "styleguides are split" by including explicitly language-change-activistic ones is rather misleading (it's a lot like arguing that MOS:DOCTCAPS is wrong because it conflicts with Christian (or insert other religion here) style guides). GLAAD is rather overwhelmingly an advocacy organization (hell, at my old activism job, we hired GLAAD's former exec. dir. to take over an online activism role I was moving out of :-). It would be much more relevant to see whether Chicago Manual of Style and other academic style guides in their next editions suddenly start supporting neo-pronouns. Regardless, I think you're misinterpreting the TJA material as more activistic on this matter than it actually is; it is really advising what MoS is also already advising (without any recourse to TJA): to briefly mention their neopronouns. We've been doing that since the early 2010s at least (e.g. at Genesis P-Orridge).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that you seem to be judging styleguides that allow for or recommend the use of neopronouns as "activistic". That doesn't really seem helpful here.

As for the academic styleguides, you're right, it slipped my mind to include them. For the big three: The Chicago Manual of Style is one I don't currently have access to, but they seem to slow at adopting singular they and generally recommend rewriting sentences to avoid pronoun use entirely so I doubt they have any guidance. If you or any other editor has access though, quoting from paragraphs 5.48 and 5.255 may be helpful here. The 9th edition of the MLA Handbook, for English language writing, states writers writers should follow the personal pronoun of individuals they write about, if individuals' pronouns are known, which seems inclusive though it doesn't explicitly mention neopronouns anywhere. I don't have access to the current edition of the APA Publication Manual, however a supplementary entry on their website endorses use of singular they because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender.

That being said, of these three styleguides I would note that some universities and university libararies, like University of Alberta, Indiana University Bloomington, and University of Sydney see all three guides as either being permissive or requiring the use of all personal pronouns, including neopronouns, where the person's pronouns are known. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The CMoS material is too much to quote directly. Quite a large block of material. In summary....

Extended content

5.48 says singular they is common but informal and is "only lately showing signs of gaining acceptance in formal writing", but: "When referring specifically to a person who does not identify with a gender-specific pronoun, however, they and its forms are often preferred." Also "In general, a person's stated preference for a specific pronoun should be respected." The section mentions the existence of "gender-neutral" (specifically) neopronouns, without naming any of them, but does not advise for or against them. (That is rather odd, honestly, until one finds a condemnation in a later section, but then it gets weirder, with what reads like an "un-condemnation" a section later). Section 5.255 ("Techniques for achieving gender neutrality") is even longer that 5.48. In summary it advises (as mutual alternatives): omit the pronoun; repeat the noun; use a plural antecedent to eliminate the need for a singular pronoun; use an article instead of a pronoun; use one; use relative pronoun who[m]; use imperative mood ("A lifeguard must keep a close watch ..." – not applicable to WP per WP:NOT#ADVICE); use the phrase he or she "in moderation"; revise the sentence to avoid personal pronouns entirely. Oddly, it never mentions repeating the name (usually surname), a technique we use frequently. Section 5.256 is also fairly long; advises avoiding it, of course ("with very limited exceptions", acknowledging sotto voce that a very small number of TG/NB people prefer the term); says to avoid clumsy constructions like (s)he and (wo)man; says to avoid neopronouns: "Clumsy artifices like ... genderless pronouns have been tried—for many years—with no success. They won't succeed. And those who use them invite credibility problems." Also says anybody and someone often don't work; reiterates that they/their have become common in informal usage but are not fully accepted yet [2016] in formal writing, especially for cases where the gender is unknown (rewrite instead), but here actually advises its use for subjects who explicitly identify with they/them. This passage can also be read as directly contradicting 5.255 in advising again that "such preference should generally be respected", right after mentioning both declared singular-they yet also "or some other gender-neutral singular pronoun". It'll be interesting to see if they resolve this direct conflict of advice in the next edition (but I would not hold your breath; there are outright factual errors in CMoS that have persisted since at least the 12th edition!). If MLA doesn't address neopronouns, then it doesn't. There can hardly be any issue in English usage that is more fraught with debate than this question; to a large proportion of English-speakers, neopronouns don't actually constitute pronouns or English at all. So, if MLA was meant to include neopronouns, it rather obviously would have been explicit about it. The UAlberta thing is not a university style guide, it's a "Community" section blog post by one of their librarians, and is clearly activistic in intent, as is clear from its introduction. And it mischaracterizes the Chicago position, so I don't trust it on the MLA or APA material either without reading them in detail myself. It says "it is always appropriate to use any pronouns for an individual when it is known" [sic] and "This can include common pronouns, as well as newer pronouns (also known as neopronouns)." But we already know Chicago is self-contradictory on the matter and that MLA doesn't address neo-pronouns at all. Of ALA, this piece says that guide says to use they "when referring to someone whose gender is unknown", which is not an endorsement of neoprouns. So, this is clearly not a reliable source on usage, for several reasons; if this person were writing such material at Wikipedia, we would revert their changes as original research that badly distorts the source material. The UIndiana piece is another student-librarian opinion piece, not a university style guide. While it does not appear to directly mischaracterize the advice in major style guides, it leaps to examples of using neopronouns as if they had been recommended by the cited sources, which they were not (and just gives two of them, implying they in particular have wide acceptance, which is not true). It correctly [as far as I know – I don't own the current APA] summarized that Chicago, MLA, and APA admit of sigular-they when gender is unknown, and even gets right that MLA and Chicago both consider it "informal". Anyway, like the other library post, this one is clearly not even intended as a style guide but is a summary (reasonaly accurate in this case but not the other) of other style guides we already consult, so not evidentiary of anything. The USYD material is an actual style guide, not for an entire institution but for "library-created content". It's an in-house booklet. It is also activistic, in aligning with the notion that not using neopronouns is "misgendering", an idea that the community at Wikipedia has clearly not accepted, and which isn't reflected in widespread and growing use of singular-they as a neopronoun replacement across English-language writing. It relies heavily on a UNC-Greensboro piece [24] of uncertain authority at that institution, which is advocacy material of specific (Spivak, etc). neopronouns among the student body. I don't think it's informative for this debate, as it doesn't reflect anything like a broad cultural consensus but is trying to engineer changed local behavior.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, the CMOS stuff does sound like a right mess! I wonder if this was something that was added to piecemeal, with older parts not being updated as newer parts were added.

One elided quote there did stand out to me though; "Clumsy artifices like ... genderless pronouns have been tried—for many years—with no success. They won't succeed. And those who use them invite credibility problems." I find it kinda shocking that such a strong genuinely activistic statement bordering on ridicule is in this styleguide. It's one thing to say something like "genderless pronouns are unfamiliar to most and should not be used in academic writing", but to say that any attempt at using them won't succeed is very gatekeepery, and to say that any who use them invite credibility problems is the sort of statement that would bring a style guide into disrepute.

It's a very different sort of statement entirely than saying "when writing about a person, use the pronouns the person uses". Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment - For the very few biographies where person has neopronouns such as xe/xim, we can handle these on a case-by-case basis. Using they/them is appropriate given that neopronouns are, by definition, novel and not widely adapted. As an encyclopedia, we must make our content as accessible as possible. To avoid using they/them, use the person's surname or moniker. Inclusion of the neopronouns belongs in a prose section. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a header template that indicates neopronouns are used in the article and what they mean? I don't see a great deal of harm in this, as long as the neopronouns aren't words that would make writing prose ambiguous or just plain impossible ("the" or such I guess). —DIYeditor (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why would use esoteric and non-standard English when "they" works just fine. — Czello ^(music) 18:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I find "they" confusing in many cases but I may just be old (even though I have occasionally used "they" this way my whole life I guess). It's too bad we couldn't have made a neopronoun to cover all cases of singular pronouns with indefinite gender. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Our readers generally do not read hatnotes and other header templates, and they're going to be missing from most WP:REUSE of our content, along with other WP-specific templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A hatnote would likely not solve anything. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Neopronouns are not standard English, and we're writing for a global audience, where half our readers speak English as a second language. The singular "they" is fine. Using something like "xer" is going to be many times more confusing than using the singular they. GMG^talk 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been asked somewhere above and I missed it, but do we have any instance where a Wikipedia article discusses someone who takes neopronouns and has said that they are uncomfortable with they/them? In such cases, it seems reasonable to just avoid pronouns entirely, as is occasionally done with historical figures of disputed gender identity. This is consistent with the current wording of MOS:NEOPRONOUN: This was discussed at the RfC, and AFAIK is the reason we have a "generally" in there. (That section was written mostly by me and RfC closer Red-tailed hawk; I forget which of us added that particular word, but I think we were in agreement there was no 100% requirement of using they/them rather than avoiding pronouns.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember that there was at least one such case, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. Sorry that's not very helpful. I even remember having (at least twice) done an editing pass on some article to do things like repeat the surname or other noun, and rewrite sentences otherwise to avoid need for a pronoun, but it was several years ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Well what it sounds like is that so far in this thread, no one is arguing that we must use they/them even when someone objects to it. Surname-only is an option, and the global consensus doesn't even entirely rule out using neopronouns in some special edge case. (I could see an argument for exceptions for synopses of fictional works like Provenance where such pronouns are standard in-universe, although I guess that's arguably not covered by MOS:BIO.) So I concur with others in this thread that using they/them in lieu of neopronouns does not inherently constitute misgendering—while acknowledging that in certain cases it might, and can be dealt with case-by-case while still complying with the current guidance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed (other than with "acknowledging that in certain cases it might"; it would probably be more accurate to say that in certain cases, when reliable sources demonstrate that particular subject has actually expressed opposition to they, to just avoid using it as unnecessary; that doesn't make those who don't agree with this position "misgenderers", an accusation that too many in this thread have been bandying about as if this wasn't a double-WP:CTOP thread). Anyway, see big block of paraphrasing from CMoS above; there are a whole bunch of strategies for writing around the need for pronouns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I've never liked surname-only as it generally just leads to bad/clunky writing. I'd probably default to they/them in those instances. — Czello ^(music) 09:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As weird as it's gonna be, I'll say this: it is simpler to use they/them. Not everyone who browses enwiki is gonna be 100% fluent in English, and seeing neopronouns might confuse people who don't have English as their first language. I do agree that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:06, 25 July 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.

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)

We've had one RfC yes. But what about a second RfC? Post RfC discussion? Surely you know about the post RfC discussion? (also joking)

Seriously though, the biggest failure from the 2021 RfC is that no-one actually followed up on the recommendation to find out what period BDP should be extended for with regard to deadnames. However because consensus can change, I think that recommendation has been superseded by the recommendation from the just closed RfC. And so, wanting to avoid the same failure of not actually having the recommended further narrow discussion, I feel it best to start now while it's fresh. A time gap will just open the door to re-litigating what has just been rejected, and I want to avoid that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Second breakfast? Elevenses? Luncheon? Afternoon tea? [etc.]  Thank you, Pippin! – .Raven  .talk 03:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

JFD Proposal (withdrawn)

Note/Moment of Inspiration: User:HTGS suggested this variation on option 2 from the last RFC that might be worth considering: "Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion, but a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources is". Now, that sentence probably gets at the sentiment I was trying to capture when I crafted option 2, but it disregards WP:PLA (which quite a few editors thought was inapt) and it makes the preponderance of sources the factor rather than a factor.

But, of course, the closer's finding was that we should thread the needle between options 2 and 3, and I think HTGS's version, while perhaps more articulate, is really just a minor variation of option 2. THAT SAID, I was recently working on a close request involving MOS:CAPS, which includes this line: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." A substantial majority is a higher standard than a mere majority, and the term "only" sets a high bar. Finally, I think we can add one more caveat: that the substantial majority have to principally refer to the person by their former name. I think this is as close as we're going to get to being able to thread the needle. ScottishFinnhishRadish (the closer) also suggested listing an example of a case in which the name of a deceased trans person who was not notable prior to transition should be included. @Sideswipe9th:, as we've discussed, I think Aiden Hale is the obvious example here—there was an RFC on him quite recently, and a pretty overwhelming majority supported mentioning the name at least once. Additionally, even today, most reliable sources principally refer to Hale by his birth name. So, all this said:

Proposal: If a deceased trans or nonbinary person was not notable prior to transitioning, when should an article mentioning that person include their deadname?

If a deceased transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should similarly[1] be excluded unless either (1) a majority of reliable sources use that name as the person's principal name or (2) the person is regarded by reliable sources as having wavered on or otherwise had a unique relationship to their trans identity. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example: From Leelah Alcorn: Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ... Note: Alcorn was not notable prior to transitioning, and the majority of reliable sources used her chosen name. From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ... Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning. From 2023 Nashville school shooting: Aiden Hale (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale) .... Note: A clear majority of reliable sources principally referred to Hale by his birth name. [1] This is in reference to the previous paragraph, discussing the exclusion of the deadnames of living trans people who were not notable pre transition. Update: Version 1 started with, "For a deceased trans or nonbinary person, mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion of a birth name or former name." Per Enos733's comment re: length, below, that was excised.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Update: "substantial majority" modified to "clear majority" in light of increased emphasis on "principal[] references" and some concerns about ambiguity.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Update in response to comments by @Cuñado: to better match existing phrasing.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fin.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My one concern here is it sets the bar too high for a consensus. If editors are willing, I think we could say "substantial" should be removed ... after all, if most sources principally refer to a person by a name (rather than just trivially noting the name), there's a decent argument that name should be in an article about that person.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion would be, for now, to simply go with what there is fairly clear consenus on: "For a deceased trans or nonbinary person, mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion of a birth name or former name." I don't think any articulated standard of when to include it is likely to get consensus, and it will likely take more time for a community consensus to evolve.--Trystan (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

But is that really splitting the difference between options 2 and 3? For me, that's a lower baseline than option 2. Unless I'm missing something I think the option 3 supporters would mostly (if not entirely?) support option 2 over that. --Jerome Frank Disciple 12:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion I think this suggestion is a reasonable fall back if we can't find something more specific, and something that we could tie inline to policy points like WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. However while it raises the bar slightly from the current lack of guidance, I find myself agreeing with Jerome that this is a lower baseline than option 2 from the RfC. I think we should spend some time here trying to find something that better fits the situation the RfC has left us in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This proposal seems to be a bit wordy. My suggestion is to mirror the passage for a living individual: "If a deceased 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, unless reliable sourcing exists." or "...unless a preponderance of reliable sourcing contains the former name." - Enos733 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"unless reliable sourcing exists" would be "mere verifiability" though, right? And the preponderance line is basically what option 2 was: We're trying to split the difference between option 2 and option 3, right? If we want to shorten the proposal; we could just excise the first sentence? (I'll do that above and note the change.) --Jerome Frank Disciple 12:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

For living people, the line is "even if reliable sourcing exists." Perhaps an even better line comes from the close "except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion." So my proposal would be:

"Include the birth name or former name of a deceased trans or non-binary person only if the person was notable prior to transitioning, when the former name is of encyclopedic interest, or when necessary to avoid confusion." with a footnote saying "All names must be verifiable and found in reliable sources." - Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that splits the difference between option 2 and option 3. Per the close, the consensus was for something in between those options, yes? Obviously, what you're proposing would be less restrictive than option 3, but can you explain how what you're suggesting would be more restrictive than option 2? (I'd also say that if we use that language, we should also include the closer's not that a name is not inherently of encyclopedic interest, but, as I see it, that's a secondary issue)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not confident that there is language that clearly splits the difference between option 2 and option 3 that is not subject to gaming. I think the best we can do is to lean into WP:NOT and the fact that a former name is not inherently of encyclopedic interest.

Perhaps the first line of MOS:GENDERID would provide some overall guidance of when a former name is used and read something like: "A former name of an individual is not inherently of encyclopedic interest." then perhaps adding a second line of "In general, a former name should only be included if the subject is notable by a former name or if the use of the name is necessary to avoid confusion."

I think by providing the overall guidance early in the section, we do not need to be so precise in the individual paragraph. - Enos733 (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

or if the use of the name is necessary to avoid confusion While it's a simple enough proposition on the surface, when you actually try to steelman it as an argument I think it leaves it open to too much interpretation to actually be a useful guideline. There's so many different ways you could define necessary to avoid confusion, in good faith and in bad, that it would result in endless talk page discussions similar to the situation we currently find ourselves in.

Ideally because this is a variation of a WP:VNOT argument (and to a lesser degree WP:NOTEVERYTHING) as we want the barrier for inclusion to be something like Demonstration of the significance of the deadname, not just that it's verifiable, I think we need to die it to something like WP:DEPTH. Unfortunately DEPTH is part of the SNG for events, and I think if we try to use that we'll get endless questions about why we're using an article notability guideline for a specific bit of content. Is there another shortcut that anyone is aware of, or relevant policy paragraph that we could make a shortcut to that would suffice? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

How about "or when there is a demonstrated need to use the name to avoid confusion"? Enos733 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Again I think that has too many different ways you can define demonstrated need, starting with something as simple as they changed their name, we need to know their previous one. Unless there's a specific test we could wikilink demonstrated need to that narrows the phrase beyond a plain reading of the words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to find language that is completely clear and applies to all biographies. My first line would be that a former name is not inherently of encyclopedic interest. Everything else in MOS:GENDERID then becomes additional guidance about pronoun usage and guidance around the limited exceptions of when a former name may used. - Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

For now, I do think we should at least try to follow the closer's finding that an intermediary position between option 2 or 3 is the path towards consensus. Option 2 inherently implied that a former name is not inherently encyclopedic—I do really think that your proposals are actually lowering rather than raising its standards. If we're not able to actually split the difference ... why wouldn't we just go with what option 2 was rather than lower the bar further?--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

How I read the close and the discussion was that most people viewed the former name as not inherently encyclopedic, and that only in limited circumstances would a former name of a previously non-notable individual be appropriate. The challenge here is to define those very limited circumstances. I do not think that trying to define "a majority of reliable sources" or "principally referring" is necessarily going to provide clear guidance.

The closer uses "if the name is necessary to avoid confusion." While I understand that this language is not completely clear independently, when paired with "a former name as not inherently encyclopedic" - we have two phrases that work nicely together that limits when a former name is to be used. - Enos733 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're not intending to say this, but it almost sounds like you're denying that the closer said the consensus position would split the difference between option 2 and 3. The closer, of course, did say just that: "it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3 .... Another indicator that the consensus is between these two options ....". But you seem to be conceding that the baseline you're proposing is below option 2. In other words, it's a nonstarter.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am reading and responding to the overall close of the discussions. I think that overall point provides us more clarity and direction than the close of question 2. Where I think community is at is that the difference between sometimes (option 2) and never (option 3) is rarely or in very limited occasions.

Now, the trick is to craft a statement that captures that sentiment. My attempt is to craft a general statement "Former names have no intrinsic encyclopedic value." From that general principle, the language provides guidance on the limited exceptions when a former name can be used.

I hope we are not chatting past each other, since I think we are in alignment of what the policy ought to be, even if we may still have different perspectives on what language the guidance should be. - Enos733 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

We should let the sources guide us… so when a significant majority of sources mention a deadname, so should we. If lots of sources think a name is important enough to mention, surely we should consider it important enough as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Like a two thirds supermajority? I don't think that would work, and is maybe even contraindicated by the RfC closure. As the close noted Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? That to me goes beyond mere volume of mention a deadname in sources, and straight into the depth of discussion in sources about the deadname. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think MOS:CAPS's ambiguity on that ("substantial majority") point has worked, in spite of the ambiguity. To some degree, I doubt that we'll be able to think of a true rule as opposed to a guideline that's open to interpretation and disagreement. But perhaps substantial majority is too high a bar—it's getting some pushback. To merge @Blueboar's suggestion re: significant majority and @Sideswipe9th's concern re: ambiguity, depth, and emphasis ... how about:

when a clear majority of sources principally refer to the person by their former name

(Will change the above ctop proposal + note the change.)

"Clear majority" is a bit ambiguous, but less so than "significant" or "substantial" majority, and, realistically, how often are we really going to get into situations where it's 51% / 49 % ? Having reviewed several of the article debates prior to the RFC, I really can't recall one in which reliable sources were split down the middle. In the case of Hale, for example, it's really more like 90/10. And I don't think we should let the possibility of an edge case discourage us too much. Let's be frank: if there is a 51/49 case ... it's not actually going to come down to editors' views of what constitutes a "clear majority". Additionally, the focus on what sources "principally refer" to the person by their former name ensures we're not overly emphasizing sources that just mention a former name as a point of trivia.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Consider a multi-chapter biography that consistently uses the subject’s deadname in its one chapter discussing subject’s childhood, but consistently uses the Trans-name in the chapters covering the subjects’s life after transition. How would that fit with your “principally refers” criteria? Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

With the exception of a historical figure like James Barry, do you have an example of this for a trans person who transitioned sometime in say the last fifty to seventy years? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Christine Jorgenson's autobiography refers to herself this way. Loki (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the title of the autobiography?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Christine Jorgensen: a personal autobiography Loki (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a principle reference to me! :) (Of course, not everyone has to agree ... and in the event a single source would matter under the proposed guideline—which, as I've said, is really unlikely—and in the event that single source uses the type of structure Blueboar describes—also quite unlikely ... then I think we can trust article-specific discussions to figure it out.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

But in the autobiography, she only refers to herself as "Christine" post-transition. Pre-transition she refers to herself as "George", and quite a lot too.

This was the standard way to refer to trans people up until relatively recently. Books and newspapers were doing this up through the 90s at least, so we should absolutely have a way to deal with this in cases where these sources are predominant. Loki (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I'll absolutely agree that it wouldn't be clear! But wait a second ...

First, keep in mind we're only talking about people who became notable after transitioning. I'd be a little surprised if a bibliography on such a person didn't principally refer to them by their post-transition name, and perhaps we could debate whether the title of the bibliography, for example, indicates a principal reference. But let's back up even further:

I think we can both agree that structure is fairly rare—not particularly likely that one source, let alone many, takes the approach as to a particular person. So, taking your hypo at face value, why would anyone following the proposed guideline care about such a source? Well, the proposed guideline says we have to consider what a "clear majority of reliable sources" do. So the source could only matter if ... it, alone, would make the difference between a "clear majority" and "not a clear majority"?

Not only would such an article would be the type of 51/49 article that I didn't run across a single time while going through various article debates ... but the resolution of the debate would come down to this fairly rare book structure? Wow! I mean, that just strikes me as a hypo that's so rare that we can leave it to WP:IAR and individual article discussion, if it ever happens.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the mention, Jerome, but I think what you might be missing from my suggestion is how much space there is between “Mere verifiability” and “a preponderance of high-quality reliable sources”. That space was intentional. It sets boundaries that reasonable minds will agree on, but leaves more difficult marginal decisions to the editors who write our biographies.

It does feel like editors here keep trying to circle discussion back to “how do we make sure we have a rule we can enforce?” (Or, less charitably, “How to we keep lowly editors from doing what we, the MOS cabal, don’t want them to do?”) We (here) are not a police force. The Manual of Style is nice because we can ensure some good amount of consistency, and avoid arguments over commas and capital letters; it is not here to decide content. (How to refer to people is style; whether to include biographical information is content.)

I would be happy with the smallest guidance possible: “Mere verifiability is not enough to justify inclusion of someone’s deadname”. We only really need to tell editors that when a deadname is absolutely trivial—if it has only been mentioned on a personal blog, or in a footnote of a lesser source—then it does not need to be included. And for those who want to roleplay as cops, they will find that guidance will enable them more than you might think. — HTGS (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the consensus of the last discussion was "between two and three". Or in other words, we already have consensus for some rule that is stronger than two and less strong than three. So going with a rule that is vaguer than two simply doesn't work. Loki (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I would second Loki here; "mere verifiability is not enough" is weaker than option 2. But HTGS, yeah, I realized based on your comments on the RFC that you'd probably oppose almost any further restriction on deadnames (which is fine!), but I also wanted to properly give you credit for the source of my thought.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing (or at least tabling) this proposal in light of Sideswipe's proposal below, which I endorse.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe's post-RfC proposal

Ok, I've done a bunch of reading of our policies and guidelines, and have come up with the following:

For a deceased trans or non-binary person, their former name should only be included if the encyclopaedic significance of the deadname is established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning. Introduce the former name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

• From Leelah Alcorn: Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
  Note: While Alcorn's gender identity is discussed in significant detail in high quality sources about her, her former name is not.
• From Gloria Hemingway: Gloria Hemingway (born Gregory Hancock Hemingway, November 12, 1931 – October 1, 2001) ...
  Note: Hemingway's struggles with her gender dysphoria, and relationship with her gender identity, gender expression, and name are discussed in significant detail in sources about her life.
• From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ...
  Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning.

Notes

This builds upon the wording of the closure, that there is a clear consensus that the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest. It sets out two inclusion criteria, that the deadname is of clear encyclopaedic significance based on in-depth coverage or discussion in high quality sources, or if the person was notable prior to transitioning. Encyclopaedic significance is wikilinked to the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy point, and high quality sources is linked to WP:BESTSOURCES. In the footnote, it includes a link to the close of the RfC where there was a clear consensus that deadnames are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest, and then makes it clear that because of this they are therefore typcially considered minor aspects, which links to the WP:BALASP policy point. This has the clear and intentional effect of tying this guideline to both the What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view policies.

With regards to the closure, this sets the bar for inclusion of the deadname at a level that is both lower than never (option 3) and higher than sometimes (option 2). It fulfils the consensus that articles should not routinely include the deadnames of deceased trans or non-binary individuals, while also giving specific policy based guidance on what the inclusion criteria are. Finally it gives three clear examples of application of the inclusion criteria. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting as the closer that this wording is a reasonable summation of how I read the consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support it! I am curious if this policy would be consistent with the Nashville Shooting RFC, as the sources covering Hale weren't discussing his birth name in depth ... they were just chiefly using his birth name. That said, of course this proposal doesn't have to be consistent with that RFC :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 23:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hope you don’t mind, but I think this version is shorter, simpler and clearer:

For deceased trans or non-binary people, former names are not inherently of encyclopaedic significance, except in cases where the person was notable prior to transitioning. Where useful, the former name may be introduced with "born" or "formerly". For example: …

I don’t see need to spell out that the former name needs “analysis” (and honestly if that were misread it would be an exceptionally odd standard to apply). — HTGS (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: I think the lines about analysis are the key to why this wording works. Wording similar to yours was proposed pre-RFC and discarded for being too vague. Just saying "encyclopedic significance" alone means nothing and will invite arguments.

Furthermore, saying "not inherently of encyclopedic significance" by itself is too vague. The RFC was not about that directly, it was about whether to include former names, and the consensus was "less often than sometimes but more often than never". So we need to include language specific to the question of including the name or not, and not just hint at it. Loki (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I really like this wording. I think it's as near to perfect as we're going to get. Loki (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem supporting this. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This is close to something I could support. I don't know what "in-depth analysis" of a birth name would look like. It would surely be captured by the more straightforward "or discussion". I would suggest "...included if the encyclopaedic significance of the deadname is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources..." I don't think "discussion" needs a qualifier, as it is inherently a significantly higher bar than mere mention.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, and continue to think that the "in-depth analysis and discussion" wording is crucial to why this wording works. Just saying "discussion" is too vague: the whole point is to provide a workable standard that is between options 2 and 3 of the RFC. Loki (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hatting my own extended inquiry / dialogue with Sideswipe--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to be clear: I support the proposal. I think it's better than the status quo. But I do have a few concerns. I find myself agreeing with @Trystan that "in-depth analysis" of a birth name is a bit of a weird concept. I assume the Gloria Hemingway example is meant to illustrate it ... but was there "in depth analysis" of the name "George"? Or, as the example itself suggests, was there in-depth analysis of Gloria's gender identity and her relationship to that name? (Btw, I assume the proposal means "in-depth analysis or in-depth discussion".) Second, based on the comments that I saw while surveying discussions in preparation for the RFC, my concern is that editors will object to a proposal that ignores the potential for reader confusion. Participants in the 2023 Nashville school shooting RFC were pretty overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of the name. Was that because Aiden Hale's birth name was subject to significant in-depth analysis? No, what most participants said was that most sources treated "Audrey" as Hale's principal name—only mentioning "Aiden" in a parenthetical (or not at all). I realize I'm defaulting to Hale, but the potential for reader confusion was also repeatedly brought up in the RFCBEFORE. That's why I thought considering what name most sources treat as the person's principal name would make the most sense: To incorporate the book you brought above, @LokiTheLiar:, no one who reads a book called Christine Jorgensen will be confused by that name. But readers who read a few news articles about "Audrey Hale" and then can't find that name in the associated article might be confused.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Hemingway's relationship with her name is pretty complicated, in no small part because her relationship with her gender identity was complicated. In life she used at least five names; her birth name Gregory, a childhood nickname of Gigi, as an adult in public Greg, post-transition in private Gloria, and shortly before her death Vanessa. The sources on her go into detail about how she presented herself at different stages of her life, and in different venues, along with the names that she used in differing circumstances. I assume the proposal means "in-depth analysis or in-depth discussion" Yes. I'd originally phrased it as ...through significant discussion or in-depth analysis..., but then realised used the word significance earlier in the sentence and wanted to avoid close proximity repetition. I also considered in-depth analysis or in-depth discussion, but felt as though it was too verbose due to the close proximity repetition of in-depth. So Hale is a rather complex and special case in and of itself. As you correctly point out, most media sources about the shooting use Hale's deadname Audrey, instead of his chosen name Aiden. While we could speculate all day on the reasons why the Nashville police and national media have chosen to do this, I think the following quotation from the close My assessment of Wikipedia's rules about this is that we're required to follow the sources for facts. We are not required to follow the sources' presentation of those facts; we're supposed to compose an article in our own words, not crib the wording from the sources. best captures why we use Hale's chosen name over his former name. While I can see the desire to use it Hale's article as part of the barrier for inclusion versus exclusion, in no small part because as you point out in that RfC many editors felt inclusion was warranted based on the volume of sources that use Hale's former name, I think I come back to the American legal maxim of hard cases make bad law. The context behind why so many have chosen to disregard Hale's expressed gender identity make it, on balance, not a great example to use for our purposes. The purpose of a guideline like GENDERID is that it covers the majority of relevant articles, but not all relevant articles. There will always be exceptions to a rule such as this, in no small part because people are complicated. As a community, we've chosen to enshrine such exceptions in the WP:IAR policy, which empowers us editors to disregard a policy or guideline (with a couple of exceptions) if there is a consensus that ignoring it will improve an article. The complexities of Hale's article make it, in my mind, something that is best handled by IAR, because the vast majority of biographies and content that will be subject to this guideline are nowhere near as contentious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I see what you're saying! Yeah IAR exists for a reason. And you've definitely clocked that one of the reasons I'm wary is because I started out as a "don't include" vote on that page, and then saw how quickly the tide rushed against me (and ultimately changed my !vote because I thought it'd be better to try to address the spectrum of realistically possible outcomes). I do want to reiterate that I'm 100% a support vote for you ... but I wonder if there's a phrase besides "in-depth analysis ... of the name" that we could use. What you're describing seems to be an in-depth discussion of Gloria's status as trans. As written, I'm not sure the policy restricts itself to individual trans persons who struggle (or perhaps waver) on their identity, right? I'm trying to think of what a more modern version of the Hemingway example would look like (aside from potential de-transitioners). If several sources publish articles specifically on the fact that a person was trans and discussing their transition, would that warrant inclusion under your proposal?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC) If several sources publish articles specifically on the fact that a person was trans and discussing their transition, would that warrant inclusion under your proposal? It would certainly warrant inclusion of text that they were trans and about their transition. It wouldn't automatically warrant inclusion of their former name. For this it comes back to the text in the footnote, the former name is typically considered a minor aspect of the person's life by the broader community. It's not enough for the person to have simply changed their name once, or even several times if for example they were trialling different names to find one they were comfortable with. The name change itself has to be more than a minor aspect of the person's broader life story, which is why I think Hemingway is a good example here. In Hemingway's case, the name she used seemed to be dependent on what she was doing at the time. However regardless of what name she was using, she was still trans. You don't need to know her other names to understand her gender identity on the surface, but knowing her names, and how they were used is actually important for a broader understanding of her life story. Additionally if you read the death section of her article, you'll see that there was condemnation of the media for not using her chosen name in obituaries, and for pathologising gender variance. There's a subtle distinction in there that's easy to miss if you aren't familiar with the fuller story of her life. As for a more modern example, were it not for her being a notable public figure prior to transitioning, I think Suzy Eddie Izzard would be a good one. Like Hemingway, her relationship with her gender identity is complex, having gone through the spectra from transvestite, to transsexual, to transgender, and to gender fluid. As she has gone through her own journey, the pronouns and names she uses have changed with her. Presently, she prefers if people call her Suzy, is OK with people calling her Eddie, and is still using the name Eddie as her public persona. On the addition of the name 'Suzy', she revealed that it's a name she had wanted to be referred by since she was a child. It's the complexities of how Izzard uses her names that would make it reach the threshold of inclusion, had the other inclusion criteria (notable pre-transition) not already been met. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC) So your examples are all focused on individuals who have complex relationships with their name, yes? I'm not sure that's captured by your current text. In other words—it's not just about what reliable sources discuss in depth, right? If anything, it seems more about the individual person's preferences/relationship to their name(s). (Or, to illustrate it explicitly—let's say several sources published in-depth examinations of a person's name and the fact that they were trans, but the person had a completely straightforward (non-complex) relationship to their trans identity/name; maybe the person even objected to their deadname getting such attention. Include the name, or no? It sounds like you're saying no ... but I think the current proposal would suggest yes.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC) it's not just about what reliable sources discuss in depth, right? Yes and no. Individuals with a more complex relationship are the most likely to have reliable sources about them that discuss their names in depth. As such they make the easiest examples to find and use for our purpose here. But they are not the only such examples. As you rightly point out, sources could publish in-depth examinations of a person's name and gender identity, even if the person has a straightforward relationship with their names. If those sources exist on a person, then the existence of those sources would meet the threshold for inclusion and so inclusion could be considered. The test is that there has to be something that raises the change in name above a minor aspect of the person's fuller life story. Sources about the person that discuss their name change in depth would raise the name change above being a minor aspect, regardless of the reason why they are writing about it. Like anything we write about, it is up to the sources to decide whether something is a minor or major aspect of a subject. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I think I gotcha. I think that's a content-specific test more tailored than "in depth analysis" ... so I'd still suggest modifying that phrase, but unfortunately I'm not sure I can offer a suggestion as to how! Either way, I still think it's better than the status quo.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I think the reason you're having trouble is because the tailored content-specific test is in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in reliable sources. Loki (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I didn't say otherwise? I said it sounded like the test being described was more tailored than that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"there is a clear consensus that the deadnames of trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest"... a question about whether birth names or former names are of encyclopedic interest wasn't asked in the RfC referenced, so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is open to challenge. As with others, I struggle to understand what "in-depth analysis or discussion of the name" would be (The Izzard example is about the person's stated preferences, not about the names themselves; and Izzard was known as "Eddie Izzard" for a long time when notable, so the name would be included anyway; but then what counts as "transitioning"? Has Izzard transitioned? It quickly gets complicated...). And why "high quality sources" instead of standard "reliable sources"? That slants things to academic discourse, where analysing a person's names, to the best of my knowledge, is not common. EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

a question about whether birth names or former names are of encyclopedic interest wasn't asked in the RfC referenced, so this assertion (albeit it is in the close) is open to challenge It may not have been directly asked, but the closer certainly assessed that is where the community consensus lies based on the wider contributions to the RfC. It's important to remember that RfCs are not votes. If you want to challenge it, you'd have to challenge it in the close first, as until it's removed from the closure, it is a safe assumption that it is the consensus.

And why "high quality sources" instead of standard "reliable sources"? That slants things to academic discourse WP:BESTSOURCES is policy, and tells us to prefer reputable books and articles. In general we are biased towards academic sources, and that is widely considered to be a good thing. However in this context, high quality sources does not limit this to academic sources, reputably published and well researched biographies are also high quality sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Encyclopedic interest and Sideswipe9th's comment: It may not have been directly asked, but the closer certainly assessed that is where the community consensus lies based on the wider contributions to the RfC.

In addition to seconding that, I would also add that it's virtually a necessary implication of the consensus. Option 1 dictated that the deadnames of deceased trans persons who were not notable prior to transition should never be excluded. Option 2 dictated that they should sometimes be excluded. Option 3 dictated that they should always be excluded. In other words, even option implicitly acknowledged that the inherent encyclopedic value of deadnames was either nonexistent or small enough to be discarded, since it endorsed sometimes excluding such names. And, again, the consensus was found to be between option 2 and 3.

In terms of Izzard and Hemingway, I do think @EddieHugh has a decent point that both were notable prior to transitioning. I wonder if we could find an example of someone who was not notable prior to transitioning but who would fit this bill. That said, I don't think doing so is necessary: Just because they illustrate one reason a name might be included doesn't meant they can't illustrate both reasons.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

...implicitly acknowledged that the inherent encyclopedic value of deadnames was either nonexistent or small enough to be discarded... I don't think this follows. A supporter of Option 2 on the second question could quite reasonably be of the opinion that names are generally of encyclopedic interest, and the names of trans/nb people aren't somehow of less interest than other names, but the social mores around deadnames warrant an extraordinary and limited departure from the default practice of including them.--Trystan (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! I mean hey, at the extreme, I guess it is possible that a supporter of option two could have thought that birth names were super important but that social norms were incredibly important, though I don't know if I really saw that sentiment expressed. I also think this might be a little tangential since Eddie was referring to a comment Sideswipe9th made in favor of her proposal, not the proposal text itself.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not tangential, because the proposed wording claims "A 2023 RfC on this guideline reached the consensus that the former name of a trans or non-binary person is not automatically of encyclopaedic interest". That's questionable. EddieHugh (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, if this goes to an RFC, I'm sure Sides can change it to:

"In a 2023 RFC, editors agreed that deadnames should not automatically be included in an article. As to the deadnames of persons who were not notable prior to transitioning, the closer found "it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2", which said that deadnames should be included according to WP:PLA (considering a majority of reliable sources), "and option 3", which said that such names should never be included."

Easy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not liking this established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources wording, since it will lead to tendentious wikilawyering. Under this proposal, the clearly notable deadname of the Nashville school shooter would've been excluded from the article from the get-go, and editors who try to "WP:IAR" to include the name would've gotten reverted and pointed to the MOS. Some1 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying to find a compromise that would allow us to include the clearly notable deadname of the Nashville school shooter was, I think, directly part of the point of this wording. I'm not sure why you think it'd be excluded. Loki (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of my proposal, above. Per Sides: The complexities of Hale's article make it, in my mind, something that is best handled by IAR, because the vast majority of biographies and content that will be subject to this guideline are nowhere near as contentious. (collapsed convo above)--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be a downer but I don't like the proposed wording. I would take a different approach and just talking about the increased sensitivity of gender transitions causing a need to have extended privacy concerns that would be longer and more strictly enforced than the normal privacy concerns of non-notable names. So, for example, we could recommend defaulting to the maximum of two years after death instead of sooner, per WP:BDP:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends...

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Setting the bar to allow inclusion two years after death, in-line with the maximum period from BDP, would be contraindicated where the close of the recent RfC states It is also clear from the responses that always including the prior name, or assuming the prior name is of encyclopedic importance is soundly rejected by the community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Although proposing something like that would be in keeping with the recommendations of the closure of previous RfC, which asked related but different questions. EddieHugh (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would we not go with the most recent RFC?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable way of expressing what there was consensus for, as indeed the closer says above. Ideally, I'd like to find even clearer wording than "in-depth analysis or discussion", but given that we've been trying to find such wording for months (and in a broader sense, years), I think we should avoid letting the pursuit of perfect wording prevent putting decent wording in place. (Perfectly wikilaywer-proof wording probably doesn't exist, anyway.) -sche (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for or against inclusion, and as discussion has otherwise died down, I've now launched an RfC on this proposal over at the Village Pump. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarity

The third paragraph is confusing unless you word it something like this to make it match the phrasing on the second paragraph. That way If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name... is followed by If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name.... I suggest using that as a base for the extended privacy wording. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think done!--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW I sort of see your point about clarity. Perhaps after we resolve this issue, we can work on addressing the clarity overall. It's hard to tell how much work the current third paragraph is doing with its current wording.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

So a similar attempt at clarifying the language of the second paragraph was attempted back in February of this year. The comment by Newimpartial on 14:28, 6 February 2023 seems of relevance here, due to the removal of the word only in Cuñado's version. The same issue of the old wording setting a limit on inclusion (ie, you can only include if condition is met), whereas the proposed version mandating inclusion (ie, you must include if condition is met) seems to exist with this proposed change. This is something that might need to be discussed in more detail (ideally separately to the discussion above) before a change can be made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely wouldn't support removing only, which is a major part of the point of the policy. A lack of notability under the old name is intended to be automatic exclusion; if this proposal intends to change that (which would be a substantive policy change) we'll need another discussion about that specific point and almost certainly another RFC, since I can't see it being uncontroversial. Only in that paragraph is a load-bearing word, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh. When I first saw the edit, I had the same thought you had @Aquillion:—the omission of only seemed to be significant. But now ... maybe I'm not seeing something I was formerly seeing ... but I'm starting to think that's wrong.

I think @Cuñado: is right that paragraph 2 and 3 present a weird contrast ... oddly, because there's not an explicit contrast even though there should be. That is, paragraph 2, which concerns living persons who were not notable pre-transition, opens with:

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname),

And, then, paragraph three says:

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".

And ... having reconsidered the issue ... I now think "only" is redundant. Someone is either notable prior to transitioning or not notable prior to transitioning. We have guidance for both. Saying "only notable prior to transitioning" doesn't add anything, just like saying "only if they were not notable prior to transitioning" wouldn't add anything.

But I think the real reason these paragraphs read awkwardly is because paragraph 3 is actually balancing between paragraph 2, on people who weren't notable pre transition, and paragraph 4, which is dedicated to articles other than a main biography. I think this would be identical in meaning and read a bit better:

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

....

If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name (a deadname), different guidance applies to different contexts. On the person's main biographical article, their former name should be included in the lead sentence. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

....

Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis....

But here's the issue: I think one often-found implication of the passage is that, as to a person's main biographical articles, the name should only be included in the lead sentence. Now, the current passage doesn't actually say that, which makes this tricky. But if we wanted to be really bold ... I we could just add "only" after "should" in the above sentence. Just a thought--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support that but I'd support a parenthetical saying (and, unless the sources discuss the name change in detail apart from the mere fact it happened, nowhere else in the article). This is to match this change to Sideswipe's proposal above. Loki (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and for that we would definitely need an RFC. (Arguably for this change, too, since it's been discussed before, but my point was that the restatement I suggested matches what's currently addressed in the article.) I'd also say we should probably do separate RFCs for incorporating that text into the discussion of living persons and for Sides's proposal (which is currently on just deceased persons), since Sides's proposal is a follow up on the last RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

On my proposal above, because (in my opinion) it's largely fulfilling the requirements of the RfC to find a solution somewhere between two options, I was hoping that we wouldn't need an RfC to get it added if there's a reasonable showing of consensus for it here. However if we do need a rubber stamping RfC to get approval for it, then we should keep that one as close to a binary yes/no choice as possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I figured HTGS's opposition meant we were doing the RFC route. If you'd like to boldly add it (either now or after some more discussion) and see if anyone reverts, I'm okay with that!-Jerome Frank Disciple 19:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like more people to get eyes on it first, there's no need to rush it. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous either. You can get strong consensuses formed without RfCs, even with a handful of objections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with User:Jerome Frank Disciple's proposal. I would shy away from making it "only" the first sentence, as I think there are too many situations where that wouldn't apply, like infobox, or background sections. Keep it simple. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Re the "living" vs."dead" debate. Please recall that MOS:DEADNAME, on MOS:BIO, starts very generally:

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. [emphasis added]

– .Raven  .talk 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, but Cuñado was just referencing a portion of MOS:GENDERID (same policy) that, currently, is only directed towards living trans persons. The first paragraph discusses which name a Wikipedia article should treat as the person's principal name. There's currently an RFC on expanding MOS:GENDERID to cover when a deceased trans person's deadname should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• A follow-up RfC at WP:VPPOL recently closed again as "no consensus", but is again a step closer to finding an actual consensus. So we're in for another round. I urge that the alternative proposals and revision suggestions in that RfC be examined closely, because they indicate the direction in which consensus will be found.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

GID inclarity

Complementary preferences

After names were explicitly added to the first sentence of MOS:GID, the guideline has become rather confusing; see Talk:Eddie Izzard#Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023. Currently it says we should use a name consistent with the most recent expressed gender identity, when I'm pretty sure the intent was that we should use the name(s) the subject most recently identified with. This leads to confusion where, like in the linked thread, it can be argued that because a nonbinary subject approves one masculine name, they can also be called by another name because that is also masculine. Thoughts? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:Actualcpscm who partook in that discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! I'd like to add some general questions to this:

1. What happens if the most recently expressed partial preferences are contradictory? For example, what if someone expresses preference for she/her pronouns and then expresses preference for an umambiguously male-identifying first name? What pronouns should an article about them use? Really, the question here is: How do editors deal with cases of multiple complementary preferences, and what is the room (if any) for interpretation and extrapolation?

2. How do we separate gender-related name ambiguity from other non-legal names like personas or nicknames? If a trans person who has changed their name was previously notable under a nickname, how do we treat their birth name? Is it appropriate to refer to a trans person by their birth name if their preferred name is a common hypocorism of their birth name? Actualcpscm (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

As to the specific examples @Maddy from Celeste and @Actualcpscm brought up: Izzard is an tough case because (as I understand) she personally identifies by one name but professionally identifies by another; she's part of a class of persons who, as Actualcpscm articulately described, have "multiple complementary preferences". I actually don't think this edit addresses those situations, and I don't know that any guidance can? (I mean, I can think of a few things, but none of them would be great or have a snowball's chance in hell of getting consensus.) I think those sorts of issues are going to require page-by-page resolution.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we can‘t account for every edge case of complementary preferences, but I‘d like to „codify“ the need for internal consistency in such cases. The article that triggered this discussion, Eddie Izzard, currently refers to Izzard as Eddie (short for Edward, i.e. a masculine name) in the lead sentence, but then goes on to use she/her pronouns. This accounts for the multiple preferences expressed by Izzard, but I think internal consistency is more important for readability and clarity. The fact that this naming ambiguity even exists is indicative of an ambiguous gender identity, for which I think commitment to one name and pronoun set is more important than following the letter of the expressed preferences in a meticulously literal way. I‘m not sure if this is community consensus, though; I‘m not very familiar with the RfC that resulted in MOS:GID. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely see your point, and I definitely agree there should be intra-article consistency (and consistency across Wikipedia for one person). My concern is that the individuals preferences will be so unique that they’ll be hard to account for. for example, with Izzard we might craft a guideline that says “prioritize stage names” or “prioritize personal names” (on my phone and am not that familiar with Izzard so sorry if that’s not quite right—just working a hypo here). But how many other modern persons will that apply to? (genuinely asking)—Jerome Frank Disciple 14:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of this:

„In the case of multiple complementary or contradictory preferences that have been recently expressed, either together or at the same time, articles should use only one set of name(s) and pronouns for internal consistency. Which set that is should be decided on a case-by-case basis, prioritizing the naming convention under which the individual is notable or reported on. [This priority is secondary to the individual‘s preferences and only applies in cases of ambiguity in their preferences.]“

I‘m not quite happy with the wording, but I think you get the idea. Notability and reporting practices are relevant only when the individual has said something like „any set of pronouns is completely fine.“

Basically, IFF the criterion of expressed preference doesn‘t yield a clear result, we default back to standard practices, i.e. Wikipedia sticks to how the reliable sources say it. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Re. Izzard: I‘m really not sure how to describe the Izzard situation, they have adopted a very complex gender identity that‘s linked to their performances but not exclusive to their stage persona. I‘m really not sure.

Re. Frequency of this issue: I think we‘ll see more and more notable individuals that are gender-nonconforming, and a good bit of them will say „I like he/him and she/her equally“, or something like that. This won‘t be the last time this question comes up, and as it currently exists, MOS:GID doesn‘t account for it. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a fine point! I'm going to add just a few final thoughts before I let others take over and respond, because I do have some concerns:

1. I'm, personally, a little hesitant about preemptive guidelines ... I generally think it's safer to let an issue appear, see how it's handled on an article-by-article basis, and either capture the standard practice or resolve a split by resorting to the guidelines.
2. I also wonder how often "internal consistency" is going to be an issue in light of MOS:SURNAME.
3. Finally, while currently handled by IAR, I suspect there are going to be a few editors who object on historical-figure grounds.

I do think you're right that this is going to be an issue—there's a related RFC on Talk:Celia Rose Gooding, who, on her twitter profile, listed "they/she" pronouns, and, later, in a tweet, said "I use both she and they pronouns". In that case, the discussion seems to have focused on (1) how to determine Gooding's preference (with most users relying on which pronoun was listed first in the twitter bio) and (2) how to best avoid ambiguity (with many users supporting "she" suggesting that "they" should be subordinated by default). Oddly, few users suggesting going by what most reliable sources used (though perhaps that's because the Twitter announcement postdated most reliable sources about the person, so the question turned on recency).

This all said ... if we were to add a statement capturing what you propose, perhaps we could kill at least a few of the words?

If such a person's most recently expressed identity is unclear (or the person has simultaneously embraced multiple identities), articles should be consistent about pronoun usage and which name is treated as the person's principal name. These determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out, at around the time Gooding put out the I use both she and they tweet, their social media profiles listed she/they. At some point after the tweet it was changed to the current order of they/she. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Oooh I somehow missed that entirely! I need to update my comment on that talk page. Thanks for pointing that out!--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd mentioned it in my !vote in the current RfC over there, but I guess a bunch of folks haven't read it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You did! Weird—I actually remember clicking on each of the external links you provided, and I very much remember the points you made in the second and third paragraph (the third, especially, led me to address that issue in a parenthetical at the end of my comment) ... I guess I somehow just glossed over the last sentence of that first paragraph?? Sorry about that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Good points! Going through them one by one:

1. I agree, we shouldn't make guidelines for issues that haven't come up yet. However, we're here because there have been cases of ambiguity, and my point was intended as "This will continue to happen into the future, these cases are not unique or limited to a specific time period."

2. I think your proposal resolves this; we're not saying that individuals need to be addressed by their chosen first name, just that there needs to be a consistent naming convention within articles.

3. Historical figures are tricky to figure out because our understanding of gender has changed so much in such a short time. Again, I think your proposed text gets around this nicely.

I'm also quite surprised that reporting in reliable sources wasn't taken into account that much in the RfC you mention, but so be it. If that's what current practice is, it should be reflected accurately here.

Slightly amended proposal:

If a person's most recently expressed gender identity is unclear (or the person has simultaneously expressed multiple identities), articles should be internally consistent with regards to the name that is treated as the person's principal name and the pronouns that are used to refer to them. These determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis.

I'm also pinging @Maddy from Celeste and @ScottishFinnishRadish for feedback. If everyone feels that this reflects current community consensus, I'll go ahead and add it to MOS:GID. Yay policymaking guideline-drafting! Actualcpscm (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to narrow it down a lot, you could just say, at the end of paragraph 1: "Complex and ambiguous cases should be treated on a case by case basis, but articles should be internally consistent as to a person's principal name and pronouns." I'd like to see what others have to say about this, but I don't have a problem with it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Either of these looks good to me. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Implemented with minor changes! Actualcpscm (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that a clarification along these lines is needed yet. I think SFR's comment below encapsulates why I don't think we need a clarification point like this. If a person choses to use a typically masculine name with feminine pronouns, or vice versa, I don't think we need to second guess it in any way, we just need to follow how they wish to be referred to. Likewise if a person expresses themselves in a typically masculine or feminine way, and wants us to use they/them pronouns, then we should respect that.

Izzard's case seems kinda unique to me, in that she's making a clear distinction between her public and private personas. She's maintaining use of the name Eddie Izzard for her public presence, while elsewhere she would prefer if people refer to her as Suzy. The way I would interpret her most recent statement is that Eddie is remaining her stage name, whereas Suzy is her actual name. Because our biographical articles are typically about the whole person, I lean towards using Suzy as the primary name.

However of the two options put forward so far, I much prefer the shorter version from Jerome as I don't think we need to be as verbose as Actualpscm's proposal. Both broadly convey the same meaning, but the shorter version also allows for a little more wiggle room on what is considered a complex or ambiguous case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a very different matter from the IAR clarification that SFR was referring to in that comment. This is a much more substantial clarification than "the general principles of reading guidelines apply to this guideline." Importantly, we're not deviating from the RfC consensus here.

Really all we're saying is that articles should stick to one primary name and one set of pronouns, whatever they may be. In the case of someone like Izzard, it could be argued that different sections of the article should refer to Izzard in different ways (for example as Suzy in a Personal life section and as Eddie in a Performances section). I don't think that would be a good idea; as you put it, biographical articles are about the whole person. After Maddy and SFR confirmed that they agree with this clarification in principle, I added it here; what do you think about the wording? Actualcpscm (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure that there aren't any potential articles on genderfluid subjects where it might be appropriate to use different pronouns in different parts of the article? For any guideline, there will always be complex and ambiguous cases to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; we can't predict exactly what they will involve. I agree that in general articles should strive to be consistent, but I'm not sure we need to specify it as a hard rule. (Specifying a rule as specifically designed for complex cases makes it very hard to justify any exceptions.) It's not the same, but I am thinking of how articles like Trixie Mattel and Conchita Wurst switch between names and pronouns when describing the drag/real-life personas, and are better for it.--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am convinced by this argument, so I retract my support for either amendment. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I agree that those articles are necessarily made better by this inconsistency. In fact, it very much clashes with what we mentioned just above; biographical articles are about the person as a whole, not about their stage personas. Of course those personas need to be mentioned and accordingly referred to, but the article itself should be about the actual individual. If I were to rewrite those articles right now, I don't think I'd mix pronouns the way they currently do. However, I'm not sure what the community consensus is on biographies that extensively cover stage personas; I'd like to get some input from other editors. @Jerome Frank Disciple @ScottishFinnishRadish @Sideswipe9th, you have all been very involved in this discussion; what do you think? Should biographical articles that cover stage personas treat those personas as their subject in this way?

I'm reverting the changes I made since they apparently don't reflect current consensus. Let's see how the debate develops. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here, other than I don't often end up editing in these situations so I'm not sure how best to handle it, and the RFC that I closed didn't really deal with this particular wording so I don't have much to clarify on that front. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to address potential ambiguity re: persons with deadnames that match their current expressed gender identity

While the above section seems to chiefly concern the persons with, borrowing language from Actualcpscm, "complementary preferences" regarding their names, I think Maddy also brought up a semi-distinct issue that can be addressed fairly easily. I suggest we remove "gender" from the phrase "gender self-identification" in paragraph one. I made that edit here, but it was reverted with a "get consensus first" message. I haven't seen anyone oppose, but I figured this separation will give them an opportunity to do so.

The paragraph in question already applies only to those "whose gender might be questioned" (though that could maybe be better phrased). Because "names" was added per the rfc, there was a possibility of some ambiguity: If a trans man originally had a masculine name (but still changed it), should we principally refer to him by his birth name, since that would be consistent with his most recent expressed "gender self-identification"? ... I think almost everyone here would say "no": Given the RFC's thematic focus on deadnaming (and the fact that such a person's birth name would still be a deadname), I think that's the most reasonable understanding of the community's position. Removing "gender" addresses the issue.

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable, and the second "gender" in that construction was redundant in the first place. I'm wracking my brain for any negative unintended outcome that could result from this edit, and nothing is coming to mind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so what if the person likes to be called Jane or Helen but reliable sources doesn't state the preferred pronoun? I think referring to Jane as she/her would be assuming gender, which is what some in the LGBT+ movement find offensive. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  We wouldn't be writing about them here at all without reliable sources, and the odds of zero of those sources ever using a pronoun to refer to the person are slim to none. We can entirely reasonably construe from the recent-er RS material what pronoun(s) are appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

IAR & GENDERID

@Starship.paint:: I realize there was a consensus that IAR could apply to edge cases in the RFC, but I—with some hesitation—reverted your explicit addition of IAR [25] because I think it perhaps gives undue weight to IAR. As I understand, IAR always has the possibility of applying to almost every policy (save legal-related policies), yet we don't go around each policy/guideline saying "remember, in edge cases, WP:IAR can be considered". Why here?--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: - per the close, Generally, those supporting the stricter wording acknowledge that there will be occasions where additional uses of the former name will be necessary and aren't actually absolutist about enforcement of the MOS. But, I do not trust that all editors of the community will avoid being absolutist in the enforcement. A reminder is warranted so that editors cannot insist on being absolutist. starship.paint (exalt) 14:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I have a few concerns, one of which I failed to allude to above:

1. saying that IAR is an option isn’t quite the same as saying the guideline should explicitly reference IAR
2. the supporters who mentioned IAR were discussing the possibility that it be used regarding a name, but your placement suggested it could also apply to pronouns.
3. The name policy had been in place … 2/3 days? I haven’t even seen a genderid debate in that time; I’m not sure how it already has absolutists! But almost every guideline can have absolutists; we still don’t reference IAR on every guideline, right?

-—Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: - (2) is immediately unreasonable, what I added was … former names may be used … - how does this relate to pronouns? No mention of pronouns was mentioned at all. starship.paint (exalt) 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re right! Sorry I misremembered—I guess that’s ‘’why’’ I didn’t mention it the first time!! Will strike.—Jerome Frank Disciple 14:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

(1) OK so don’t mention IAR. [26] OK? (3) Based on past discussion where some editors treat MOS:GENDERID as a blunt instrument (absolutism), I would think that some editors would continue. starship.paint (exalt) 14:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry—I'm not sure we'll agree here. For me, the fact that the supporters said IAR could be applied doesn't mean they supported either (1) an explicit reference to IAR or (2) an explicit watering down of the proposal's language based on IAR. But of course I may be biased here—I am the one who made the proposal! Why don't we see if other editors agree with the change you've suggested.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I have asked the closer to clarify. starship.paint (exalt) 14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The closer was referring to topics 2 & 3 in the quote you pulled. The text you added suggests local consensus to override which names to use to refer to someone, in which I think the consensus is quite absolutist. The only meaningful exception is when the subject expressed a desire to use their former name for past events, which is covered later un the guideline.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trystan:, right, but in my original edit summary I quoted the close from topic 1. It says: Some concerns were raised by those opposed about possible scenarios where the new language could be an issue, but those in support rebut those concerns by pointing out that IAR and consensus at specific articles should be sufficient to handle edge case. Have I misrepresented this? starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Solicit closer’s opinion. You mentioned in finding consensus for Topic 1 that Some concerns were raised by those opposed about possible scenarios where the new language could be an issue, but those in support rebut those concerns by pointing out that IAR and consensus at specific articles should be sufficient to handle edge case. Are the following sentences consistent with what you wrote? (Option A) For edge cases only, former names may be used if a local consensus develops. and (Option B) For edge cases only, former names may be used per WP:IAR if a local consensus develops. starship.paint (exalt) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two issues with the wordings. First, there was unambiguous (we're talking passing RFA) consensus for the proposed wording. Not for the proposed wording with a little bit added. The fact that those responding supported despite not having any language dealing with edge cases shows that there is no need for additional clarification. Second, your proposed wordings do not effectively communicate the rarity it which this should take place. Again, an overwhelming consensus supported the change to the guideline feeling that no written stipulation was necessary. This is a pretty clear demonstration that invocations of IAR should be exceedingly rare, which your proposed language does not.

Basically, there is no reason to add this mitigating language based on the consensus I read, and your proposed language does not effectively communicate the nature of the consensus. As JFD notes above, IAR applies to almost everything, and is stipulated almost nowhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - acknowledged; thank you for your explanation. starship.paint (exalt) 03:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

On the IAR point, we generally don't need to say in guidelines or other policies that IAR applies. It's pretty clear from the text of WP:IAR that it doesn't need restrictions on where it could or could not apply. Any editor, at any time, in any discussion, for (almost) any reason could make a case that IAR should apply and some other policy or guideline should be ignored. It's pretty self-evident from that policy's text.

As for the rest, SFR has largely conveyed my thinking on the rest of this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, generally, IAR is an action, not a justification; normally if IAR applies, then you can justify it better than saying "I'm just ignoring all rules". Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed with Jerome Frank Disciple; injecting an IAR wink-wink-nudge-nudge here is very inappropriate, and simply serves to undermine the idea that the MoS section in question has consensus at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguity under PEOPLETITLES

There's an ambiguity under MOS:PEOPLETITLES: "Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context, except in the lead sentence of a biographical subject's own article." This could mean either

• In the lead sentence, don't use titles even when necessary for clarity or identification.
• In the lead sentence, you can use titles even when not necessary for clarify or identification.

Largoplazo (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed [27].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Workshopping a second proposal

Alright, so, the current RFC over at VPP appears to be split about 50/50 right now. While that is a lot of support, it's not looking like it will reach consensus: the current proposal appears to have failed to get the support of almost any Option 2 voters.

Several oppose votes suggest an alternative based off the presence of the name in reliable sources, so I propose:

For a deceased trans or non-binary person that was not notable under their former name, their former name should be included if and only if it frequently appears in reliable sources about the subject's primary source(s) of notability. Sources that merely document the existence of the former name but which could not be used to establish notability (birth and death certificates, court records, social media posts, etc.) are not enough for inclusion by themselves even if they unambiguously are reliable for basic biographic facts.

Names that should be included should be in the first sentence of the lead, introduced with "born" or "formerly".

• From Leelah Alcorn: Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ...
  Alicorn's main source of notability is her suicide, and the public outcry over it. Her gender identity is mentioned often in news stories about these topics; however, her former name rarely is.
• From Public Universal Friend: The Public Universal Friend (born Jemima Wilkinson; November 29, 1752 – July 1, 1819)... The Friend's primary source of notability is their ministry. In sources about their ministry, the Friend's birth name is often used (especially regarding their early life) even though the Friend had not been notable under that name.

Thoughts? Questions? Revisions? Loki (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

More unnecessary instruction creep, more voter fatigue. Perhaps it's time to accept that the current policy is not broken, that there is no consensus to change, and we should just drop the stick and let it go. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Mitch, but you're absolutely wrong here. Any proposal is pretty explicitly not creep and there is a consensus for a change because the current lack of guidance is broken, as the recent RfC showed.

The current lack of guidance in this area causes many contentious discussions any time this comes up, some recent examples of which are linked and discussed in the currently running RfC. Simply pointing at the close of the RfC to say that there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest is not enough, because that provides exactly no guidance on what conditions make the former name become of encyclopaedic interest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Mitch, there's explicitly a consensus to change. If nothing else passes, we could literally incorporate the wording of the close into the guideline without further discussion (as there's already a consensus for it) but it'd be quite shoving the exact wording in there. Seeing as the close strongly implied we should hash out the wording in a second RFC, we're trying to do that if possible. Loki (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So I'm not going to speculate on what the outcome from the current RfC will be, because at a fundamental level consensus is not a vote, and any outcome could happen. I don't want to try and prejudge what the closer or closers of the current RfC will find.

When drafting my proposal, I was guided by three sentences. From the overall close Numerically, supporters the stricter interpretations held the plurality, but with insufficient support to overcome the concerns and objections of the other respondents., and from a side discussion on the close If I could have said There is consensus for option 2.8, figure it out, or if I was in a position to create the necessary language, I would have. (said by ScottishFinnishRadish) and The way I was going to handle the near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3 (what SFR is calling 2.8) was by saying that 3 had consensus, but by footnote or other mitigating language the not completely absolute nature of that consensus should be noted. (said by Barkeep49).

When reading those three sentences together, it was clear to me that whatever barrier for inclusion we set, the community consensus is that it has to be high. However, if my proposal set the barrier for inclusion too high, I think if it frequently appears in reliable sources about the subject's primary source(s) of notability sets it too low. If my proposal is felt to be a 2.9 or 2.95, this is closer to a 2.5.

Where I think this proposal fails is that it doesn't consider these questions from the RfC close Many responses supporting different options specifically called out the difficulty of dealing with a "majority" of sources, e.g. is 50%+1 sufficient? How does a majority take into account emphasis and source quality? To use the language of this proposal when asking those questions, how frequently is "frequently"? Is 50%+1 sufficient? And how does "frequently" take into account emphasis and source quality?

I'm also not so sure about Names that should be included should be in the first sentence of the lead. While it's certainly standard practice across many, but not all biographies of trans and non-binary individuals, I do find myself convinced by what Adam Cuerden has said, in that this will overemphasise the former names. I think this sentence would be better if it was more simply Names that should be included should be introduced with "born" or "formerly", as that leaves it up to the local consensus at the article level to decide where is the best placement location in the context of the specific article.

In terms of alternate formulations for this proposal, I like Trystan's proposed swap of in-depth analysis and discussion from my proposal to is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources. It gives us a higher barrier than just verifiability, and it takes into account emphasis and source quality. I also think that it's important that we should reference back to the close of recent RfC on this, as well as to specific policy points like WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:BALASP, which underpin this guideline. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Part of my reason for proposing this is that I'm increasingly convinced that the consensus is more like 2.5 than 2.8. If about 50% of people wanted 3, about 25% wanted 2, and the remaining 25% mostly wanted options even more lenient than 2 (which for our purposes we'll call "1"), that actually averages out to more like 2.3. Now, I'm aware that averaging doesn't really work here because every editor's reasoning is unique and because consensus is not unanimity, but for the purposes of getting option 2 supporters on board I think we'll need something that is more like option 2 than option 3. Loki (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar I'm curious as to how much that would vary from the option 2 in the last proposal (which used "majority of reliable sources" as a key factor to consider for WP:PLA). I think it's fair to say that the current RFC has pretty bleak hopes—but I'm more of a cynic than Sides. I'm also a bit hesitant to start another RFC very quickly without significant workshopping. The fact is, appeals to the restriction of the last RFC largely fell on deaf ears, and, at the next RFC, any attempt to say that restriction still applies will be countered by people citing the most recent recent RFC and the chorus of voices opposing any change as evidence that consensus changed. We might disagree with them, but I think it's almost bound to happen, and I don't think it's reasonable or smart to expect that some particularly bold closer will disregard those voices.

As to Trystan's proposal, I'm nervous about the "discussion of the name" line. I think it has at least some of the same features that caused some blowback to "in depth analysis" of the name. The problem is that a name, in and of itself, isn't usually something that people discuss. If a reliable source says "the name originated from the Scotland" ... I guess that's discussion/in-depth analysis, but that's pretty rare. Based on the examples provided, it seems like the rule being proposed was closer to "extensive discussion of the person's trans identity", not their name.

I want to re-propose my last proposal, which I updated over time after first introducing it, above. This proposal focuses on the stories that principally identify the person by that name (the Hale example) and persons who had a unique relationship to their name (which could be used to capture people like Public Universal Friend or Suzy Izzard (though Izzard is a bad example since they were notable before transitioning). I'm not 100% on this wording, but:

JFD Proposal

If a deceased transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should similarly[1] be excluded unless either (1) a rough majority of reliable sources principally identify the person by that former name or (2) the person is regarded by reliable sources as having wavered on their use of the name. For example: From Leelah Alcorn: Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) ... Note: Alcorn was not notable prior to transitioning, and the majority of reliable sources principally identified her by her chosen name. From Danielle Bunten Berry: Danielle Bunten Berry (February 19, 1949 – July 3, 1998), formerly known as Dan Bunten, ... Note: Berry was notable prior to transitioning. From 2023 Nashville school shooting: Aiden Hale (born Audrey Elizabeth Hale) .... Note: A clear majority of reliable sources principally referred to Hale by his birth name. ---- [1] This is in reference to the previous paragraph, discussing the exclusion of the deadnames of living trans people who were not notable pre transition.

Regarding the above

• I'm fine leaving out the first sentence portion—if I recall, in the first RFC, I just copied that from the portion on living persons.
• I'm not really concerned about the "majority" issue SFR mentioned in the last closing. We have several policies that use far more ambiguous language (MOS:CAPS says "substantial majority"), and the idea that not saying anything is less ambiguous than saying something is one I doubt (we can't quantify "in depth discussion," either—these things are standards, not rules). Moreover, consider the number of circumstances in which, say, the resolution issue actually would come down to something like "well we have 50% ... but do we need 50.1%?????" There's not a single page I can think of where the sources were that evenly divided. Also, given that the proposal has shifted to sources that principally identify the person by one name (a much higher bar), a lower % is called for (though I'd stress that even this lower % would still capture fewer sources than asking if 50% merely mention the name). After all, if a rough majority principally identify a person by their former name, then, frankly, the name should probably be included, because someone searching for the person would likely be thrown by its absence.

I think the advantages of this proposal are:

1. It's pretty clearly decipherable, so long as we can explain "principally identifies" (which is already something MOS:GENDERID covers per the last RFC), I don't really think there will be any "what does this mean???" comments. Granted, as you noted above, some sources will refer to persons using both names depending on the period of their life the source is discussing, but, in the case of the autobiography you mentioned, there was still a pretty clear "principal" name (per the title), and, as a fallback, we could say that principal means the name most commonly used: no doubt it will be very rare for a source to truly be split 50/50 in discussing a person.
2. It's a higher standard than option 2 from the last RFC, in the sense that fewer persons would have their name included under this proposal as opposed to under option 2. (Which is the only sense that matters, no?) But it's still a lower standard than option 3: we have a real-world example of a person who was not notable before transitioning who would be included with this policy—I think the fact that none of the examples fit that description in the last proposal was ultimately noticed.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what "discussion of the name" line? Those words don't appear anywhere in my proposal and in fact I specifically avoided them for the exact reasons you mention. Loki (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I—really helpfully—switched to talking about Trystan's proposal Sides mentioned without any indication I was doing so! I'll make that more clear :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 23:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

My reading of why Option 3 voters were not happy about that version of Option 2 is the worry that someone could include a former name of a recently dead trans person simply because it was well-documented. The main reason for the "analysis" requirement in the proposal up for discussion, by my reading, is to limit the pool of sources that count towards inclusion to only sources that actually have made some sort of editorial judgement to include it (and not just, like, birth certificates). My proposal also does this, but doesn't have the wording that many oppose voters objected to.

I think that this distinction between sources also includes the other two distinctions we seem to be getting at, namely between people who are clearly trans vs people who are ambiguously trans, and historical trans people vs recently deceased trans people. Reliable sources that use editorial judgement as to whether to mention a former name are much more likely to for historical trans people and for people who were only ambiguously trans, and much less likely to for recently deceased people who were unambiguously trans.

I do have an alternate wording that focuses on WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY sources rather than the subject's source of notability, but I slightly prefer this one because I think it ultimately leads to clearer wording assuming people are comfy with the concept of a source of notability. Primary vs. secondary leads to some odd edge cases: e.g. technically Christine Jorgensen's autobiography is a WP:PRIMARY source, and technically an article that quotes Leelah Alcorn's parents deadnaming her is a WP:SECONDARY source, but in this case I'd argue that the WP:PRIMARY source is exercising a lot more editorial judgement as to whether to use the former name than the WP:SECONDARY source is. Loki (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I think "principally refer" already takes away the possibility of a merely mentioned name getting through—which I 100% concede Option 2 would have allowed (if a majority of sources mentioned the name).

I'm somewhat thrown by your last paragraph (and maybe that means I don't understand your second). I should say that, in general, I actually think your proposal might be a lower standard than Option 2 (or at least it's amenable to that reading).

All of the proposals (well, let's except half of mine) have essentially been based on two questions:

1. What criteria does a source have to meet?
2. How many / what percentage of sources have to meet it?

Option 2, essentially, said "mention the deadname" and "majority".

Your proposal's criteria is, by my read, "mention the deadname AND not be a primary source" ... and it says that the name should "frequently" appear in sources.

But, first, I'm not sure that there are that many cases where primary sources would have affected the "majority" analysis—perhaps for some lower-profile figures (who I admittedly wasn't thinking of when I wrote it). And, second, I think "frequently" is subject to a wide range of interpretations, perhaps most of which don't require a majority. A lot depends on the "N": If there are 30 sources about a person, and every third source mentions a deadname, is it accurate to say it frequently appears in sources? I'd say probably yes. But that means your proposal would allow use of the former name if only 33% of secondary sources mention the deadname. By comparison, even including primary sources, it's hard to imagine that Option 2 would have allowed that: if only 33.33% of 30 reliable secondary sources used a deadname, you would need to find 10 primary sources using the deadname to get to 50%. Maybe not impossible if an editor were really determined, but still not that likely to actually happen. And it becomes even less likely the more sources that there are.

Conversely, I think my proposal is a higher standard, while still be lower than what was proposed in the last RFC.

The criteria is "primarily refer to the person by deadname" and the frequency is "rough majority". Now, the percentages might vary, but let's say that "rough majority" captures, at the lowest possible end, 40%. (And I think that's ... a quite-low interpretation of "rough majority".) Far fewer sources will primarily refer to a person by their deadname as will merely include or mention the deadname. Additionally, primary reference is a rough proxy for level of focus: Granted, it's a tad over inclusive in terms of what it prohibits, but my proposal absolutely does not capture articles that merely mention a deadname as a curio in passing. Moreover, in part to address the over-inclusivity, there is a second person-based rationale for inclusion: If the person has, themself, wavered on using the name. I think that will speak to Option 2/lower supporters, particularly in regards to their concerns regarding historical figures. (Now, I thought about saying "is regarded by reliable sources as having a unique relationship to their former name" ... but I think that's too ambiguous, based on the responses we've seen.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Because this is a standard for mentioning a deadname, and not using a deadname, I think we ought to go based on sources that mention the deadname. In practice, there aren't going to be that many sources that make an editorial judgement to mention the deadname but never use it in most cases: our standard here is very closely tailored for being an encyclopedia. Most sources I've seen that mention deadnames use them.

But if we're going on sources that mention the deadname, we need to be sure to exclude sources that mention the deadname because they have to. We're trying to import the analysis of the sources here, not just establish that the name exists, so sources that perform no analysis are useless to us.

This is why I think that Option 2 from the previous RFC was not the best. Option 2 wasn't based on those two questions at all; instead it imposed an after-the-fact standard based on what the reader would expect instead of based on anything the sources said (except for the basic fact that the name in question really was this person's former name, which we'd get from WP:V anyway). Because of this, it was both very permissive, and didn't really cut where we'd want a "sometimes" option to cut. Loki (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's wholly responsive to the issue of your proposal potentially being more permissive (and, by my analysis, likely to be more permissive in most cases).--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Cuñado's proposal

I know some people have labeled me "the opposition", but here is a serious proposal that I think will address most of the issues raised so far, and also avoid this section being endlessly litigated. It's a new logical flow to the section.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed MOS:GID section

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a living person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of: Individuals who were notable prior to transition. Public figures, where multiple reliable third-party sources have documented the information (See WP:PUBLICFIGURE). When the individual has clearly expressed their consent to share the information, as documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Given the sensitivity and personal nature of gender transitions, information that could reveal a gender transition should be given the maximum censorship allowed under WP:Biographies of living persons, including continuing to exclude it for 2 years after death by default, regardless of editorial consensus (See WP:BDP). Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. If you see such information anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. When removing the information, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting Oversight. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, or two years have passed since their death, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion. When the living individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used.

I think that's an intriguing proposal, but it seems to be that it's net effect is to: (1) lower the standard for living trans persons, (2) create a 2-year-post-death exclusion rule for deceased persons and then (3) only apply WP:UNDUE post the two-year period, which I think most editors would argue a sentence or single parenthetical never is. The net sum, while a bit harder to categorize, seems like it's not really consistent with the effort to split the difference between option 2 & option 3 from the first RFC--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by lower the standard for living trans persons. Can you be more specific? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Currently living trans persons are only subject to a pre-transition notability exception allowing inclusion.

It appears to me that you've listed 3 exceptions, including "Public figures, where multiple reliable third-party sources have documented the information". Now, perhaps the next paragraph hedges, but at the very least you're embracing a standard over what was previously a rule—and that expands the instances in which a living trans person's former name could be included, no?

Do you deny that your proposal would be less restrictive than Option 2 from the first RFC?--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

... information that could reveal a gender transition ... should not be included in any page ... If you see such information anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it — That effectively makes it impossible to discuss the matter, if "any page ... anywhere on Wikipedia" includes Talk pages. I know that Talk pages are subject to BLP, but forbidding editors to even discuss the topic (since the existence of any such discussion "could reveal a gender transition") seems a bit extreme. Consider the case where an editor decides that an existing source is not reliable enough, or that there aren't enough of such sources. They are now required to delete all mention of the transition from the article, and cannot even ask about it on the talk page, or give any hint as to why they did it. If I notice the edit and raise the matter on the (article's or editor's) talk page to discuss it, the same editor would then be required to delete my post asking about it, with no hint as to why. Does WP:BRD now stand for Blackout, Redact, Deny? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It uses the language from WP:BLPPRIVACY and puts non-notable gender transition along with "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc." I agree with your argument that it certainly makes it difficult to edit, but I don't think it's that different than the way the page is currently worded. User:Jerome Frank Disciple interpreted this as lowering the standard for living trans persons. I would support allowing the information on talk pages for the reasons you mentioned. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

puts non-notable gender transition along with "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. There is a fundamental difference between "reveal a gender transition" and "reveal a phone number etc". My actual phone number, address, bank account number is private/personal/secret, but the fact that I have a phone, address, bank account number is generally not considered a secret - it's presumed that everyone has them. However if I were non-publicly transgender, the mere fact that I am transgender is the secret, not just the "details" (male-to-female, female-to-male, something-else) of the transition and my old/dead name.

We could, for example, openly discuss on the talk page whether someone's date of birth (also included in BLPPRIVACY) should be included in their article, without actually disclosing that date. However we can't discuss whether someone's gender transition should be mentioned without implicitly disclosing the fact that there was one. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Frankly, trying to jump the gun and write a new proposal or draft a new follow-up RfC when one is still ongoing is generally not a good idea. As I said in a thread above, the next-round RfC at WP:VPPOL has now closed, again with no consensus, but again with steps toward consensus. But we're not going to get to that consensus if that RfC isn't analyzed in detail, and the next-next round based closely on the revisions and alternative language that people said would bring them to the supporting side.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible error in MOS:JOBTITLE table

@Kornatice: and I split over the capitalization of "Florida governor Ron DeSantis"/"Florida Governor Ron DeSantis". Konatice said it should be lowercased (I think because the official title is Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis), accurately pointing out that the table includes "US president Richard Nixon". But ... while Konatice is absolutely right ... I think the problem is that the table is wrong—not just externally wrong but internally inconsistent.

First, let's start with the text rules, which say to capitalize positions.

• When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
• When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
• When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:

Now, it was my thought that the first bullet controlled. But Kornatice—consistent with the Nixon example—reads the third bullet as limiting the first bullet: and thus, we should not capitalize "a formal title for a specific entity ... [that is] addressed as a title or position in and of itself ... and is not a reworded description:". I have to admit, I'm pretty decent at grammar, but that third bullet throws me for a loop. Does "in and of itself" apply to title and position? Anyways ... regardless:

First, I'm not sure that's the rules are internally consistent: note that the first bullet says "President Nixon" should be capitalized ... but "President" is arguably a reworded description (shorthand) for President of the United States.

And, second, I can't help but think that the colon (which I left in) is very important there. The colon proceeds the table. And, notably, there's something a little funny about the table: Every item in the left column—showing capitalization—is not a title immediately followed by a name—it's a title that's the object of a verb."Richard Nixon was President of the United States."; "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016."; "Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792)."

On the right column, we get a little more variation: titles that are the objects of verbs ("Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom.") AND titles that exist independent of the name they precede—not functioning as adjectives but as subjects ("The French king, Louis XVI, was later beheaded."). The only example where a name immediately follows and title function is the "US president Nixon" example. Now, what's weird about this example is that it's also not consistent with the column titles at the top of the table. The left column title is "denoting a title", but the right column title is "denoting a description". But that's a semi-baffling choice of words if the example is correct. In "Florida governor Ron DeSantis" or "US president Richard Nixon" ... both "Florida governor" and "US president" are literally being used as titles ... so it's a little strange to say they're denoting a description instead of a title.

I want to further add that not capitalizing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be inconsistent with ... every other style guide I'm aware of? (Not that we're bound by those style guides, just food for thought.) Based on that, I'd suggest modifying that third bullet to:

• When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is connected to the subject via a linking verb and addressed as a title or position in and of itself, so long as the title is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:

-Jerome Frank Disciple 02:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this analysis is right. I think you've missed an important example: Mitterrand was the French president. This is the example used for the case of not capitalizing an office or title.

I also disagree that the full title for the governor of Florida is "Governor of Florida". It's just "Governor". Same way you'd refer to "Dr. Sigmund Freud" but would in a full sentence say "Sigmund Freud was a doctor". If you say "Sigmund Freud was a doctor of psychiatry" you still don't capitalize it. Nor would you if you were to refer to "psychiatric doctor Sigmund Freud". The title in this case is just "Dr." or "Doctor", and not "doctor of psychiatry" or "psychiatric doctor".

It's the "Florida" that's causing confusion here I think, because "Florida" is itself a proper noun and so is always capitalized. Loki (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think I did! In "Mitterrand was the French president."—the title is the object of the verb ("was"). As such, the first bullet point does not apply to it, and it fits the reword I suggested. The key question here is whether the third bullet point is meant to limit the first bullet point—I think it's fairly clearly not meant to.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that that's the key question here. My reading of this section is that the first bullet point doesn't even apply at all to "Florida governor Ron DeSantis", the same way it would not apply to "psychiatric doctor Sigmund Freud". It only covers titles that are part of the name, not descriptions that just happen to go before the name. Loki (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate: "when followed by a person's name to form a title" is the controlling description there—note that "considered to become part of the name" is only listed after "i.e." ("that is"). You can't substitute "i.e." for "if and only if". (Also, how is "Florida [G]overnor Ron DeSantis" not part of the name but "President Richard Nixon" is?)

I'm ... quite skeptical of the idea that adding an adjective destroys capitalization but using shorthand for the title does not—certainly I don't think that's reflected in the current rules. For example, the official title for U.S. president is not "President" but "President of the United States". So, substituting "President" for the full title is modifying it. Yet "President Nixon" is capitalized. But, by your rule, if I said "His inability to keep his mouth shut reminded observers of loose-lipped President Nixon" ... president would be lowercased, because there's an adjective before it? (After all, by your rule, per your talk page, "French president Mitterrand" would be lowercased, but French is just an adjective. I think what you're getting at is more that the title shouldn't be capitalized if it's a standalone reference (e.g., He was joined by the French president, Mitterand") ... but that's not use as a title. --Jerome Frank Disciple 15:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• As I understand it… we would write “He was joined on stage by Governor DeSantis” ("Governor DeSantis" being his title)… but “He was joined on stage by Florida governor DeSantis” (“Florida governor” being his job). Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  But my point is that is still using governor as a title in a grammatical sense. Perhaps you can say "Florida" is modifying "Governor" and therefore Governor shouldn't be capitalized, but that doesn't really make sense. It's also counter to every other style guide I'm aware of. In fact, I can't find a single news org that does that.

  • PBS: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
  • NPR: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
  • New York Times: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
  • BBC: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
  • Reuters: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
  • Newsweek: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
  • Tampa Bay Times: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

  Of course, we can reject every other style guide ... but why are we doing that here? The only reason that's been offered is that "Florida Governor Ron DeSantis" isn't "part of the name" like "Governor Ron DeSantis" is. ... But that's not a distinction based on any real grammatical concept.

  Further, if the modification rule really does apply to titles that are serving as adjectives (and immediately precede the name), no one has been able to explain why "President Nixon" would be capitalized, even though the official title is President of the United States, and "President" is merely a shorthand modification.

  As the first bullet accurately holds, if the title immediately precedes the name and is not independent of the name, we should capitalize it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I've stopped fighting this one. Logically, you're right and the rule should be if the title immediately precedes the name, then it's capitalized (Florida Governor Ron DeSantis), but if the title is set apart from the name in some way, then it's lowercase (Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida or the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate that! For a second it felt like I was taking crazy pills.

  @Blueboar what are your thoughts? I understand what you said is above is your understanding of the policy, but do you think that's right? Or, more specifically, would either you or @Carter Tcr25 object to changing the third bullet to:

  • When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is connected to the subject by a linking verb, so long as the title is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:

  and removing the "US president Nixon" example? (which, by the way, is a hyper weird example ... because I'm not sure there's any example of a Wikipedia article saying something as weird as "US president Nixon").

  (Btw: I did consider whether it was okay to limit to "linking verbs": Specifically, I wondered whether "elected president of the United States" would be used with a capital "P" in either our articles or reliable sources. Looks to me like no: see African-American candidates for President of the United States (Barack Obama (D-IL) was elected president of the United States.) or this NYT story ("Joseph R. Biden Jr. was elected president of the United States on Saturday ....").

Stray thoughts

I'll be honestly, I'm usually relatively anti-capitalization, and I'm actually a little bit dubious that this third exception should exist at all—I think "Richard Nixon, president of the United States", is actually superior to "Richard Nixon, President of the United States", particularly given that we would lowercase if using an article like "the". If we ditched the third bullet point altogether ... I think the rule would be far more straightforward: capitalize titles when they immediately precede names. Now, there is some nuance there: JOBTITLES actually doesn't discuss "doctor", but Loki brought up the example of saying "the psychiatric doctor Sigmund Freud said ....": there, the meaning changes if you capitalize "doctor" ("the psychiatric Doctor Sigmund Freud" has a different meaning!). But, and I can't quite put my finger on what grammatical concept causes this distinction ... I realized there is a distinction here: You could start a sentence by saying "Psychiatric doctor Sigmund Freud ...." or you could start a sentence with "The psychiatric doctor Sigmund Freud ...." But you can't do that with Florida Governor without requiring "Ron DeSantis" to be set off by commas: "The Florida Governor Ron DeSantis ...." doesn't work—"the" doesn't make sense there—only"The Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, ...." or "Florida Governor Ron DeSantis ...." work. Fortunately, we don't have address this issue.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed (except "capitalize titles when they immediately precede names" should be "capitalize titles when they immediately precede or follow names", since some titles come after) I do think a case can be made for capitalizing "Florida Governor Ron DeSantis"; I don't recall a good rationale for "Florida governor Ron DeSantis"; it's just a modifier preceding a name+title combo, like "former President Jimmy Carter" (or "former-President Jimmy Carter" if you prefer). Similarly, "then-King Edward VIII (later the duke of Windsor)". But maybe I'm forgetting some debate from back-when that did make a case for lower-casing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on complex gender identities

How should complementary or complex preferences with regard to gender expression and identity be handled? This applies to article subjects such as Conchita Wurst or Trixie Mattel, where the article contains information both on the person and their stage persona(s), as well as to articles like Eddie Izzard, where the subject's expressed identity does not clearly indicate how they should be referred to under MOS:GID. In such cases, should the article text:

A. Refer to the subject with only one set of pronouns throughout the article

OR

B. Refer to them variably?

Note relevant discussion in the GID inclarity section above. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is no single “right” answer to this question. A LOT depends on the expressed desires of the subject of the article… which means we often have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• I also feel this is something needing to be thrashed out on individual talk pages. There has been a lot of discussion that can help with guidance on this page and elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Hard cases make bad law GMG^talk 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Blueboar. This isn't the sort of situation where a one-size-fits-all rule can be crafted without creating more problems than are solved. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the above people that this is something that needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, not with a wholesale policy change. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 13:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) There is no single “right” answer to this question. A LOT depends on the expressed desires of the subject of the article… which means we often have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, per Blueboar but in general, refering to someone variably within an article is a recipe for confusion IMO. The drag artists (Conchita Wurst and Trixie Mattel) have some justification since the articles are ostensibly in the name of the character, rather than the artist, but even so, the articles seem needlessly confusing, both whether the article itself is actually about a performer, or the drag persona they created and in the use of pronouns (the character or creator could be referred to by name throughout). Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Case-by-case, follow the reliable sources, lather, rinse, repeat. Do we really need this RfC? Where and with whom did you decide how to frame the RfC question? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm sure this is asked with the best of intentions, but... Please please please, not another GENDERID RfC. This is not urgent. The wiki is not burning down. The trans/nonbinary biography space does a pretty good job self-regulating and does not need RfC after RfC on style rules. Give people some time to breathe. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree I don't keep my pronouns in my sig like Tamzin, but anyone who met me in my thirties or forties would attest that "complex / complementary gender expression" would apply to any bio of me were I somehow most unwelcomely to pass WP:N. So, I claim an "inside view" of this topic, and with that perspective I ask please take a break. I cannot remember a time there were not at least two concurrent pronoun and/or deadname RfCs running in fairly public venues.

  I see nowhere established an inability of talkpage conversations to handle this corner case. Further, and kindly, I claim that unambiguously [gender]-identifying first name is a fallacious construct. To step outside this culture for a moment, whenever one of the teachers I worked alongside in China would hear from another teacher the name of a student they didn't know, the first question was always "boy or girl?" Leaving aside the obvious gender-binary cultural blinders, even the idea of an unambiguously gender-identifying first name is unknown is some settings.

  And for a counterexample from Western culture, one of the easy ways people in our department at grad school used to suss out whether some student was actually familiar with the secondary literature or had just read a few articles here or there would be to bring up Michael Nylan, now the most prominent active Han dynasty historian in the Western world, and see if the student misgendered her based on assumptions about her first name.

  I'm sorry this got rambly and ranty, and I appreciate that the people initiating these RfCs are doing so in good faith to protect and respect notable people who are similar to me in a vulnerable way that makes us visible minorities wherever we go. But what I'm feeling instead is that the image being presented to the wider Wikipedia community is that trans people are delicate to the point we need a constant flow of RfCs to head off any possible affront no matter how minor or unintentional. When people address you with the wrong pronouns, you remind, forgive, and have patience. It takes a while to learn, but people are learning. The ceaseless pushing on these topics is a road to resentment, not consensus.

  Apologies for the feelings. It's been a wholeass week over here. Double apologies to everyone who has their pronouns tattooed on their knuckles and gets tilted about pronouns on the daily (although I doubt the person I'm thinking of reads anything in the Wikipedia_talk: namespace). Folly Mox (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  "I see nowhere established an inability of talkpage conversations to handle this corner case." Yep. We already have a WP:MOSBLOAT problem, and MoS should not get new rules added that are not frequent sources of reader confusion or editorial in-fighting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Reiterating what's already been said, we should handle these on a case-by-case basis. I beg that we do not have another RfC. Like Tamzin and Folly Mox, this has a personal connection for me. I'd not claim to have complex / complementary gender expression, rather I have a "don't give a fuck" approach which means I don't mind any personal pronouns. But even in that, the same issue arises as described by Actualcpscm. I don't think we have enough BLPs that would require us to create a uniform policy and AFAIK we've been able to self-regulate well enough. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

SURNAME and repeated uses

During Folly Mox's recent (very welcome) RFC on link repetition, which successfully challenged the assumption that Wikipedia articles are read from top to bottom like a regular article (because nobody reads Wikipedia like that) and changed the policy on duplicate links from one-per-article to one-per-section, Bagumba wondered if that change Would [...] trickle over to MOS:SURNAME as well. That question was tabled for possible discussion here.

So, let's have that discussion, because OMG yes it should! (IMHO) A repeated frustration for me, when reading articles, goes like this: (Note: The names are made up, but the frustration is real.)

• I'm reading an article about... some event, something that doesn't have a person as its subject.
• Let's pretend it's an article about the Bowling Green massacre — not Kellyanne's fake one, a real one.
• I'm reading the fifth section of the article, having skimmed over the rest, because... I don't know, because I have the attention span of a gnat on meth? Point is, it happens.
• That section opens, On December 5, 2017, Hall released a statement condemning the attack.

Now, the obvious question here is, "Who the hell is 'Hall'!?" Oh, OK, I go back three entire sections to find out that the article's referring to Georgina Hall, then-Mayor of Bowling Green.

We can do better than that. At least once a section, any figures mentioned in the article should probably be fully re-contextualized. Even if someone does read from top to bottom like a regular article, over that kind of distance it's really easy to forget who these people are, when they're referred to only by their surname. Writing "Mayor Hall" or "Mayor Georgina Hall" the first time she's mentioned in each section costs us little, and makes for more readable articles.

Heck, when something is vital to our understanding of their role — like our fictional Ms. Hall's Mayorship — I'd even consider supporting a policy that it should be included every time they're mentioned. When a person mentioned in an article is relevant solely or primarily due to their position, including that context ("Mayor Hall" rather than just "Hall") each time they're mentioned feels prudent. FeRDNYC (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support once per section at a minimum. Weak support for the extension (when something is vital to our understanding of [a person's] role ... it should be included every time they're mentioned), but as guidance rather than hard rule. I agree it's frustrating to find oneself in the situation described as a reader, but I'd be weary of making re-contextualising-on-every-use a solid policy lest it cause articles to become stilted or take on a patronising tone. Better it should be encouraged, but with reasoned deviation permitted. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about the second part myself, it was a 'thinking out loud' sort of addition. While I feel it could be useful as "style advice", at least within the same paragraph you're right that it could read as stilted. So, you'd want to allow some leeway there, and it starts to feel like a bad fit for policy. FeRDNYC (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Allow but do not mandate - allowing re-contextualizing is fine, but mandating it "at least once a section" is overkill, and would result in excess verbosity. The wording of MOS:DL should probably apply to SURNAME as well (my emphasis here, not in MOS): "... may be repeated if helpful for readers ... at the first occurrence in a section".
  One significant and relevant difference between repeated links vs repeated title/forename is that repeated links do not take up any more space on my screen, and it's relatively easy to ignore the extra colouration of the link, but repeated title/forename does take up extra screen space, and more (unnecessary) words makes it harder to read the text (it's more cognitive load to skip over the repeated title/forename). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why would we cater to jump-around readers at the expense of an article that flows without repetition? In an article like Russo-Ukrainian War, we would have to write in full "President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy" in every section, rather than just describing him as "Zelenskyy". That's not unlike describing Jesus in every relevant chapter of the bible, just for people who are jumping in somewhere. Our articles should have internal integrity, flow and readability, and not appear like a series of independent standalone sections cobbled together. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  "President Zelenskyy" at the first occurrence in a new section would suffice. XAM2175 ^(T) 08:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  There is more than one president involved in the Russo-Ukrainian War. If a drop-in reader does not know who "Zelenskyy" is, adding he is "a president" is not clarification. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, if someone is mentioned only a few times in an article, and it's non-contiguous, and it isn't just a matter of in-text attribution for a source, I usually re-introduce them, at least briefly, usually including given name. It had never occurred to me that that violates MOS:SURNAME, and no one's ever called me on it, which is perhaps telling in itself. So, allow per Mitch. Which mirrors link repetition across sections: no one has to re-link a term every section (and in many articles that would look absurd); it's just that there's no longer a rule against it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Full name repetition is something I do quite a bit – it doesn't break the flow and it makes what's going on for people like me, who skim and forget names that don't look important (particularly analysts). For mentions that are quite far apart from each other, I might do a title reintroduction. It makes for a better reading experience, it's more accessible, it doesn't throw off the look, would 100% support scrapping the no-repetition guideline. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Generally oppose I understand the motivation as I sometimes read whole articles and sometimes jump into specific questions, but I think that repeatedly introducing individuals with full names and roles interrupts the flow and will generally be unnecessary. If I consider three general situations:

1. The individual is a key character in the article. For example, to understand the Bowling Green massacre example you need to know who Kellyanne Conway is, so it seems reasonable to expect that the reader will read enough of the article that they don't need repeated reintroduction.
2. The individual is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Now that we can have once-per-section hyperlinks, we can unobtrusively link to their article without breaking the flow of the text.
3. The individual is not notable in the article or in Wikipedia generally. I can see that such individuals will occasionally need to be reintroduced but I generally oppose changing guidelines to recommend it, as in many cases this is best handled by not referring to the person by name at all: returning to the example posed above, the Bowling Green massacre article doesn't refer to the mayor by name, instead saying, "The mayor of Bowling Green, Kentucky, issued a statement...". --Mgp28 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Reluctant weak support. In general, I don't think it's necessary to repeat full name or name and title in most instances, but I'd concede there are times where it may help the flow. I agree with WWGB's concern that we don't have articles that read like they're multiple articles just slapped together, but I think Mitch Ames has a point that we should allow (but not mandate) repetition to a limited degree when it helps the reader. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm supportive of the idea of contextualising individuals in later sections for the benefit of people who have not fully read and absorbed prior sections, but I'm not clear on what change is being proposed. The applicable bit of guidance currently reads After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only, and then goes on to discuss a lot of edge case exceptions. I'll note that my practise to date has been that if I'm reading an article and come across an individual I don't recognise and have to root around in the upper bits of the article to identify them, I'll usually edit the section causing my confusion to add a very brief descriptor of the individual, unless it would clearly disrupt the flow of the full article, like if they were introduced at the end of the section immediately prior. I don't read this as violating should generally, and can't recall ever being reverted about it.
  I think the change wrought from the MOS:DL RfC actually low key weakens the need for this one, since later mentions of an individual can be uncontentiously wikilinked to their bio through their surname, allowing the reader a quick route to identification. For the examples given above, Mayor Hall and President Zelenskyy are probably how I'd personally handle later section mentions, with or without linking as common sense indicates. So in general I'd put myself on team "allow, but don't mandate", but it would be nice if a specific change to the guidance text were proposed. Folly Mox (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Allow but do not mandate. This proposal largely makes sense in the context of a person being mentioned as a "side subject" (e.g. mayor of the town the article is about), but it does not make much sense when it comes to inline source attribution. E.g., if the artice near the top has something like "According to Hugh Trevor-Roper (1983), [quote here]^[1], and then 7 sections later we have "Murray Pittock (2010) showed that the assumptions in Trevor-Roper (1983) were based on incomplete research, and left out [various important source stuff]^[23]", this is entirely fine. It's completely routine, and readers understand that "Trevor-Roper (1983)" is a reference to a previously-cited work that can be found in the bibliography of the article. Linking as "Trevor-Roper (1979)" in the later case does not help the reader, as the material in that specific context is about the author's written source, not the author as a biographical subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of "Rabbi"

Should "Rabbi" be used in running text (here, for example)? Or just the individual's surname, as is the norm? I strongly assume it's the latter and that the recommended action is to remove "Rabbi", just wanted to confirm and check to see if there's been any discussion regarding this already. Mooonswimmer 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:REVEREND says no to "Rabbi". "In general, honorific prefixes ... should not be included... In particular, this applies to: ... styles and honorifics related to ... clergy ..." Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that MOS is intended to cover the case of "Rabbi". "Rabbi" is not like "Her Majesty" or "The Reverend" or similar two word titles; it's a lot more like "Doctor". Furthermore that section links to a part of the MOS specifically about Christian clergy.

That being said, I agree that the overall rule not to use honorifics in running text applies here. I just disagree that that specific section, which says honorifics for clergy should not be used at all, applies to rabbis. Loki (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So MOS:DOCTOR or MOS:SURNAME, instead of MOS:REVEREND. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. In running text, the surname is generally sufficient without honorifics. Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think that rabbis are exempt from a guideline that applies to clergy? It's like "Father", "Pastor", and "Reverend" without the "the". And we don't use "Doctor" either. What the word is unfortunately linked to doesn't override what the guidelines says and isn't an indication that Wikipedia has special rules that applied to Christian clergy only. Why would it? Largoplazo (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, MoS would definitely not intend something to apply to clergy of a particular religion only. If the material needs to be adjusted to include titles like rabbi and imam then let's do it and put this to rest.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is exactly like any of those honorifics considering it is capitalized. Uncapitalized though, I get a little vague. "According to rabbi [first] [last]" seems a bit like "according to engineer [first] [last]" or "according to philosopher [first] [last]". —DIYeditor (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure; there are times also that mentioning someone is a doctor or professor or pastor is also contextually relevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD restrictions on the use of deceased transgender or non-binary persons birth name or former name

I've WP:BOLDly added the following to MOS:DEADNAME:

For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing significant coverage of the person.

I understand that some editors will want stricter restrictions than this, and I understand that some editors will want looser restrictions than this. However, I believe the former group will consider this an improvement over the status quo, and I believe the latter group will recognize that if this went to RfC it would get consensus.

Hopefully, this is an acceptable compromise that will allow us to avoid yet another RfC, at least for now. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there precedence including the wording " "high quality" reliable sources"? I mean, reliable sources are reliable or not. I don't know since when not including the birth name of a notable person who is an article is considered a good encyclopedic practice. Maybe it is actually a thing and I simply don't know about it. But why only give this exception to transgender or non-binary? I think if anything such guidance should be for everyone if it is good guidance. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely a quality level difference in reliable sources, despite them being reliable in general. On the side of news, the Daily Dot is nowhere near the level of the New York Times. Significant coverage of a topic in the latter is worth far more than the former. Silverseren^C 05:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the reliability of the Daily Dot, actually. Although there are some sources considered high-quality, a source in general is considered reliable or not. It can be high-quality in some contexts but not considered reliable in others, as in WP:MEDRS. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We definitely don't want to include this merely because someone finds the name recorded in a library catalog entry or something like that. It should be central to the notability of the subject, not merely incidental. In that sense, I support the spirit of BilledMammal's attempt. But I strongly oppose pushing GNG-based definitions of SIGCOV into non-GNG parts of our guidelines. We should use that only where it is appropriate in some (not all!) notability guidelines. More general wording like "central to the notability of the subject" would be a better way to go here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

central to the notability of the subject The issue with that is I'm not certain what it means; at least WP:SIGCOV is somewhat well understood. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. SIGCOV means whatever the people arguing at AfDs want it to mean. Often it means "I want to include this subject so I will count this churnalism consisting of a press release with the serial numbers filed off as SIGCOV" or "I don't want to include children's fantasy novels so I will rewrite SIGCOV to disallow the sorts of content that are typically included in reviews of those novels so that I can argue that they do not have SIGCOV". It is too politicized and too frequently gamed in ways that have nothing to do with what we want here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I know there have been very extensive discussions about this gender topic but I still fail to understand how come in an encyclopedia the transitioning of a person is not a major piece of information to be included, and that includes their former names. I am not very versed in trans philosophy but I am guessing it is an issue of privacy. Usually that's the realm of living people though. What's the rationale about providing extra limitations for alternative names of trans and non-binary deceased people exclusively? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would interpret "high quality reliable sources" as being limited to WP:GREL sources; "reliable sources" would include WP:MREL sources.

I think if anything such guidance should be for everyone if it is good guidance. Personally, I would have no objection to expanding this to all bios; if reliable sources don't consider a name relevant, why should we? BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. "Reliable sources" and "SIGCOV" are not the same thing. A source can be reliable despite being non-independent of the subject, or despite only sourcing one small factoid above the subject. (I would argue that, in cases where the factoid can only be sourced in this way, it is not particularly central to the notability of the subject. But for non-controversial information (not deadnames) these non-central claims can still be helpful in building out an article to a more complete length. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This response was to Thinker78's comment where they said Is there precedence including the wording " "high quality" reliable sources"? I mean, reliable sources are reliable or not. My understanding of their comment was that it was focused on a different aspect of the paragraph than what your comment was focused on; if I misunderstood their comment I apologize, but I am certainly not moving any goalposts. BilledMammal (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Second version

David Eppstein has now reverted, saying Some restriction like this may be appropriate but pushing your SIGCOV-fetish into MOS goes too far.

To try to address this, I've changed the wording to:

For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

This still requires that the source contains more than a passing mention, but it omits the reference to SIGCOV that David found so objectionable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As said above, I agree with the spirit of your proposal: we should only include deadnames if we have some evidence that they are a significant part of the biography, not just something incidental that we happen to find barely-adequate sourcing for. What I am opposed to is not that, but the way you worded it in terms of something that properly belongs only in our notability guidelines. This is better, but I'm still concerned: we have some classes of people (for instance academics) for whom notability does not rely on the existence of high-quality reliable secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of those people. If such a person happens to be transgender (I know of multiple notable examples, not all of whom say anything about that in the article) are we to be entirely forbidden from mentioning it? Even if, for instance, much of their academic publication record happens to be under their deadname? In that case it would, I think, be central to their notability, but in a way different from the sort of sourcing you are imagining to exist, which might not exist at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC is not a guideline that I have a good understanding of; JoelleJay, I understand you do have a very strong understanding of it. Perhaps you could comment on how this would interact with that guideline and, if you agree it would interact as David describes, recommend changes to address that? BilledMammal (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think David's point about academics not receiving the type of biographical significant coverage that would provide sourcing on a trans person's birth name is accurate (and perhaps he should have participated in the aforementioned RfCs and in the ones that decided deadnames can never be mentioned in living transpeople's articles if they weren't notable pre-transition). However, I would argue that in cases where much of their academic publication record happens to be under their deadname, our guidance already licenses mentioning the deadname because the individual's notability is unlikely to be derived wholly from post-transition publication. In most NPROF evaluations, notability is far more a cumulative measure than what we use in any other guideline; in my opinion, if someone could not have established an NPROF pass without pre-transition publications, the deadname is DUE even if they wouldn't have met notability criteria before adopting their new name. But if their publication record was strong enough to pass NPROF post-transition and it was too weak to pass pre-transition, then exclusion of the name may be warranted according to the RfC close. JoelleJay (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As an example, I don't think we mention Lynn Conway's deadname (although she certainly passes GNG as well as PROF), because her most significant publications were post-transition. Another class of subjects who do have significant coverage, but about their works and less commonly about their personal lives, is book authors. If we think someone is notable per WP:AUTHOR, because they have in-depth published reviews of their books, we should still probably not use a review that happens to mention a deadname as an excuse to include that deadname. On the other hand if many of their reviewed books were published under the deadname, then we probably should mention the deadname even if we don't have in-depth biographical coverage beyond the reviews. Again, what's important is that it's central to the notability of the subject, not what kind of sources we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. Perhaps if we reworded the paragraph to:

For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person, or if the person published multiple reviewed works under the name.

I'm not sure multiple reviewed works is the correct line to draw, but we can work on that; would anyone object to the general principle? BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Like I said below, I sort of do; I think it would be much more elegant to just incorporate the notability guideline we already use for living people rather than carving out exceptions for every little local notability guideline. Loki (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

much of their academic publication record happens to be under their deadname So this is an interesting point. Many academic journals, such as everything published by Springer Nature, SAGE, Elsevier, Wiley, PLOS.one, now allow for names to be changed on previously published works without any corrections note being added to the paper. This is in line with the current COPE ethics guidance on name changes, which states that correction notices for name changes are not appropriate in all circumstances however, particularly in the case of transgender, non-binary, and/or gender diverse (hereafter shortened to “trans”) authors because of the potential trauma caused by the continued circulation of their previous names and the risks to which disclosure of their gender identity subjects them.

Accordingly it is far more likely going forward that any academic who meets NACADEMIC for works published prior to their name change, that those works will only ever contain their current name. For the question of If such a person happens to be transgender (I know of multiple notable examples, not all of whom say anything about that in the article) are we to be entirely forbidden from mentioning it? I would ask back, how are we going to verify the name change through an academic's publication record if their publication record for the duration of their career only contains papers published in their current name, even for works published years or decades prior to changing it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me give a hypothetical to better illustrate this. Lets say we have an academic who is currently called Jessie Smith after changing it some time in 2022/2023. Jessie has been publishing for the last ten or twenty years, primarily or exclusively in one or more of the journals I mentioned above. We have an article on Jessie because they meet NACADEMIC#1, and that article is in their former name. And we have no high-quality reliable secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of Jessie .

At some point in 2023 after Jessie changed their name, they request that their previously published papers are updated with their new name. The journal(s) comply with the request per their name change policies and leave no record of Jessie's former name. As such every paper written by Jessie in the last ten or twenty years contains only Jessie's current name. How do we proceed? Jessie's former name is now unverifiable to the current version of the sources we previously used to verify their name (ie their publication record). If it's considered to be encyclopaedic interest that we include that person's former name, how do we do so in a way that does not breach WP:V given that all of the sources we could have used only contain Jessie's current name? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You are missing something. We do not base academic notability on having publications. We base it, most commonly, on the impact of those publications, as measured for instance by citations. Those citations are in other works that are not going to retroactively cite the same publication under a different author name; they will use the name under which they found the publication. So new citations will go to the new name but old citations will remain under the old name. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Those citations are in other works that are not going to retroactively cite the same publication under a different author name That's not entirely true. If you check the policies I linked all of them cascade changes through DOI metadata to update citations in the works of other authors. Now if you're looking only at a print or PDF copy of the journal or paper, that was printed or generated at the time the paper was originally published or at any point prior to the name change, then that copy will obviously contain a citation to the person's former name. However if you're looking at the same journal or paper, either through the journal's website, or a PDF copy that is generated after the name change, then the citation in the paper will contain the new name only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I prefer to WP:SIGCOV version to this version, but like both, with one caveat.

I don't think we need to specifically address the situation of academics, and relatedly I feel like trying to carve out specific exceptions for every special notability guideline is a clear case of rules creep. Rather than either of these we should just incorporate the notability guideline we already use for living people, so:

For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under their former name or if their former name is documented in multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

Almost all academics who published significantly under their deadname are going to be notable pre-transition. There may be a few exceptions who published only very insignificant works pre-transition, and in those cases I don't see why we'd need to mention the deadname. Loki (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So I have a different concern than what David has stated. I think saying their birth or former name should be included in the lead sentence (emphasis mine to highlight objectionable point) is too strong, in that it mandates inclusion if the criteria is met. The May/June RfC closed with a consensus that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. and the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used.

Taking those points in mind, I would prefer if we tweak this to may be included, as this would still provide guidance for what the inclusion criteria is without mandating inclusion if that criteria is met. I realise this is different than what I suggested for the just closed June/July RfC, however for that version I felt as though the inclusion criteria was high enough on their own that they would cover this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not should be included, it's should be included ... only if. Or to rephrase, should only be included if.

Also, honestly, the MOS should provide some positive guidance for when a former name should be included. May be included feels very much too weak to me. By the rejection of the "never" option in the previous RFC, we've already agreed that there are some cases where we should include a previous name. And if we're going to have those cases, I want to know what they are rather than having to argue about it every time. WP:IAR is still a thing for really extraordinary cases but I don't want to have significant ambiguity about the typical case. Loki (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The current version is should be included...only if [the conditions are met]. In other words, we are mandating inclusion when condition is true. In programming language that is if (A == true || B == true) { /* include name /*} else { /* exclude name */ }. Even if we move the only earlier in the sentence, we are still mandating inclusion by saying should only be included if [conditions are met], because the emphasis is on the should and the conditions. It does not allow for a local consensus to form for exclusion of the name, if the conditions are otherwise met, short of invoking WP:IAR.

Conversely by saying may be included...only if [the conditions are met] we're not mandating inclusion. We're still providing the same set of positive inclusion criteria for when a previous name could be included, while also leaving it open within the letter of the guideline for local consensus to form around exclusion of the name should that be felt necessary based on the circumstances specific to each article. The only significant change is that we stop just short of mandating inclusion. In my mind, that isn't weaker, because the same criteria for inclusion must be met before a name can be included. It just allows for a little more editorial judgement on whether or not inclusion of the former name would or would not improve the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But I don't want more editorial judgement. What you're calling "editorial judgement" I call "content disputes". The clearer the guideline is about this, the less likely we will have a content dispute on the talk page every time this situation comes up.

I'm not against arguing on the talk page; that's how Wikipedia works. But I am against arguing on the talk page for cases that should be trivial. Loki (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

should be included in the lead sentence IMO, notable deadnames of deceased trans people should be included in the lead, but non-notable deadnames of deceased trans people should be in the Early life section (if they have one). Some1 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, on reflection I more or less agree with this. Maybe just delete the bit about where exactly to put it. Loki (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think about it more, BilledMammal's addition to the MOS as currently worded is actually pretty decent. Basically, if the name is documented in multiple high-quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person then it should be included in the lead sentence. Any former names of deceased transgender or non-binary persons' that don't meet that criteria can still be included in the article, just not in the lead. That's my interpretation of that one sentence anyway. Some1 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, that's not how I interpret it nor the consensus that generated it. The way the equivalent guideline for living trans people has been interpreted is that you either include the name in the lead or you don't include it anywhere.

Maybe the section does need a little rewrite, because I admit that's not super clear from just the text. Loki (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Second revert

SnowRise has now reverted this, saying I'm sorry BM, but 1) this is substantially the same language advanced at the recent WP:VPR discussion, with massive community input, that failed to gain consensus. And 2) GENDERID is about the last MoS section where WP:BOLD is well-advised, especially in these circumstances. Please wait a while and attempt another go at consensus if you wish, but this feels like an effort to back-door in non-consensus language, and feels borderline TE, IIAH.

I'm not certain if I can address these by adjusting the proposal, but I hope I can convince you that they are inaccurate.

For #1, I believe the language diverges significantly from the language used at the recent VPR proposal; the VPR proposal required extensive coverage of the name, an impossible standard, while this requires that the name be included in sources that focus on the subject.

For #2, I am hoping that I can come up with a compromise that will let us proceed without needing further drama. Regarding the comment about borderline TE, I note that I strongly opposed the VPR proposal, on many grounds. I don't believe any of those grounds apply to this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Fix ping: User:Snow Rise. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly reverted the removal. Far as I'm concerned, we have a clear consensus for some wording to this effect from the previous and highly attended RFC. While that RFC didn't agree on specific wording it did agree we should add some wording to this effect, so any change that removes all language that addresses the case of deceased trans people is against consensus.

(FWIW I also view this wording as basically the minimum viable wording.) Loki (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a highly problematic choice Loki, and you might be buying yourself some trouble with that bold reading of the consensus, which I think did not reflect the closer's interpretation. I'll also note that a number of people, admins included, thanked me for that edit, which I made on procedural rather than partisan grounds. You might be chewing off some trouble with what could be considered an edit warring edit on a policy page; that change has already been reverted twice before your own re-insertion, and BRD applies as much to policy pages as anywhere, especially where the related RfC involved nearly a hundred community members and the majority opposed. That said, it's your skin and best of luck. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect here, we already went through the WP:BRD cycle and seemed to be pretty clear on keeping the new language before you popped in and reverted the change without discussion. So I think your revert is on considerably shakier ground than mine, if it comes to that. Loki (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't you really appreciate how BRD works. 10 days is not enough time to establish a "status quo" version. Nor was I the first person to revert the edit. BilledMammal inserted an edit that dubiously defensible as a WP:BOLD edit to a policy (I mean style page technically, but think with the heaviness people ascribe to this issue, we can safely call it a policy determination), in light of the recent "no consensus" result at the RfC, which rejected substantially the same language. Now I believe BM was acting in good faith in doing so, but it was a questionable call, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, when that edit was reverted, they should have come here to discuss. Instead they chose to edit war an (again, substantially similar) version into the policy/style guidance. That is out of process, so I reverted it.

At that point, BM did what they should have done from the start: came here to discuss. Now you've again introduced the language, rather than allowing that process to take place, which is absolutely edit warring. You say that the previous RfC greenlights this, because it suggested there may be consensus for "something like this", but the more recent (and larger) RfC was held to address just that question, and to determine whether to add similar language to that which you are edit warring to introduce here. That discussion resulted in no consensus, with a substantial majority strongly opposing it. So clearly you do not have consensus here; "we went through the BRD cycle already" means nothing in terms of validating your preferred approach if there was no consensus at the end of that process. So if you really think you are on "solid ground" here, I think you may want to review some policies: WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, and WP:TE, because to my eye you are in various levels of violation of each of them.

And I'm genuinely telling you this out of a friendly motive to spare you trouble. I don't care enough about this issue to fight you on this and don't have the time if I did. I have no intention of reverting and getting caught up in an edit war. But I am concerned that you and BM are on the edge of getting yourselves an unflattering variety of community attention. Whether you see it or not, you are way out on a limb here, and somebody could easily have taken you to ANI just based on your conduct so far, let alone what you may do next if someone else reverts you (which seems likely to me).

You should be discussing--or for crying out loud, just letting the issue lay dormant for a while. A week even, so the community can digest the previous discussion and contemplative consideration of the next proposal can take in feedback from the last RfC and draft something that more of the community can get behind. If you haven't noticed it from the numerous comments in the last RfC, the community's patience is ebbing around the ceaseless runs at this page, with every rebuked proposal spawning two more, like the heads of a hydra, and almost all of it coming from the same small circle of editors. Patience is almost out, I believe and now you are taking the most aggressive possible posture by edit warring the content in right after the RfC rejected very similar language. You're sitting on a powder keg smoking, and whether you believe me or not, it's your and BM's rear ends that would most benefit from hearing what I am trying to tell you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Now I believe BM was acting in good faith in doing so, but it was a questionable call, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, when that edit was reverted, they should have come here to discuss. Instead they chose to edit war an (again, substantially similar) version into the policy/style guidance. That is out of process, so I reverted it.

Just a quick correction; the second version I added was modified to address the other editors concerns (replacing "significant coverage" with "non-trivial coverage"), and I opened a discussion about that version above at #Second version. I don't think it is accurate to characterize that as edit warring. BilledMammal (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. And honestly, BM, I wish I wasn't in a position to have to characterize it at all; I don't think you are looking to frustrate process, so I would have been happiest to say nothing more here, except to respond to your inquiry when I could. You already know I think you should have discussed the addition before making it to begin with, given all the context, and once it was reverted you were definitely required to discuss. The "I adapted it according to the feedback I got in the reverting edit, so it should be alright to repeat the disputed edit with those changes, right?" reasoning for not taking the issue to the talk page per BRD is a grey area in the absolute best of instances; in circumstances where you certainly know the edit is on a controversial topic, the 'D' in BRD is hard stopping point, where discuss before you edit--not something to be handled in your edit summaries after you go ahead and add the disputed content again. BRD and WP:EW are very clear about that.

But all that said, after the second revert, you did the proper thing and tried to open a line of dialogue here. I wish Loki had seen that step for the necessary and helpful one that it is, rather than stepping in to proxy/tag-team the edit back in for a third time. In doing so, they definitely took the whole thing unambigously into edit war territory, and I hope you don't get dragged along into any disruption or oversight that results. I wish you both good luck in disentangling the matter, really, but I'm gonna also be blunt that the overall approach here so far has been suboptimal and I think likely to be viewed as TE if this ends up at ANI or ANEW. So if somebody reverts Loki, I urge you both not to continue to try to force the language back in. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I really don't like all these WP:ASPERSIONS, and I think if your only argument is that we're reverting you and you don't like it, that means you have no actual argument for excluding that content. I was nowhere near 3RR (I haven't edited this page at all in over 24 hours) and I reverted you to restore text that was status quo and had consensus.

The basic fact of the situation is that we have an RFC with a very strong consensus for language like this. We don't currently have an RFC with consensus on specific wording, but there's no reason to think we'd need that: consensus on the talk page should be all that's necessary. And this wording had that. So reverting it was inappropriate: if you object to it, you need to come in and discuss. Loki (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"I really don't like all these WP:ASPERSIONS, and I think if your only argument is that we're reverting you and you don't like it, that means you have no actual argument for excluding that content."

First off, no one is casting WP:ASPERSIONS at you: that policy is not in any way about someone describing easily verifiable actions you actually undertook.

Second, there is no "we" here; I was reverted precisely once--by you. The chain of events was this: BM made a WP:BOLD edit, and another editor reverted them. BM made minor corrections to the edit and then re-introduced it again. I felt this change required discussion, so I reverted again. BM then brought the matter here as they almost certainly should have done before the first edit, given the context of the multiple RfCs and ongoing dispute over the language and which they beyond question were required to do before introducing the edit a second time. And then you blew in and, instead of lending your support to BM in discussion here, as you should have, you instead re-introduced the edit again. That's edit warring. I'm sorry, it just is.

So please don't try to bootstrap your position with this "we are reverting you" comment that completely misrepresents the chain of events and how relevant policy applies here, dragging BilledMammal into your conduct. Your edit is more unfair to them than anyone else here: they were discussing at the point you decided to continue the edit war: now if you get your butt dragged to AE, ANI, or ANEW, they are likely to be brought along for the ride. That's not really fair to them, so again, I strongly encourage you not to revert again if the language is removed by another party (and I assure you, it won't be me). Lastly, my argument is not that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My argument is that you are violating WP:BRD, WP:EW, and WP:TE. And you are.

"I was nowhere near 3RR (I haven't edited this page at all in over 24 hours..."

If you need someone to explain to you the difference between WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR, and that the former does not require (and in fact rarely involves) the latter, then you really, really do need to read the relevant policies before making any future reverts. Edit warring is not about specific metrics in terms of numbers of edits over a period of time: 3RR is just a rule of thumb to warn people when they probably are edit warring. It is sufficient to establish EW, but not required. The point is that you were out of process, and there was ongoing discussion on the talk page. You aren't meant to be reverting under those circumstances. Please, really, read the policy: I'm not making any of this up, I promise you.

"...and I reverted you to restore text that was status quo and had consensus."

If you think that "status quo version of the page" can be constituted by a change to policy that 1) was forced into the page the same day a second RfC closed with "no consensus" (where the two discussions involved well over a hundred community members), 2) was reverted almost instantly, and 3) was introduced into a major area of controversy and significance, merely because nobody reverted it for ten measly days, you really need to stay out of controversial policy areas until you undertand what "status quo version" means on this project. Because this is not it, my friend.

"The basic fact of the situation is that we have an RFC with a very strong consensus for language like this."

Yeah, and then you had a more recent and even larger RfC which found no consensus for language even more precisely similar to the language you are edit warring to include here. And in fact, a significant majority opposed it in that discussion. You have not met your burden for attaining consensus to include this language. And I'm not the only one telling you this: literally every other person engaging with BM here in this thread other than you has said as much. Even one of the primary advocates for the need to make GENDERID protections more robust has said as much. You should be discussing until you get that consensus. Why does this seem so controversial to you? This is standard process.

"We don't currently have an RFC with consensus on specific wording, but there's no reason to think we'd need that: consensus on the talk page should be all that's necessary."

Except you don't have that, or anything remotely like it. BM introduced the edit and only then came to the talk page to discuss. And that's this thread here and there unambigously not consensus here to include the language. If you see that consensus...well, I honestly don't know what to tell you, I don't think [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT|think I can reach you on this if that's the case.

"So reverting it was inappropriate: if you object to it, you need to come in and discuss.

The policy is BRD, not BRRD. You and BM are advocating a WP:BOLD addition to an important piece of policy language. When you get challenged on that, you seek consensus before forcing the language in, not the other way around. And no, again you are not "defending the status quo version". If you think you get to override all the voluminous community discussion and enforce your preferred version of a hotly debated piece of policy language merely because you happened to clear a week and a half without someone reverting that version (especially considering it was actually reverted by a third party almost immediately after it was first added, and was EW'd back in)...well, then good luck with that.

And with that, I'm done here. I can't be any more clear about the relevant policies and despite your belief that I am particularly attached to one version over the other here, I'm actually not: I reverted BM's WP:BOLD edit for procedural reasons. And whether you believe it or not, my initial comments here to you were meant primarily to warn you of potential fallout from your actions and for no other purpose: that's why they were phrased as they were. Now you seem unable to hear that and just dig yourself deeper and deeper into convincing yourself you have policy and consensus on your side here. But bluntly: if you believe that, you have some serious deficits in your understanding of both, and you're on a collusion course with ANI if you edit war further. I won't be the one to take you there, or to argue with you about any of this further, but I'm also done being the one trying to spare you that outcome. Good luck. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and then you had a more recent and even larger RfC which found no consensus for language even more precisely similar to the language you are edit warring to include here. The proposed wording here changes the requirement from a deadname itself receiving multiple pieces of SIGCOV to the deadname being mentioned in multiple pieces of SIGCOV. Most opposes were specifically opposing the former wording rather than opposing the whole idea of restrictions on deadnaming dead transpeople (which had already received consensus in the earlier RfC where deadnames in this context were deemed to be "not inherently encyclopedic" and "must be avoided to some undetermined extent"). JoelleJay (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Which you and I may very well agree is a significant change. It certainly addresses a major concern for me. But neither you, nor I, not any small clique of editors gets to just assume that all those opposers would change their !votes and support the version here, based on our own idiosyncratic reading of their reasoning. All manner of confirmation bias could get imputed by such an approach, which is one of numerous reasons why consensus generation on this project does not operate in that fashion.

I'm not saying we necessarily need another RfC, but some sort of much more robust, broad community discussion here was due before adding in this language. And once it was challenged, it definitely needed to stay out until a significant consensus was reached to include it. None of that happened here, and it's a problem. It's actually going to cost support for this possibly feasible compromise version, if the lack of respect for process keeps up, mark my words. Loki has presumed that I and everyone cautioning them to back off from forcing the changes in is diametrically opposed to the addition, but that's not what's going on here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, BM. There may very well be some merit to the argument that there are significant operative implications to the distinctions you are making between the wording of the recently closed no consensus proposal and your own wording, but I'm going to strongly stick by my assessment at least as far as saying that it is similar enough to what the community just failed to authorize that a WP:BOLD edit to introduce it into the policy was not the way to go here.

As to whether I can be personally won over by your argument, I think those issues are complex and nuanced, and I want to give it some thought before engaging. I just burnt out much of the little remaining capacity for such thought (mired in sleep deprivation as I am at the moment) with my last few edits here; I'm well late for an obligation; when I get back, I have to somehow rally and get my mind focused enough for several hours of intensive work (actual work) tonight; and I'm into an intimidating couple of days immediately after! And when I do login next I am engaged with a couple of other fast moving community matters. All of which is my way of asking for patience with regard to my reply: without, I hope, feeling that I am dismissing your views or not prepared to engage with them! I'll be back to this as soon as I can be. Let me at least say for now that I do recognize that your proposed edit was goodfaith: I hope the TE did not imply otherwise. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Concur with SnowRise. We just had another RfC come to a failure of consensus on language like this. While it made some steps closer to consensus than the RfC before it, what it means is that we need to workshop another proposal and get consensus on that; much of the discussion on this page is workshopping such a proposal. Let's not short-circuit that more productive endeavor by editwarring to inject something that doesn't have a consensus for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with both here. As I've said in another discussion below, we really should be analysing in detail (beyond just the remarks of the closing) both of the recent RfCs to try and distil where the community consensus actually lies. It'll take time, as both recent RfCs were lengthy, but it'll have a better result overall. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

If people insist I'll run an RfC on this wording, but it seems to be a waste of time - I struggle to see anyway that this proposal won't receive consensus, given that in the previous RfC many who opposed the wording there expressed support wording like what I have inserted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We're not asking you to run an RfC on this wording. Both SMcCandlish and I are saying that we should analyse the two most recent RfCs before making any proposal on this point. After undertaking that analysis, it may be that your wording is a fair and reasonable interpretation of where the community consensus lies, and it may not be. Right now, without having done that analysis, we simply do not know.

If we do that work now, then any proposal we take further will have a much higher chance of being accepted, in no small part because we can refer to that analysis when presenting the new proposal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

If editors require formal consensus for an proposal, then they are asking the editors supporting that edit to either drop the proposal or to run an RfC. I believe that consensus is behind this edit, based on my analysis of the previous RfC and the support expressed for this option among those who opposed that proposal, so I will chose the second path if formal consensus is deemed to be required here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

based on my analysis of the previous RfC and the support expressed for this option among those who opposed that proposal This is the first time you've alluded to having done an analysis of the previous RfC. As such, could you elaborate on this please? How did you reach the text of this proposal? Where there any other alternative formulations were considered and ruled out during the analysis, and if so what were they and why were they ruled out? Beyond the specific questions that were asked in each RfC, are there any proposals that your analysis would consider doomed from the outset? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've previously alluded to such an analysis when I said given that in the previous RfC many who opposed the wording there expressed support wording like what I have inserted, and I believe I've alluded to it elsewhere as well. I reached the text of this proposal by considering the discussions during that RfC, and found that JoelleJay's suggestion was particularly convincing to editors involved in that discussion and so heavily based my proposal on it.

Beyond the specific questions that were asked in each RfC, are there any proposals that your analysis would consider doomed from the outset? I could think of dozens, but I don't think it is very useful to discuss doomed proposals unless someone actually proposes them.

In the end, my position is that this is a proposal that is all but certain to receive consensus if brought to a formal discussion (I understand that some editors will want stricter restrictions than this, and I understand that some editors will want looser restrictions than this. However, I believe the former group will consider this an improvement over the status quo, and I believe the latter group will recognize that if this went to RfC it would get consensus.), and I proposed it on that basis in the hope that we could avoid yet another formal discussion - but as I said, if editors insist on it needing to receive formal consensus then I will open an RfC on it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In the end, my position is that this is a proposal that is all but certain to receive consensus if brought to a formal discussion I would like to agree with this, however I need evidence to do so. I ask because there's at least one other competing view on how to interpret what was discussed at the RfCs. While I'm opposing that one currently, I have to ask why is that one a less accurate reading of the community consensus than yours? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, why JoelleJay's suggestion, and not Trystan's? If you considered Trystan's suggestion in the evaluation, what lead to your discounting of it over JoelleJay's? I know we discussed it at the time, but the closer did seem to imply a reference to it, even if they did not specifically name it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Before addressing that "competing view", I think it would be helpful to better explain my view. When reading that discussion I found that most editors, including those who opposed the proposal, didn't believe that deadnames should always be included. Reading the specific arguments I found that the most common objections were focused on including it when reliable sources had not done so, among both editors who supported and opposed the proposal. I also found that when such an alternative was raised it received relatively broad support.

I don't think that Cuñado's view competes with this; their view is broader and deeper, but it doesn't conflict with what I have said here, and indeed their proposal includes a section that is almost identical to what I propose (Individuals who have been deceased for at least two years, where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the name).

Regarding Trystan's proposal (is established through discussion of the name in high quality sources), the primary reason I didn't base it on that was that there was no chance it could be implemented as a WP:BOLD edit; it is almost identical to the proposal rejected in the previous RfC, it shares the issues that proposal had, and it was opposed by too many editors in that discussion including myself. For those reasons I also don't believe it would receive consensus even if a formal RfC was opened on the topic, and I suspect that even opening an RfC on that topic would be controversial and invite accusations of tendentious editing. Further, if we are going to open another RfC on this topic it shouldn't be for yet another highly controversial proposal; it should be one that most of the community can get behind and produce a clear consensus for. (Regarding the closer's reference, I read that as referring to all the alternatives, including JoelleJay's, but reasonable minds may disagree.) BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I also oppose another RFC, at least so soon. Every time we do one, it takes a month to resolve a binary question about a specific wording, when the issue is that we need to craft a wording that people will agree to. As such, if we keep jumping the gun on these we're just going to annoy people with RFC after RFC on not-quite-perfect wordings of this guideline.

We saw this at the previous RFC where it was clear that many people objected to a single specific phrasing, but it was impossible to change that phrasing by the nature of the format. If we'd just pinged people to a discussion here, we could easily have fixed the objection on the first day instead of having to wait thirty before proposing anything else. Loki (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The closure of the previous discussion was clear

The closer specifically stated: "Several comments argued that a variance on the proposed change would be far more preferable (and obviously could be the subject of a subsequent RFC), but consensus doesn't clearly support that version (yet)." and "Of course, further discussion/consensus can (and probably will) help address these points and/or alter wording.", but going in and trying to push through these changes via a discussion that preceded that one is out of process, and this is getting to be a tiresome way of seeing BilledMammal and other editors joining him conduct business on here. Those controversial changes should never have been made without discussion, and I am reverting them back to the status quo. Just because they didn't get noticed for 7 days is no excuse. Huggums537 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Question - The proposed change states that the former name “…should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only…” etc. Am I correct in thinking that this change applies ONLY to the lead sentence and is intentionally NOT addressing the question of whether a deadname should be included at some later point in the article (such as in an “early life” section)? Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that wouldn't make any sense per MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE. Our articles actually need to make sense without the lead being present at all (since we have no control over WP:REUSE of our content).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Smc, if there is consensus for inclusion, it should be consistent for the whole article, and not just the lead. I've often felt that implementing special rules for the lead were just back door gateways to getting them introduced as a concept for the whole article anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  That was not the intent; see below for an updated draft. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• "Didn't get noticed"? I opened a discussion publicizing the changes at the same time as making them. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I stand corrected about that. My apologies. SnowRise has pointed out in another comment that David Eppstein reverted the post less than 20 minutes later so I guess it did get noticed, and my facts were not accurate, but that would also indicate that neither was the claim Loki made it went unchallenged for 7 days so... Huggums537 (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  It went unchallenged for 7 days. BM made the requested changes and re-added it within 10 minutes, and David Eppstein thereafter dropped his objection. David Eppstein's objection was a narrow one about incorporating WP:SIGCOV into other guidelines.

  This whole discussion is literally just above. You can read the whole thing very easily. Loki (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Updated draft

For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

I've updated this version to address comments made above. If there are no further issues with it, I am hoping we can get an informal consensus to include it rather than wasting more community time with an RfC; do any editors both oppose this change and believe there is a chance it wouldn't be approved in an RfC? BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this change, FWIW. Loki (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise and Huggums537: Any opposition to this? BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems perfectly reasonable to me and has my personal support; I don't think I would have included the parenthetical as I think it might muddy the waters a bit, but even so it is viable language. That said, I think you're still taking an imprudent tack and imperiling the longterm stability of the addition if you introduce this back in with even the unanimous agreement of just the six users in this thread, given the larger context here.

So my strong advice to you is to be scrupulously pro forma and package the language together with the general GENDERID overhaul being contemplated below and discuss it as a part of that proposal. Since that proposal is meant to be an overhaul of the entire MoS and BLP wording regarding individual gender identity, I think that makes sense, and I doubt Cuñado, Tamzin, Sideswipe9th, SMcCandlish, and the others would object to that. I don't know if they plan to present their TNT/reboot proposal in RfC format (I think it would be advisable, but I don't know), but even if you just got the additional support of those participating in that thread, it would be better than the level of support we have right now.

Let me reiterate that I do not think I am being needlessly BURO about this: I think this is the smart thing to do to enshrine your hard work into policy with clear community support. Best of luck, however you approach it, and please consider this a formal request to ping me to future discussions / !votes on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside my concern about this being too low a bar, there's one small change from this proposal below that might be worth implementing. Swap ...multiple reliable and secondary sources... to ...multiple reliable and neutral sources.... This will implicitly avoid the issue of biased and sensationalistic sources, while also maintaining some degree of source quality per the rest of the text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

While Sideswipe9th warmed me up to the idea of using the phrase "high-quality sources", I think "multiple reliable and neutral sources" is the best overall, emphasizing the avoidance of low-quality rather than promoting high-quality sources. I don't think the source being "secondary" is the main concern.

The main issue I see is that this phrasing is introducing a major policy change in the MOS. You can't take lightly that we are talking about violating WP:NOTCENSORED with an MOS guideline and without clear justification. This wording might not even fly at BLP because that policy is about living people (or RDP) only. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm way more worried about primary sources than sensationalistic sources personally. Sensationalistic sources are usually not reliable. In the cases where we allow them, if the Telegraph and the Times of London publish someone's deadname, then I think there's at least some argument for including it, especially if you were to take as a given that those sources are reliable for trans issues (which I think is the actual issue here).

But I really want to avoid the situation where someone digs up someone's birth certificate or college admission records and says that therefore that means their deadname must be included. That's a real concern for a large majority of deceased trans people: their deadname is often documented somewhere and establishing a strong line between "sourceable in theory" and "this is what the news actually calls this person" is IMO a bigger concern for me. Loki (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How about something like ..multiple reliable, neutral, and secondary sources..., which combines all three and that way we avoid both the primary source and sensationalistic source issues entirely? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe: I would strongly argue for not including "neutral", per my comment below. It drastically conflicts with what we mean when we typical speak about "neutrality" in terms of sourcing on this project. It would almost certainly invite endless entrenched debates about whether this or that source is truly "neutral" in its treatment of an article subject, and because there would be no objective editorial test for resolving that question, every dispute of the application of wording would become a quagmire of original research.

Furthermore, I feel like it would almost certainly tank the proposal if and when it went before the broader community. I don't think it's useful and only muddies the water. Again, per the below, the major change that the proposed wording brings is actually at the back of the sentence. That's the part that should be protected if you want this proposal to heighten the burden, even a little. A highly subjective and value-laden term like "neutral" (that already has another very different and more pragmatic meaning on this project, with regard to sourcing) should be avoided if it is going to imperil the much more useful bit. Just my twopence worth. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. When we talk about neutral sources, generally we're speaking about the second paragraph of WP:BIASEDSOURCES and NPOV#Bias in sources. Yes RS uses a different definition of neutral versus NPOV, but it's something that we already discuss and somewhat define in both WP:RS and NPOV. To answer the point about there being "no objective editorial test", accounting for source bias is something that we already have to do, especially in contentious topics like this, when assessing whether or not some piece of content represents the NPOV on a given subject. Yes discussions on it can be contentious at times, but no more so than any other discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, look, I realize that this subject has already seen it's fair share of contention, and I'm not looking to further inflame discussion, but in my opinion what you are suggesting flies directly, diametrically in the face of WP:NPOV; we are not meant to be judging or evaluating the conclusions of sources in any way (whether that pertains to bias or factual accuracy or any other element of their claims) in individual cases; we faithfully and accurately report them (through summary or attribution) with WP:DUE respect for the WP:WEIGHT given claims have, and without stamping our own perspectives on top of them. The closest this project ever gets to utilizing editor perspective in judging the worth or bias of a given source's perspective is when we deprecate a source: usually for blatant lack of proper internal editorial controls and/or a long and exhaustive history of objectively misrepresenting the facts. And even that is invariably a contentious affair and requires a large community consensus.

What we do not do is insert ourselves into the judgment and evaluation business of the content to be found in sources, whether for supposed "bias" or any other purpose. That is expressly, precisely, unambiguously, the thing WP:NPOV tells us we are not meant to do. So long as a source has WP:RS status and has not been deprecated for a specific purpose, it is acceptable to WP:verify facts and, in the case of nuanced issues, provide it's share of WP:WEIGHT.

And putting aside the fact that what you are proposing is nothing short of the precise inversion of the normal NPOV process, and the exact opposite of the normal emphasis we give to word "neutral" when discussing sources, I just think you could not be more wrong about the level of WP:disruption introducing such an adjective into a description of sources in a policy/style page (any policy, let alone this particularly contentious bit centered at the epicenter of the American culture war in particular) would have. It would enable endless subjective, POV-oriented fighting. "Neutral" according to whom? Based on what idiosyncratic standard? The entire point of NPOV is that it takes our perspectives as editors out of the analysis, and moves the test to the objective standard of how many sources say a certain thing (and in what particular ways and with how much consistency).

This language would do the exact opposite and actively encourage editors to argue from the basis of their own value judgments. It would open the floodgates of subjective analysis and functionally un-resolveable bickering. It's not at all like our normal processes. As contentious as the discussions that flow from WP:V and WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT can be, they do at the end of the day come down to a test that is external to our own perspectives--though some people just rationalize their own perspectives through selective reading of the sources even then. What you are suggesting would be an entirely different animal; an incentive to allow POV pushing through the back door of arguing the virtues and perspective of the sources themselves.

Lastly, I don't think this language has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of passing community scrutiny. It adds very little of functional use to the statement and would almost certainly make the proposal dead on arrival. And the proposal's useful language is elsewhere in the sentence: "...containing non-trivial coverage of the person.". I strongly urge that we don't endanger the potential benefit of that wording (and our best chance yet to fashion together a community consensus at last here) for a highly irregular use of a term that already has a distinct and more or less polar-opposite meaning in policy. I very much respect your effort to bring the disparate sides of this issue together here, but adding this word is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm certain of it. Much better to stick with "secondary" which has a precise, actionable, applicable meaning under existing policy that directly aligns with what we want it to say here.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

we are not meant to be judging or evaluating the conclusions of sources in any way (whether that pertains to bias or factual accuracy or any other element of their claims) in individual cases Yes we are. Part of our role as editors is in figuring out what the neutral point of view on any given topic is, and NPOV straight up tells us that A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources (emphasis added). There is no way to determine whether an article is or is not NPOV compliant without assessing the sourcing used against all of the reliable sources on the topic and accounting for their biases in doing so.

Lastly, I don't think this language has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of passing community scrutiny. That's fair, and I'm not going to belabour this any more than I already have. I've made a suggested tweak that I think would improve the draft and whether or not that tweak finds consensus prior to bringing this forward (if necessary) is not something I'm going to lose sleep over either way. But please, don't say that NPOV tells us not to do something that it explicitly tells us to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Except the section you are selectively quoting doesn't tell us to do what you are suggesting we urge in this policy language: it tells us to do exactly the opposite. Here's that same section but with the several contextualizing sentences you omitted before the sentence you quoted:

"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." (emphasis added)

What you are suggesting in this context is to omit sources from consideration of what is essentially a WP:weight determination. That is not what the quoted section of the policy is telling us. Again, it's the exact, polar opposite: what NPOV tells us to do is to do is to cover all major views, and you evaluate the bias only for purposes of WEIGHT and for presenting all the major prevailing views. You don't judge the bias for purposes of throwing out sources you personally do not find "neutral", which is what you are suggesting we should suggest here: disregarding entirely, in a given context, based on a given editor's (or group of editors') personal feelings about their bias. I don't want to give offense, but I think you are clearly reading what the policy urges utterly and completely backwards if you think it supports the suggestion we should be ommitting sources we personally judge as "biased".

And it's meaningful here. Look, Cuñado is absolutely, 100% completely correct above when they say that the major reason getting community consensus for this proposed wording is going to be tricky is because it violates WP:NOTCENSORED. It manifestly does. If any small group of editors is to actually get past that enormous burden, they have to face that reality head-on. Trying to finagle it past the community won't work: instead, one hell of a WP:IAR argument has to be made here. It has to be argued that the dignity of these encyclopedic subjects warrants this obviation of a usually very ironclad rule. It's the only feasible strategy. And it's gonna take a lot of really convincing rhetoric. Every word of the proposal and the support argument has to be tight, and I can't think of anything that would sink the effort faster than trying to use the word "neutral" in a way that is such a massive reversal of how it is meant to apply to such situations. It will instantly turn virtually every veteran editor who would otherwise be on the fence about this proposal against it, because it will feel either terribly disingenuous or like the proposing editors just don't understand the very basics of a pillar policy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tend to agree that the former version is preferable. "Neutral" in this context is far too subjective, and is only going to invite ambiguity and conflict, I think we can almost certainly predict. That said, in my opinion, this is actually by far the lesser impactful phrase in the sentence. Technically any fact cited in article should be supported by reliable sourcing, and we already have policies cautioning to use primary sources with extreme caution. The addition in this proposal that is really doing the heavy lifting is "...containing non-trivial coverage of the person." That's also the language that most substantial increases the burden here, and it's also likely to keep out the kinds of primary sources that you are concerned with, as I read it, because these sources contain no real substantive "coverage" but rather just routine clerical data. But I don't necessarily think we need to drop the "secondary" either; I'd argue it is much more useful, clear, and functionally dispositive than "neutral". SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree with SnowRise and Loki on this; we need the secondary aspect to exclude primary sources - while most won't be WP:SIGCOV some, like a school report card, would be - and the "neutral" aspect is likely to introduce conflict. Even without such a requirement, I vaguely recall someone arguing that the BBC was not neutral on this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If the sensationalist media thing really is a concern, my proposed change would be to sub out multiple ... sources for a majority of ... sources or at least a plurality of ... sources. As written, the standard is just two reliable secondary sources, and while in cases where there isn't a lot of coverage I think that's fine, in the case where a subject has received a lot of coverage and most sources don't use the former name, just two sources may not really be a convincing argument to use it in practice.

The argument for that clause is "we should follow the sources", and if we're going to do that then we should follow the sources the same way we normally do, namely giving the greatest weight to the greatest number of sources. Loki (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(Oh, that all being said, I also believe the BBC is not neutral on this topic, because the entire British media is not neutral on this topic. The BBC is not the worst among them, but it's also not the best: they've put out at least one blatantly bad article about trans issues, and more relevant to our reliability policy were very reluctant to issue corrections even to obvious factual mistakes in said article.) Loki (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You had already mentioned two of the worst sources we otherwise consider generally reliable earlier in this discussion; The Times and The Telegraph. The Times in particular recently hit a new low when they included the former name of a recently killed trans teen earlier this year. But the British media's transphobia issues are a discussion for another talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory with the sources-I-disagree-with-are-not-neutral discussion.

I think Snow Rise convinced me that the "reliable and neutral" is probably not the best wording, but now I'm pondering whether multiple reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage might be a winner (without "secondary"). WP:RS already has significant guidance, including "Prefer secondary sources", "Context matters", "News organizations", or "Biased or opinionated sources". It catches most issues by using that with "multiple" and "non-trivial coverage". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, because I don’t see any circumstances where we would want to use primary sources for this. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

the entire British media is not neutral on this topic If the entire media of a major nation with freedom of the press is not neutral on this topic then I would suggest no media is neutral on it, which does demonstrate the issue with adding a “neutrality” clause.

I don’t think majority or plurality will work; plurality because there are only two options, to include or not to include the name, and thus no option will ever have a plurality, majority because determining a majority is difficult and can result in flip flopping if the count is close, and because using “majority” in related proposals has been opposed for reasons that are likely to apply here. I think it’s better to keep it simple and get at least something in; if we find that something is too weak we can look at tightening it then. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The case I had in mind was when a person has released it themself and doesn't mind sharing it, thus removing the privacy concern. That sharing would mostly be primary sources, like a blog. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that national media of other major nations (such as the NYT or WaPo) as well as international media such as the AP and Reuters are all neutral on this issue. There's a very large and noticeable difference in the UK media position on this issue because of how it fits into UK politics that has been commented on by other reliable sources. So for instance, CNN's commented on the issue, as have the CBC, Insider, and Al Jazeera. The US version of the Guardian even condemned the UK version's stance on trans issues. Loki (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading through much of the above leads me to suggest "multiple, secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC); clarified: 05:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"...non-trivial coverage of the person", let us hasten to specify, in accordance with BM's proposal. Let's stay out of the headlights of the major source of opposition in the last RfC as much as possible. I doubt even swapping out "significant coverage" for "non-trivial coverage" will provide enough change to keep those same users from !voting the same way if it comes to it, if the standards is still tied to how much prominence the name is given. Better to focus on a standard that allows the incidental use of the name in sources, but at least underlines a need for that usage to appear in multiple, secondary reliable sources that are actually focused on the subject. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Right-oh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:TNT on GENDERID

Are you fatigued of talking about MOS:GENDERID? Here is a proposal to rewrite the section, which has languished into a poorly worded, somewhat illogical, and confusing mess. It needs to be clearly aligned with policies, reorganized for clarity, and address the various concerns about a social issue that is central to culture war in the west without pissing off everyone. This reorganization will honestly reduce the churning of numerous RFCs and endless debate. I know this because the ONLY reason I'm here is I glanced at it one day and was surprised at how far it deviated from standard policy, so decided to stick around and work on it. If it is reasonably worded and addresses the concerns of most trans-activists, I think it will stop attracting people to change it.

I appreciate BilledMammal's and Loki's attempts above, but I took the wording from BLP of multiple reliable third-party sources because multiple high quality reliable and secondary sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person uses "high quality", and it's not well defined on Wikipedia.

On the question of academics and changing names of older publications, I would guess that such a thorough attempt to expunge the former name would make it drop below the threshold of inclusion. And, well, WP:KISS.

Proposed MOS:GID section

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of: Individuals who were notable prior to transition. Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the information. Public figures, where multiple reliable third-party sources have documented the information (See WP:PUBLICFIGURE). Individuals who have been deceased for at least two years, where multiple reliable third-party sources have documented the information (See WP:BDP). Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, information that could reveal a gender transition should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should always err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Works for me. Folly Mox (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with this, though The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. should be clarified: if a name is mentioned in an infobox and/or in an article lead, it should also be mentioned in the body of the article. Additionally, pre-transition names are often included in the leads, to help with readers who may have only heard of a person pre-transition, to avoid confusion (e.g. at Chelsea Manning). This is a relatively minor concern, though, so I would still support this over the status quo. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• While I don't think this draft is too bad on a quick read, I don't see any need to rewrite the section. The existing wording, as you note, has been subject to tons of RFCs and discussions before and as a consequence is one of the most heavily workshopped sections in the MOS. The idea that it has some major issue despite all that seems patently silly to me.

I also think this draft misunderstands the purpose of concealing a deadname. The point is not to conceal that someone has transitioned at all, the point is to conceal a piece of information that could be wielded by malicious actors. Wikipedia rarely publishes people's current addresses, and like here the privacy concern is not to conceal that they have moved but to prevent someone malicious from taking advantage of that private information. Loki (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Case of mistaken identity. Folly Mox (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

User:LokiTheLiar, I remember us being unable to see eye to eye at some previous RfC on this topic, and your use of the term concealing right here helps me understand your position a great deal better. Folly Mox (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) OK! I gotta say, I don't remember disagreeing with you at a previous RfC, and so I would really like more detail if you have it. Loki (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC) I remember the exchange being something like: Deadnames are not automatically of encyclopaedic interest. What is this other than a well-dressed WP:RGW? A confusingly-dressed WP:TRIVIA? My understanding now is that I have been seeing the matter presuming not including non-notable deadnames, such that they have to pass some bar of encyclopaedic utility to warrant inclusion, where you have been presuming inclusion, and see the matter of leaving out non-notable deadnames as concealing information. Please let me know if I've misrepresented your position, but that's my current understanding. Folly Mox (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Am I supposed to be the blue or the purple here? Loki (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC) On searching the phrase "confusingly-dressed WP:TRIVIA", I have found the reason I don't remember this exchange. And that reason is you're confusing me with someone else, specifically Locke Cole at this previous RFC on VPP. Loki (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC) Oh! Oops, sorry about that! Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was just about to start brainstorming a GENDERID rewrite, and I see Cuñado's way ahead of me. Cool! So, first some general thoughts: The more I've worked in the trans/nonbinary biography space, the more displeased I've come with the current state of GENDERID. It was written, it feels, based on a very stereotyped understanding of trans-ness (viz., all trans people are binary and want their one true gender affirmed by having their pre-transition life discussed as little as possible) at a time when trans people were far less visible than they are now, and has since become a Frankenstein's monster of other considerations. Enforcement of it often becomes complicated by the fact that it's not entirely clear what it's supposed to promote: The privacy of living people? The dignity of all trans people? WP:DUE? Some combination of the three, but the current guideline blurs them in ways that have led to people citing privacy in cases where the real argument to make was a WP:DUE one, or otherwise muddling them. This proposal shifts us to a more common-sense-based approach that acknowledges the importance of subjects' dignity and not giving undue weight, while eliminating a bright-line rule for public figures' pre-transition names and leaving things up to local consensus to fill in the blanks (i.e., the way most of MoS works). So I broadly support something along the lines of Cuñado's proposal.
• Now, taking the proposal point by point:
1. I support adding a public-figure exception. The lack of such an exception has led to too many debates over enforcing DEADNAME essentially for its own sake. I suggested something similar above. (I suggested outright replacing notability with public-figure status, but that's probably less likely to get consensus.) On articles like Rachel Levine, there would still be room to discuss whether including a deadname is DUE, and that could be sorted out by local consensus.
2. I support broadening the consent exception from just pre-transition pronouns to all aspect of transition. Out current lack of such an exception is one of the best examples of that stereotyped understanding of trans-ness, and has gotten on my nerves e.g. at Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, where the subject readily discloses her deadname, but MoS currently says I should omit that.
3. I would like to see a note to the effect of "Sometimes some information about a person's transition will be public, while other information will be private."
4. In discussing DUE, I would suggest a note that, especially historically and to an extent still today, generally reliable sources have been known to include details' of people's transitions for reasons of sensationalism, when they were not actually relevant to the subject.
5. In general, respectful extra mentions of the former name or transition should only be used to avoid confusion. — I think I get what you're going for, but this is hard to parse.
6. In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names.
7. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. — This should be removed entirely. It opens up a lot of questions about what "hiding" means and blurs the line between privacy-based and courtesy-based deadname avoidance, without clear benefit. The paragraph stands fine on its own without it.
8. The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph should be made last overall; otherwise the Juno example doesn't make sense.
• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• I appreciate and like much of this proposal. I share many of Tamzin's comments and concerns, but I want to address points 3 and 4 of the exceptions. The broader point of this whole section is that "former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value.
  1. First, (many, if not all) people with pages on Wikipedia are or could be public figures. I wonder if the public figure exemption can become so large as to overwhelm the general principle. (I will note that the term public figure was added [[28]] in 2005 and has never been specifically defined).
  2. Second, I don't quite understand exemption 4. On one hand, this may only apply in a small number of circumstances (the person was not notable under a former name, the person did not speak publicly about their transition, and is or was not a public figure). Still, my question is why should we retroactively (and what value does it provide to the community) to insert a former name on the page (which, in general does not have encyclopedic value)? This additional exemption does not seem to fit with the purpose of this section.
  3. Third, should we add guidance about people whose notablity is due to pre AND post transition? I am thinking specifically of authors or academics who might be notable because of coverage, reviews, or publications that occur before and after a transition?
• --Enos733 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Enos733: I think, taken with the subsequent paragraph about how falling under an exception still doesn't guarantee inclusion of transition-related information, exception 4 is reasonable. Your question thus sort of answers itself: If nothing would be added to an article by including the information, then it shouldn't be included, and the proposed rewrite wouldn't mandate inclusion. There would just not be a global rule as to whether to include in such cases (which is the status quo regardless for non-recently-deceased trans people's biographies).

This ties into what might be my biggest problem with GENDERID as stands, which is that it's supposed to be part of a style guide. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV already provide the necessary policy bits (with respect to personal information and due weight, respectively). This guideline works best by giving an interpretation of how those policies apply and then giving general advice on what to do within the bounds of those policies. So really the four exceptions are the four exceptions because they're the four cases where BLPPRIVACY wouldn't apply—and it's only when BLPPRIVACY doesn't apply that MoS' opinion even matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I completely sympathise with a desire to simplify and streamline the text of GENDERID. It's clear from a read of the discussions at MOS:GIDINFO that the guideline was progressively added to over time, and this is reflected in the current state of the text. I would also somewhat agree where Tamzin said It was written, it feels, based on a very stereotyped understanding of trans-ness (viz., all trans people are binary and want their one true gender affirmed by having their pre-transition life discussed as little as possible) at a time when trans people were far less visible than they are now. However, I have some pretty large reservations about what has been proposed here that lead me towards opposing this as currently written. Going through this a paragraph at a time:
  1. First paragraph is fine.
  2. The second paragraph I find objectionable. What exactly does Any information related to the prior gender of a person mean? A plain reading of the sentence seems to imply that where a person was not notable prior to transitioning, but for whom being trans or non-binary is a large and relevant part of their personal identity, we would be unable to say that they are trans or non-binary in our articles about them. This seems to take the scope of the scope of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the current text of the guideline, and apply it to all aspects of a trans or non-binary person's gender identity, and not just their former name. I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, because otherwise this seems like it could be used for gender identity erasure of trans and non-binary individuals.
  3. On the exemptions
     1. Exemption 1 is fine as this is the same as what we currently have.
     2. What does exemption 2 mean in practice? What would clearly expressed their consent to share the information even look like in a reliable source? Are there any articles you have in mind where this exemption that wouldn't currently be met by the current text of the guideline? Is there any evidence that you can point to that would suggest this is a more respectful way to handle
     3. Exemption 3 is not a good idea and represents a rather large departure from the current text of the guideline. Because a public figure on enwiki is exceptionally broadly defined of late, this would mean that individuals who became notable after transitioning and/or changing their name would now have their former names mentioned in their respective articles almost as soon as WP:V is met. When looking at just the current examples in GENDERID, this means that we would now be allowed to include the former names of Rachel Levine and Laverne Cox. This would
     4. Exemption 4 is unworkable. This is at least the third time it has been proposed by Cuñado and it has been rejected every single time. It runs counter to the current consensus with regards to the former names of deceased trans and non-binary individuals. At the very least exemption 4 should mirror the text that was added two days ago as while that has issues per the discussion above, notwithstanding any changes that occur as a result of the discussion, as it is closer to the current consensus on this point.
  4. For paragraph 3 I have the same question for information that could reveal a gender transition should not be used as I do for the second paragraph. What exactly does this mean? A plain reading of this would mean that for any individual who does not meet one of the four exemptions, we cannot mention in their article that they are trans or non-binary. As before, I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, because it again seems like it could be used for gender identity erasure of trans and non-binary individuals.
  5. On paragraph 4, I think Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. is a narrowing of the current guideline? It removes the current exemption where if a person prefers their former name to be used for past events, we can currently use it. I also agree with Tamzin that the respectful extra mentions is hard to parse, and could do with a re-write.
  6. For paragraph 5, I agree that When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, there may be some difficulty in hiding the information on gender transition. should be removed. Tamzin has succinctly covered why it is unnecessary and unwise. The example for this paragraph is fine, as it's taken directly from the current text.
  7. For paragraph 6, this should be condensed back in to paragraph 5. Formatting wise it could look weird for this section to end on a bullet point example, however this entire replacement text would be followed by MOS:NEOPRONOUN anyway so it's not a big deal.
• I realise this is a rather lengthy comment, but it's a rather lengthy proposal. My biggest issue here in general, is that this simplification pass is also including recommendations that depart significantly from both current practice and the current consensus. I would find this easier to support if this was just a simplification pass that otherwise included the current intent of the guideline, and with the departures from current practice presented separately. As a proposal, I think this is trying to do too much at one time, and that's caused at least some of the issues I've mentioned above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Disagreeing with the changes because they're a departure from the current guideline isn't really a strong position to take? I don't think the intent here was just to rewrite without changing the meaning. Like regarding When looking at just the current examples in GENDERID, this means that we would now be allowed to include the former names of Rachel Levine and Laverne Cox., there is a good case to be made for including the former name of Rachel Levine. We don't need to shoot down any change just because it's a departure from the status quo or past consensus; that does not make any sense.

  Also, anyone who is publicly trans or non-binary would pretty clearly fall under exemption two. The only reason we wouldn't include information on someone being trans or non-binary is if they transitioned pre-notability and don't make that public. For example, someone like Cavetown, before they publicly came out as trans. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Disagreeing with the changes because they're a departure from the current guideline isn't really a strong position to take? It is when the current guideline was formed through a series of strong consensus discussions based on exact wordings (typically RfCs, see MOS:GIDINFO). A proposal to streamline the existing guidance, without changing the scope of it is far more likely to get handwaved through a discussion like this. However a proposal that is fundamentally changing parts of the scope of the guidance, especially in a way that it would alter some rather long standing consensuses, is I'm afraid going to be a lot more contentious. To try and do both a streamline and change of scope at the same time seems foolhardy, given how slow the community as a whole likes to take when updating policies and guidelines in general.

  anyone who is publicly trans or non-binary would pretty clearly fall under exemption two Would they? The exemption states clearly expressed their consent to share the information, which in my experience is actually quite rare in a reliable source. Often you'll see a sentence like "X is trans/non-binary/genderqueer", but not with any clear sign that X actually consented for that to be included in the source. Of course there are times when you'll have an interview where X states "I am...", which could be read as a clear sign of consent, but that is not always the case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  To try and do both a streamline and change of scope at the same time seems foolhardy, given how slow the community as a whole likes to take when updating policies and guidelines in general. If we're gonna change the scope, might as well do a full rewrite to clean things up. Despite all the discussions, it's clear many aren't happy with the status quo, and it has many issues.

  Looking at the second point more... yeah, this would probably not be as much of an issue if point three dropped the "public figure" requirement (another very nebulously defined term around here). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Despite all the discussions, it's clear many aren't happy with the status quo, and it has many issues Ehhhh. While I could certainly identify a handful of editors in the two most recent RfCs who are dissatisfied with the scope of the current guideline, those seem to be in a minority. I would hesitate on drawing conclusions on the dissatisfaction of the guideline from the editors who are only contributing here, as it would be a form of selection bias. A talk page like being a natural place for those who are either seeking clarification on how to apply a policy or guideline, or those seeking to change a policy or guideline, to congregate.

  "public figure" ... (another very nebulously defined term around here) Yeah, the lack of clarity on how we define a public figure is causing issues in more areas than this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin's rewrite + clarification in BLPPRIVACY

Trying to synthesize the overall general support for Cuñado's rewrite with the critiques I and others have given, my ideal approach would be this, which I feel better separates the policy considerations from the stylistic ones, allows for local consensus where the latter is concerned, and in relatively few words gives broad guidance for non-BLPPRIVACY-related deadname issues that will still prevent gratuitous usage:

• Add "and former names" to the relevant parts of WP:BLPPRIVACY, and after the line there about verifiability not guaranteeing inclusion, add the line "This includes the former names of living transgender and nonbinary persons, which should only be included in accordance with the principle of due weight". I think there's already a consensus that this is the case; this would just be emphasizing that detail.
• Change GENDERID to say:

  Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources.

  Do not include any information about a living person that would violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. Information about a living person's gender transition (including the fact of the transition itself, any former names ["deadnames"], and medical information) is considered private if the person is a private figure or the information does not appear in high-quality reliable sources, unless the person has voluntarily disclosed this information.

  Even when information about a living person is non-private, or when information concerns a deceased person, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Former names are not inherently of encyclopedic value, especially when the person was not notable prior to their transition. Articles must not give undue emphasis to these or other aspects of a transition, erring on the side of exclusion and, where information is included, avoiding unnecessary repetition. Sources that mention such information in passing, or purely for sensationalist reasons, should be given little weight.

  When mentioning a transgender or nonbinary person in a context prior to their transition, use their current name, unless they have a preference otherwise; on articles other than their biography, their previous name can be given parenthetically or in a footnote if necessary to avoid confusion. Citations should generally not be modified, but the person's current name may be given in a note or via piped link. However, in no case should an article link a person to a pre-transition identity if that connection constitutes private information.

  If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering.

  • Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Obviously this would require consensus at WT:BLP too, but first I'd like to get a sense for if this is something people here would support. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Should be made a bit more clear to indicate that including former names is almost always done when someone was notable pre-transition. Good with this otherwise, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we were drafting at the same time. I prefer the version with a list of exceptions. It really gets muddled when you try to cover all the different conditions in paragraph if/then form. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

On the whole I think this is a better proposal, but I still have some issues:

• Would the addition to BLPPRIVACY not represent a weakening of the current formulation of GENDERID? Currently unless there's an exceptional case, we have a strong requirement not to include the former name, regardless of whether reliable sourcing exists, and that we should treat it as a privacy interest that is separate from and greater than the person's current name. By shifting this to just WP:WEIGHT I worry that this change would allow for the widespread inclusion of deadnames for living trans and non-binary individuals, because there are all manner of sources we consider reliable that nonetheless are trans and non-binary antagonistic and have a tendency to publish former names, often for no other reason than to say "Jane Doe was born John Doe" or vice versa. This is especially so in cases where the individual does not want that former name known.
  If we're going to move that section to BLPPRIVACY and/or BLPNAME, should we not incorporate what the current guidance states with respect to the privacy protections for former names? If we don't include the current guidance, from what I know of the sources, editors would now be allowed to include the deadnames of article subjects like Laverne Cox and Nicole Maines, who are open about their trans status and activism on LGBT+ issues, but for the most part do not disclose their former names or acknowledge their former names. I know above you've said you wish to address a part of the guidance that's preventing you from including Sarah Ashton-Cirillo's former name, and I sympathise with that, but Ashton-Cirillo's open disclosure of her former name is quite rare in my own experiences, both as a trans person, and as someone who edits many trans and non-binary biographies. If we're going to add an exemption for cases like her, then we need to make absolutely sure that it isn't so wide an exemption that it impacts on those trans and non-binary people who aren't open about their former names and do not ever wish to be linked to them.
• I'm still also hesitant over this new clause on public figures. The current discussions over at WT:BLP with respect to BLPCRIME and the scope of public figures for that policy's public figure exemption demonstrate how nebulously defined (thanks Elli) it is. The lines between whether a person is low or high profile after they meet WP:N, or a relevant SNG are incredibly blurry. Until we have a much stronger and less ambiguous definition of who is or is not a public figure, I'm not sure I could support a new exemption on this.
• For However, in no case should an article link a person to a pre-transition identity if that connection constitutes private information. I'd like if we could link or mention outing here, as that better explains the severity behind this requirement.
• My last major concern is the lack of guidance for deceased individuals. While Cuñado's draft brought back a proposal that's been rejected a few times, this proposal doesn't contain any actual guidance for when you can include a former name. Yes it mentions that they are not of encyclopaedic interest per the recent RfC, and maybe we could wikilink that in the text, but it still leaves us in the situation prior to Billed Mammal's recent bold addition where we have no actual guidance for what that means. The placement of the former name aside, and assuming it doesn't change in the mean time, could we at least incorporate the requirement of it needing to have been documented in multiple HQRS and secondary/independent sources with non-trivial coverage of the person? Yes that means were still keeping some guidance on content inclusion criteria here, but I can't immediately think of anywhere else to put it. It doesn't really fit in with BLP, as this would apply longer than BDP.

In summary, this is a better proposal than Cuñado's, but still some big issues that could cause us major privacy problems for living trans and non-binary individuals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Revised proposal from feedback

Responding to several comments above:

• pre-transition names are often included in the leads, to help with readers who may have only heard of a person pre-transition, to avoid confusion - There was an oft-repeated concern in the last two RFCs that inclusion of a former name ends up with it in the first sentence with an elevated prominence. Not requiring it in the first sentence is an important part of the compromises going on. It's actual placement is up to editorial consensus, and this draft just says that it doesn't have to be in the first sentence.
• The point is not to conceal that someone has transitioned at all, the point is to conceal a piece of information that could be wielded by malicious actors. - There is certainly a contingent of people who have transitioned and don't want it known that they are transgender. They want to pass as the new gender. For those cases, the fact of transition is a private matter that they don't want pointed out publicly, so we should maintain a higher bar for inclusion, just like the former differently-gendered name.
• I would like to see a note to the effect of "Sometimes some information about a person's transition will be public, while other information will be private." - Added below.
• generally reliable sources have been known to include details' of people's transitions for reasons of sensationalism - Added note below.
• respectful extra mentions... - Deleted below.
• In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names. - I changed "under a pre-transition name should use" to "under a pre-transition name may use". I think that wording fits with this being the MOS and offering style ideas. The alternative was to make it more wordy and maybe overprescriptive.
• some difficulty in hiding the information - Deleted below.
• The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph should be made last overall - Moved below.
• public figure exemption - I think the claim of 'public figure' being undefined is bogus. BLP has a section on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and there is the BLP-attached essay WP:Who is a low-profile individual that has a long list of examples and definitions of "high-profile" individuals. A public figure is someone who: has a multitude of reliable published sources, actively seeks out media attention, has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable media company, is self-promotional... there are more descriptions on that page.
• I don't quite understand exemption 4 - This does two things: it says that the lingering privacy concerns described at WP:BDP should default to the maximum of two years in the case of GENDERID, and it raises the bar for inclusion to the same as living public figures (multiple reliable secondary sources). If a notable transgender person has a biography but doesn't meet any exceptions, their page doesn't mention their former name. Two years after they die, the bar for inclusion is higher than normal facts about their life. The last two RFCs failed to gain support partly because they lacked a coherent argument based on policy and failed to address why the information is excluded and how WP:BDP relates to the question.
• guidance about people whose notablity is due to pre AND post transition - if that means people whose notability post-transition is not enough to pass GNG but pass with coverage pre- and post-? I think that would mean they were not notable prior to transition and is covered.
• The second paragraph I find objectionable... I hope I'm reading this incorrectly - Clearly this is not an attempt at "gender identity erasure".
• I have some pretty large reservations about what has been proposed here that lead me towards opposing this as currently written. - I also disagree with parts of the proposed re-write, but I compromised and drafted something that will satisfy the most amount of people. If there is not consensus for the draft, I'll take it to RFC, where I'm pretty confident it will pass.

Proposed MOS:GID section draft #2

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Any information related to the prior gender of a person, including former names (deadname), should automatically be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of: Individuals who were notable prior to transition. Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the information. Public figures, where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the information (See WP:PUBLICFIGURE). Individuals who have been deceased for at least two years, where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the information (See WP:BDP). Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, information that could reveal a gender transition should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, information on their gender transition must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should always err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Sometimes, some information about a person's transition will be public, while other information will be private. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"There is certainly a contingent of people who have transitioned and don't want it known that they are transgender." It's not WP's job to cover over basic facts that are reported in reliable sources. In short, you'll never get consensus for a "conceal that someone has transitioned at all" proposal. It's not WP's job to police the real world, and the fact that being trans or enby in some environments is challenging is simply a fact of life. Someone else higher up the page (in a different thread) objected to language like "person whose gender might be questioned", and I agree it's rather weird phrasing (though I'm not sure what to suggest in place of it; maybe "person whose gender might be unclear to the reader"?). "Third party" is not a phrase we normally use; the stock term is "independent", so use it and avoid confusion. "may be placed in the infobox or background section of the article instead of the first sentence" is wrong, because infoboxes are not for publishing information that is not found elsewhere in the article (see MOS:INFOBOX). I would revise this to "may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence". (This will also fix the obvious loophole problem that people will mistake your original wording for "permission" to editwar to keep something out of the entire lead section. Never leave an exploitable, drama-bound loophole in any policy/guideline wording!)

Much of the rest of the redrafting looks pretty good, but getting the community to accept a total overhaul is going to take another WP:VPPOL RfC, since WP:Writing policy is hard and every word in every sentence of it has the possibility of unintended negative consequences. Hell, just changing one sentence has involved three RfCs that have all failed to come to consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Above I changed "third-party" to "independent" and used your wording of "may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence".

I'm curious about the "conceal that someone has transitioned at all" comment. I thought the point of this was guide was to address the sensitive issue of how Wikipedia includes details of gender transitions, and the former name is just one part of that. I thought "information related to the prior gender of a person" was pretty clear and broad enough to include a variety of potentially personal information, including medical details. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, see above; I just copy-pasted that wording from the rest of the discussion. Without staking out a strong position on every detail, I'll just reiterate that gaining site-wide consensus in this area is unusually and extremely difficult; right now there seems to be a rough consensus forming that deadnames should not be reported in our material at all, even of the semi-recently deceased, unless there is substantial coverage of them in multiple reliable sources. But that's as far as the consensus seems to be brewing. If you want to quite markedly expand this into a principle to completely hide the fact that someone went through a gender transition, you're going to find much, much more push-back against that idea, because it is so much broader a form of information-suppression and source-ignoring. In short, take baby steps. Gain clear consensus for what there is already a rough consensus for, then try moving a bit at a time toward other forms of TG/NB special-protectionism. (If at all. I'm not a big fan of this idea, personally, but I'm honestly telling you how you can go about changing policypages effectively; I've been at this since 2006-ish.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That is useful feedback. If you think the main concern is just about the former name being revealed, that would actually simplify the whole thing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the claim of 'public figure' being undefined is bogus The exact definition of public figure is taking up much editorial discussion over at WT:BLP right now, in relation to the scope of WP:BLPCRIME. A lot of editors are using a particularly expansive definition of it that doesn't entirely mesh with how reliable sources would define the term.

The last two RFCs failed to gain support partly because they lacked a coherent argument based on policy and failed to address why the information is excluded and how WP:BDP relates to the question That doesn't match with the discussions in the most recent RfC. Only four editors, including both you and I, even mentioned BDP. The primary opposition to the proposal, as noted in the closure, was that the barrier for inclusion was set too high. Even in the RfC before that, only 5 editors mentioned BDP, and only two did so in order to oppose a change from the then current lack of guidance. The other three editors who mentioned it supported removing the word "living" from the current text of GENDERID. SMcCandlish's suggestion above that we should be analysing in detail the most recent RfC to figure out roughly where the consensus lies, so that we're not repeating the same discussion and going off on a different tangent altogether, is a good one, and even a quick analysis of it would suggest that a BDP based exclusion criteria is a non-starter.

If there is not consensus for the draft, I'll take it to RFC, where I'm pretty confident it will pass. That would be inadvisable when we have another draft that is being worked on concurrently. It would also be inadvisable given SMcCandlish's advice on in depth analysis of the most recent RfC to try and figure out roughly where the consensus lies. I'm pretty confident that this proposal would not pass at this time, because the community's consensus is elsewhere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, who do you think these comments were directed at, at Village pump? [29] and [30]. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Though I fail to see the relevance to the feedback on your proposal, I would say that Anomie's suggestion is not congruent with WP:RFCBEFORE, which encourages discussion and workshopping prior to launching an RfC at a relevant venue. Their point on this being a local consensus formed by "a bunch of activists" ss also not representative of the history of discussions on this guideline point, with a lot of the RfCs on the scope and text of GENDERID occurring at the Village Pump or otherwise notified on WP:CENT. The current state of the guideline is very broadly supported by the community consensus.

As for JohnFromPinckney's comment, they are right, there have been a lot of discussions on this recently. However almost all of the sections that John is referring to were stale, with most not having had a comment in about a month, until SMcCandlish added a single comment to each one yesterday. Until those single comments were added, only three (this section, the one directly above on WP:BOLD restrictions, and the discussion on neopronouns were actually active.

Now, back to the feedback on your proposal please. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

My point was, you are making big claims about consensus of the community, and I think the last two RFCs, which you either initiated or helped initiate, had a biased activist-y setup that was opposed by people on this page (like me) beforehand, but you ignored my feedback, and rather than acknowledge the failure of each of them, you are continuing down the same path.

Public figure I think you're really stretching for a criticism when this explains it and the phrasing is already used in BLP.

That would be inadvisable when we have another draft that is being worked on concurrently. that's not feedback on my proposal.

SMcCandlish's advice yes, they gave me good feedback that I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate. I thought the desire of maintaining the dignity of trans people would include allowing a living (or recently deceased) person the presumption of wanting details of their transition kept private unless they share it themselves. You interpreted my draft as "gender identity erasure", which was a surprise. If this is really about the deadname, then the exceptions could apply to deadname only. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"the desire of maintaining the dignity of trans people" (which is very, very loaded phrasing) is not inherently a Wikipedia goal, and over-broadly interpreted is even inimical to actual Wikipedia goals, and it was not a consensus conclusion of the community. Rather, it was one of many arguments presented that in small part led to the limited amount of consensus that we've been able to hammer out at all. In short, you're kind of confusing an effect with a cause.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh stop SMcCandlish, you're making me like you too much. I feel the same, but I was trying to articulate a common sentiment that was expressed in the recent RFCs. Like I said, I disagree with several things about my draft but it needs to be acceptable to the most amount of people to pass. For example, Tamzin's response to my draft: This proposal shifts us to a more common-sense-based approach that acknowledges the importance of subjects' dignity and not giving undue weight. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting talk-quote, because I was going to say that the problems with the idea become immediately clear if you change "the desire of maintaining the dignity of trans people" to "the desire of maintaining the dignity of subjects" in general. Subjects' personally defined [search this page for "idolect" for related matters] "dignity" is not broadly an MoS or WP concern, aside from basic notions of human rights and WP:NPOV and (where applicable) WP:BLP policy. The kind of objective "basic human dignity" matters addressed by those policies have very little in common with the vernacular expansion of the "dignity" notion by a certain camp in the LGBTQIA+ sphere and perhaps far-left activism in general. (Search this page also for the phrase "means colloquially" for additional related matters of the hazards of using meaning-expansions that undermine the very concept a term was created for.)

This has much to do with all the push-back at the last several RfC rounds, because the proposals were essentially trying to create a "special class" with protections – that exceed NPOV, BLP, NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and other policies – that would apply to no one else (and to do it by trying to misuse a style guideline to supersede core policy, which is not procedurally really possible in the first place). The real trick to getting consensus on an improved MOS:GENDERID is going to be staying within the bounds of existing core policy. There's a really fine line between addressing a concern (e.g. deadnaming) that largely or entirely only pertains to a particular class, and carving out a special level of "extra protection" (which equates to extra censorship and extra ignoring of reliable sources, etc.) pertaining to that class.

Going too far the other (broadly generalizing) direction won't work either. I'll even go so far as to say that editors trying to "borrow" the deadnaming idea from TG/NB/GQ subjects and apply it to anyone, ever, who has changed their name and would rather never hear/see the old one again, like the entertainer Teller (see this VPPOL thread) is basically subcultural appropriation of a certain type of wrong that affects the real subcultural class very differently and much more potently, and applying it in an aggradizing way to something else, trivializing the concept in the process. (The "means colloquially" post mentioned above also raises related matters again.) Reminds me of bogus arguments that have been made about "Celtic" indentured servants in early America being "the same as" enslaved Africans, or mockery of satiric pseudo-religions (Chuch of the SubGenius, etc.) being "the same as" attacking someone for being Jewish or Amish or whatever, and several other false-analogy arguments that people make involving a real sociological class with a shared social experience, and something else entirely that is only similar in a superficial way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

TNT on GENDERID draft #3

Made a few changes based on conversation above, including:

• "whose gender might be questioned" to "whose gender might be unclear"
• "Any information related to the prior gender of a person, including former names (deadname)" to "A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname)"
• "information that could reveal a gender transition" to "the former name"
• "where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work should not be used" to "may be included"
• added footnote in first paragraph

Mainly it was shortened, and reduced in scope to focus on the former name and not other details of gender transition. Feedback is most welcome.

Proposed MOS:GID section draft #3

Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of: Individuals who were notable prior to transition. Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the name. Public figures, where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the name (See WP:PUBLICFIGURE). Individuals who have been deceased for at least two years, where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the name (See WP:BDP). Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Some feedback:

• You could probably simplify Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words... to Refer to any person with the name and gendered words... without much of an issue here. A person doesn't need to be trans or non-binary to need or want to say "Hi my name is X and my pronouns are Y/Z".
• I think A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname)... would read better as The former name (deadname) of a transgender or non-binary person.... I don't like the weakening though of making it just a privacy interest, as the current version of the guideline states that it's a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name. Is there a reason for this change?
• As a new clause that isn't in the current version of GENDERID, the public figure exemption needs to be stronger. At minimum that should be something like multiple high quality reliable sources and some extra wording that takes into sensationalism (it's late and I can't wordsmith that right now). There's all manner of marginally reliable sources that include sentences like "Jane Doe was born John Doe", and the sheer volume of those sources alone shouldn't be an inclusion criteria when high quality sources do not do this. I know there's a footnote B somewhat along those lines, but in context it looks like footnote B only applies to individuals who don't meet the 4 exemptions you're proposing.
• Still has the BDP issue. See my earlier comments for why this is unworkable, and SMcCandlish's earlier comments about reviewing the most recent two RfCs in detail to assess for some wording that would better fit where the community consensus lies.
• Are you sure your fourth bullet point is accurate? That change doesn't seem to be reflected in the text.

May have more to say later. It's late and my brain has mostly gone to sleep. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look it over, I incorporated your 2nd and 5th bullets into the draft above. A few comments on the others:

• Refer to any person with the name and gendered words... I have to disagree on this one. I only proposed changing "questioned" (current) to "unclear" because of a comment about the current wording sounding strange. Most people (like 99%) do not state their preferred names and pronouns and there is no ambiguity on their gender, so it makes more sense to start the section saying, in the least offensive way possible, that this is for those whose gender is unclear or out of the ordinary.
• a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name - I don't know what this means. There is no privacy concern about a person's current name.
• the public figure exemption needs to be stronger - I thought about this for awhile and reviewed several policies. The same wording could be used for this and the deceased example. There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources. The closest you get is WP:RS referencing "high-quality mainstream publications", but I don't think that would work here because it is contrasting those to scholarly sources. Keep in mind my draft phrasing of "multiple reliable sources" is directly from BLP, and the MOS should not be making policy. The best I could come up with from policy is to say "multiple reliable, neutral sources". Neutral is well described in policy and allows the exclusion of low-quality, opinionated, or questionable sources. I think that gets to the spirit of excluding sensational reliable sources.
• the BDP issue - this is a change that I think needs to go to RFC. We won't agree on this talk page.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Most people (like 99%) do not state their preferred names and pronouns and there is no ambiguity on their gender Hard disagree. One of the first things that is said when you are introduced to someone you have never met (either by yourself or a third party) is your name. In modern contexts, this often also includes your pronouns, if they're not inferrable from words said during the introduction, for example Have you met Jane Doe yet? They're/She's new here and working on X project. And lets not even touch on how many people include their pronouns in their email footers and social media bios.

There is no privacy concern about a person's current name. Yes there is. WP:BLPNAME covers the most common privacy concerns over names. As for the rest, consider it as two complementary clauses; a privacy interest separate from their current name and a privacy interest greater than their current name. The first clause is easy, you simply evaluate the privacy concerns separately from their current name. The second clause likewise is pretty straightforward, when evaluating the privacy concerns, you need to do so at a level beyond that at which we would normally include a person's name.

The same wording could be used for this and the deceased example. Maybe, if written correctly.

There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources. Huh, I could have sworn WP:HQRS redirected to a specific section of WP:RS that defined it. That aside, from looking elsewhere I'm not sure if the lack of definition is a problem. The text at WP:EXCEPTIONAL states that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, though footnote 4 sadly only gives some philosophical reasons for why we require strong evidence. WP:BLP contains multiple mentions throughout to both "high-quality sources" and "high-quality reliable sources", linking to WP:SOURCES. WP:MEDRS likewise contains mentions throughout "high-quality sources" and "high-quality reliable sources" without definition. The closest we seem to get right now is the WP:BESTSOURCES section of WP:NPOV, but even then it mentions "high-quality sources" without defining it. I question then if this lack of definition for the term is a problem that we need to concern ourselves with. Yes it would be exceptionally helpful if it was defined somewhere, but given that core content policies use the term without defining it suggests that such a definition may not be necessary.

The best I could come up with from policy is to say "multiple reliable, neutral sources". Neutral is well described in policy and allows the exclusion of low-quality, opinionated, or questionable sources. It is, but it's also the subject of considerable and frequent debate at an article level. "Is this source baised against/towards [article subject]?" is the sort of question you'll see variations of frequently, especially in contentious topic areas like gender and sexuality,

this is a change that I think needs to go to RFC Why do we need an RfC to datamine the results of the two most recent RfCs? Why can't we put a pause on the BDP point for now, and just start a separate discussion (either as a subsection or new discussion here, or on a dedicated page) where we can compare notes on those RfCs to find out what people have already said, and from that see if we can distil something that might stand a very strong chance of being accepted? Yes it will take us a little time and effort now, but it will save us a lot of time and effort later, and afford us a fair degree of community good will. Maybe at the end of that process a BDP based clause will be the right option, or maybe it'll be something else that no-one here has yet put forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In modern contexts, this often also includes your pronouns - no, it almost never does. A person's gender is almost always extremely clear from their chosen appearance and that is expected and understood to be sufficient in nearly all social contexts. A standard that would require people to explicitly say "my gender is male and my pronouns are he/him" would send the vast majority of people (and even more historical individuals) into a genderless they/them category, which is far more offensive and misgendering than anything else.

Pronouns in social media bio are also by no means universal and seem to have reached saturation in uptake. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully I think you've misread this chain. Nowhere did I say that a person typically introduces their gender in introductions, only their name and pronouns. I also struggle to see how rephrasing to Refer to any person with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. would result in sending the vast majority of people...into a genderless they/them category. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this might happen?

The scope of this change is to make sure we're always using the correct name and pronoun, for any biographical subject, regardless of any other circumstance. This is something that we should be already doing for the vast majority of articles. A gender being clear does not negate the necessity to ensure that we're using the correct names and gendered terminology for our article subjects. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already commented on pronouns in introductions so I won't repeat myself on that. We shouldn't open ourselves up to wikilawyering or technicalities. Most people never specify their pronouns. They consciously choose to appear a certain way, are referred to by others with the words that fit with that, and that's it. We don't want an opening for someone to say 'well the person never said she/her is correct, how can we really know?' And if someone thinks pronouns in introductions are necessary, then the corollary of that is most people's pronouns are unknown because they've never specified them. We don't want to go that route, that's not how RS or society works. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Crossroads here on the pronouns issue. I dunno if it's 99% of the time but it's definitely far more common for someone to trust others to infer their gender from their appearance (which, to be clear, is usually pretty accurate, which is why people keep doing it) then to explicitly mention their pronouns.

Which is to say, I think the original wording is more-or-less fine. Someone not mentioning their gender does not mean it is unclear, and requiring people to state their gender before we can mention it, even implicitly, causes way more problems than it solves. If someone does say their gender explicitly we should go with what they say, but having a robust default if they don't is not optional. Loki (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

While I clearly disagree, I can see that the consensus is not with me on this point, so I shall drop it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Responding to Sideswipe9th:

Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear... - I have to agree with others that the scope of this MOS should be clear in the intro. We're talking about a special case and I think the question here is whether "unclear" is better than "questioned".

There is no privacy concern about a person's current name. - I see what you mean now. The examples are of names who are not the subject of articles. As in, suspects in crimes who don't need to be named, names of family members of a notable person, loosely or uninvolved low-profile persons, etc. I think the current wording ("separate from and greater than a current name") just sounds confusing and doesn't really add anything useful. This is MOS/biography, of course the current name will be mentioned.

There is no policy or guide defining "high-quality" sources. - This was one of the sticking points at the last RFC. I agree with your assessment that it is used enough in policies that it can probably be used here safely, but it will have the same problem that you describe defining what is "neutral". I could support either wording but I lean toward "multiple reliable, neutral sources".

Why do we need an RfC? - There is a high level of fatigue on this subject and the reasons seem to be that a local consensus on this page, where gender-activists are overrepresented, will probably not create something that will win consensus at Village Pump. The last two RFCs had a fairly biased setup and seemed to disregard the magnitude of creating an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED in the MOS, without a tie-in to BLP. I would be thrilled to work out a local consensus for a re-write, but I have been described as "the opposition" and even the most basic good-faith contributions have been blocked at every step. Prove me wrong.

Why can't we put a pause on the BDP point for now? - Think of it another way. The last two RFCs tried to extend the censoring of former names to deceased people indefinitely. There was no consensus, BilledMammal's attempt to work something in got reverted, and the MOS went back to excluding the former names of living trans people, leaving the rest to BLP. BLP allows censorship of reliably-sourced information about living people, but the policy does not apply to people confirmed dead, with the only exception for recently deceased, and allows that protection to gradually fade after death, the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. So given the concern, why would you not support the MOS saying that on this subject, automatically extend to the maximum of two years? Would you rather some cases be six months? Your moonshot to extend it indefinitely failed twice, and anyway, the MOS is not the place to make such a policy.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The last two RFCs tried to extend the censoring of former names to deceased people indefinitely. This sentence is a perfect example of why we need to review the last two RfCs in detail. While it is true that one of the options in the first RfC would have extended the protections (please stop calling this censoring, it's not censoring) afforded to living trans and non-binary individuals indefinitely (specifically, topic 2 option 3), that was not the case for the second RfC. The second RfC laid out a set of inclusion criteria for deceased individuals that was complementary to the existing guidance on living individuals, and in doing so allowed for the former names to be included when either they met the specific test for deceased individuals, or for individuals whose former names we could include when they were alive.

When I drafted the proposal that lead to the second RfC, I did so after thoroughly reading both the close and the comments made in the first RfC, alongside a side discussion by another editor who was going to close the first RfC. In doing so, I came up with a proposal that the closer of the first RfC thought was a reasonable summation of how [they] read the consensus. With the benefit of hindsight, I clearly made an error somewhere in that assessment, and that the community's consensus set a barrier for inclusion that wasn't quite as high as what I proposed. However making that error does not negate that making such an analysis is a good and necessary thing.

Right now we know three high level things:

1. From the first and second RfCs that there is a community consensus for a change to GENDERID to provide guidance for deceased individuals
2. From the first RfC that the consensus for the inclusion criteria of the former name of a deceased individual should be set to a high level
3. From the second RfC, based on the comments by the closer, that the specific proposal in the second RfC set too high a barrier

What we need to do before we can present any further options on guidance for deceased individuals to a future RfC, is to assess both of the recent RfCs in detail, and from those data points see if we can distil a proposal that would fit with what the community has said in both recent discussions. Both of those recent RfCs were held at WP:VPP, and were exceedingly well attended, so any concerns about a local consensus on this page would immediately be invalid as any proposal we come up with should first and foremost be based on what was said during the broad consensus discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The examples are of names who are not the subject of articles. Not quite. See WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, both of which advise us to avoid creating a biography on an individual who is only notable in the context of a single event. It's also inaccurate to say that this is only for criminal suspects. It also covers individuals whose notability is connected to any other controversial or non-controversial event.

The reason why there's two separate wikilinks here is that BLP1E applies only to individuals who are alive (or recently deceased), whereas BIO1E applies to those who are also deceased past the point of BDP. In either scenario, living or deceased past the point of BDP, if a person's notability stems from a single event, we have PAG reasons not to create an article about them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This is looking better. I agree with all of Sideswipe9th's suggestions above, other than that I'll note that going with "high quality reliable sources" may increase resistance to the overhaul, as this phrase and the elevated standard it seems to refer to (but which is not actually defined anywhere) was a sticking point for various people in the last RfC (and probably the one before it, though I don't recall for sure). For my own part, I find "Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the name" to be weird wording that will probably not meet with consensus (both "consent" and "share" are problematic for various reasons); but right this moment my head hurts, and I'm not thinking of a suitable replacement. I would also remove "or mockery" from the second footnote; that appears to be editorializing without any basis sourced so far in these discussions, and any publisher that engaged in outright mockery of TG/NB/GQ subjects would not be one WP considered "generally reliable".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 06:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

RE: changing Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the name - how about "Individuals who have shared the name publicly" or something along those lines? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Something like that is closer, but I think it's still missing that fact that this is usually a matter of public record and doesn't have anything to do with the subject disclosing something. It may be more a matter of what if anything the subject has said, in published material, about the name and their present relationship to it. But wordsmithing something like this is difficult, and as others have said elsewhere in here, trying to change more than one GENDERID factor at a time is probably a bad idea, because it gives anyone who would oppose one aspect of the proposal a reason to oppose the entire thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think that the bar should be that they've consented for people to reference the name. Janet Mock includes her birthname in her autobiography, but I don't think we should ever include it the article about her on that basis. Tekrmn (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

At no point will an article be written based upon what the subject consents for us to write about them. That's just a non-starter out of the gate. WP:DUE and ensuring we use quality WP:RS will be sufficient. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

thanks for sharing your opinion. do you have any policy or guidelines to support that? BLP:PRIVACY clearly indicates that consent is an important consideration for including personal information, such as a persons name, and the current MOS states that the birth names of living trans and nonbinary people's birthnames are treated as a privacy interest separate from and greater than a current name. we're obviously not talking about living people here, but to me the fact that this concern is "greater than" a privacy interest indicates, among other things, that the need to omit a person's birthname should still apply after their death. Tekrmn (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

do you have any policy or guidelines to support that? WP:NPOV (WP:DUE) and WP:RS. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

At no point will an article be written based upon what the subject consents for us to write about them. Actually the BLP policy already provides several clauses where an article subject can request the removal of information, which would include non-consensual publishing by reliable sources.

Date of births are covered by WP:BLPPRIVACY If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. WP:BLPNAME urges caution for article subjects who are discussed primarily in connection with a single event, along with a strong presumption in favour of privacy for the family members of article subjects. WP:BIOSELF states that if an article subject finds that an article contains personal information or potentially libellous statements, they should contact the oversight team so that it can be evaluated and suppressed as appropriate. And yes, per the Foundation's website content that is reliably sourced can still be libellous, especially when it is subject to link rot, and we can be compelled to remove it. And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE provides for non-public figure article subjects to request deletion of articles about them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of that being redundant to NPOV/RS, so I have no comment on that. Thank you for cataloging all the ways BLP runs against NPOV for me. I stand by my original statement. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that BLP runs counter to NPOV and given how strong your opinion on this is seems to be, might I suggest that you use this brief list to open a discussion at WP:BLPN and/or WP:NPOVN on this issue? It seems that you might want or need to fix this disconnect between BLP and NPOV first, as this will no doubt be affecting far more guidelines within the MOS and elsewhere than just GENDERID. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It is tricky to come up with wording. Maybe, Individuals who have made the name public and not expressed a desire to conceal it. or Individuals who have made the name public post-transition. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The later is more plausible than the former. Unless the person is living in a country that has an equivalent to a super-injunction, where there is some sort of protection in law that prevents even the discussion of the protection, expressing a desire to conceal their name would likely have a Streisand effect outcome. In other words, it would likely be the same as shouting "don't think about the pink elephant" in a crowd, and expecting the crowd not to think about a pink elephant.

I'm not sure about the later option though. It's certainly better than what's in the draft above, but I'm not sure it's robust enough to clearly differentiate between someone whose former name is known because they're open about it being their former name, and someone whose former name is known because a source has outed them. But I'm still not quite sure how you could reflect that in guideline text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, the best wording would be, People who are cool with it. But it doesn't have the sound of a guideline. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think (as other editors commented earlier) that trying to make multiple substantive changes and also rewrite/reorder some things at the same time is inadvisable, since anyone who opposes any part of that (or just can't track all the changes) seems to be left having to oppose the whole thing—hence past RFCs have been closed with the advice to ask specific questions! In particular, since the just-closed RFC hinged in part on people feeling the proposed wording was insufficiently well defined, it seems unwise to introduce a term we already know is poorly defined ("Public figures", the subject of a huge discussion on BLP at this very moment), especially when one of the widely-held interpretations of it is "everyone mentioned in enough sources that we at Wikipedia are mentioning them in an article", meaning a sizeable portion of editors will read the new text as saying to deadname basically everyone who's discussed in enough sources that we're mentioning them in the first place. (For example, Laverne Cox is a public figure; the new text would seem to allow deadnaming her; I wasn't aware there was appetite for that from anyone but the few folks who want Wikipedia to deadname all trans people in all cases.) Both the allowance of deadnaming "Public figures" and the "BDP" part seem to come out of the blue, since I'm not recalling any widespread clamour to use those as metrics in the many previous discussions of this which have happened (indeed, in the pre-RfC discussion for one of the last RfCs, I got the impression more people felt "deadname people after—but only after—two years" was a poor approach, than liked it). -sche (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with this. I really just don't think we need to rewrite this section right now. Loki (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a great start. I agree with everything sideswipe said, I definitely agree that we should scrape the previous rfcs to find the exact exceptions people are concerned about, and I also agree that proposing this whole thing as-is or in some other iteration would be unwise- we should ask specific questions. I also think that there will be pushback on not requiring the deadname to be in the first paragraph, so personally I feel we might just want to remove that part for now since, in my opinion, inclusion is a bigger issues than overemphasis. Tekrmn (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed that there is a resolution by the Wikimedia Foundation accompanying the formation of BLP that says human dignity and respect for personal privacy are both reasons for the policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, our editors can (and do) disagree on what constitutes “human dignity”.

Is merely mentioning someone’s verifiable deadname in a respectful tone a violation of that person’s “human dignity”? Some will say “yes”, others will say “no”, and yet others will say “it depends”. We could argue that question for years with no consensus. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, it's not a bad draft, this, but I have concerns about the last two bullet points.

• On the "public figure" exception – for example, in the UK, IPSO guidance often isn't worth the paper it's written on, and doubly so when it comes to trans issues. The IPSO Code of Conduct says that deadnaming even may constitute an unethical practice, but once a RS like the Telegraph prints someone's deadname, even if it's later ruled a breach of the IPSO CoC, the odds of getting an amendment to the source article in the current climate is slim. I also have concerns with how undefined the term "public figure" is.
• On deceased people: I agree that the legal considerations of BLP don't apply upon death, but this is a moral consideration; if Laverne Cox dropped dead now, I think it would be perverse to have people circling like vultures in 2025 to add the name once the two-year limit is up. I think just letting BDP hold here, as vague as it is is a better idea.

Additionally, I think these two points is essentially re-arguing for positions that have been recently rejected at RfC and I would like to see more consensus before these are added. Also, I think the operative word on inclusion of deadnames should be, well, should; I think the exemptions in these areas should be implied and require justification if needed (as part of the BRD cycle or whatever else). Sceptre (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Letting "BLP hold here" means changing the fourth exception to "Deceased" and letting the time range from 2 months to 2 years based on editorial consensus. I have a feeling that's not what you meant. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

TNT on GENDERID draft #4

• Incorporated some word improvements from SideSwipe9th and SMcCandlish
• Changed Individuals who have clearly expressed their consent to share the name to Individuals who have made the name public post-transition. The wording here could still be improved, but shouldn't be over-prescriptive.
• Changed where multiple reliable independent sources have documented the name to where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name in #3 and #4. I could be convinced that "high-quality" could go here instead of "neutral", but I think this will get the most agreement from the wider community. "Neutral" focuses on excluding low-quality sources and is better defined.
• Expanded second footnote to include Wikimedia Foundation's resolution.

If local consensus is in agreement, I think this change is ready to go on the MOS.

Proposed MOS:GID section draft #4

Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of: Individuals who were notable prior to transition. Individuals who have made the name public post-transition. Public figures, where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name (See WP:PUBLICFIGURE). Deceased individuals, where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name (See WP:BDP). Unless the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. When the individual meets one of the exceptions, the former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis, and editors should err on the side of excluding it. Former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to once again echo sideswipe and say that proposing another assortment of changes to the MOS is, without a doubt, not going to result in a consensus. we need to go through the previous rfcs to find the sticking points and address them. other editors have agreed with this as well. Tekrmn (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to see some examples of how this would be applied as opposed to the present language. One example might be, let us say the person who perpetrated the 2023 Nashville school shooting. Unless I'm missing something, the shooter did not make the name public post-transition, was not a public figure, was not notable prior to the shooting (which the article states was post-transition), and has not been dead two years. Would then that name be excluded, and face the need to gain consensus for addition after two years? If so, is this a different outcome than under the present state of the MOS? Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In my assessment, that person's former name would not be mentioned in the article until two years after death, when BDP no longer applies, then its inclusion would be based on the "multiple reliable and neutral sources", which is a higher bar than normal content inclusion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

At present, it is mentioned. Is that in accordance with the MoS as it presently stands? Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you mean before BilledMammal's recent attempt, then yes it is. WP:BDP leaves it up to editorial consensus. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with point #4. IMO, it should say Deceased individuals, where multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name. Editors shouldn't have to wait at least two years to include a notable former name of a recently deceased individual. That just seems like delaying the inclusion of encyclopedic information for the sake of delaying. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Some1, the two years is a reference to WP:BDP: the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. If we say "Deceased individuals, where..." then it would become a range of time case-by-case based on consensus. The suggetion here is to default to the maximum privacy range of two years in the special case of former transgender names, so it isn't re-hashed on every page. With that background, do you still think it should change? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on the answer[31] to Wehwalt's question above, leaving things up to editorial consensus is better than default[ing] to the maximum privacy range of two years. Personally, I don't think a re-write is needed; MOS:GENDERID as it presently stands is fine as is. Adding a sentence about living transgender and non-binary people who are open about their former names/who have made the name public post-transition would be a nice addition to the MOS though. Some1 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest changing the introductory sentence to Refer to any person who is transgender or non-binary, or whose gender might be unclear... Otherwise, the implication is that all trans/nb individuals have an unclear gender, which I don't think is the intention.

The became a parent has always annoyed me, as it feels very awkward. I suggest had a child as the more natural recommended text.--Trystan (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Had a child" could be misleading. That expression (in the singular) generally refers to a biological female giving birth, rarely someone fathering a child. In the example "Jane Doe had a child" strongly suggests that Jane gave birth to a child, which presumably is wrong, in the context of the example. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative formulations, or removing the example entirely. My dislike of the wording is that it recommends replacing weird drafting with weird drafting. It implies that writing about trans people will be more problematic than it is, because it places an undue emphasis on biology in a way we don't for cis people. I don't think an article would be likely to say Sean Connery fathered a child or Sean Connery became a parent, but it could well say Sean Connery had one son, without any implication of him giving birth.--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I still think there are problems with how the exemptions are written. The way it naturally reads is that all four exemptions are equivalent, while in reality they are not. I don't think there is any concerns with the first two (notable prior to transition or self-declared). However, the others are not as clear cut. As I mentioned before, we do not have a good definition of a public figure (as who is or is not a "public figure" is based on a specific moment of time, while we are an encyclopedia), and second, I believe there remains a tension in the fourth exemption between names are not "automatically of encyclopedic value" and well, after two years, our tolerance for "contentious or questionable material" eases so editors who may be eager to expose the deadname can find a source or sources to connect the individual to a non-notable past.

So, my preference is closer to a two tiered approach to the exemption - a blanket exemption for the first two categories and a strong "May be exempted" (or similar language) for the other categories. --Enos733 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's relevant two years after their death; it's probably relevant during their life as well. If multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name, there should have to be a good reason for us to not do so. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit - I changed the fourth exception in the proposal to Deceased individuals, where.... I think it was actually in the interests of people trying to exclude former names, but it was perceived as the opposite. Now the privacy provided to living individuals extending after death would range from 2 months to 2 years depending on the case and consensus. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it was in the interests of exclusion on paper, but IMO including an explicit time limit like that invites attempts to game the system. One particular one I could easily see is the mentions of "individuals" being implicitly read as living individuals only, which would put deceased individuals as having no protections until two years after their death. (I don't think this argument would win a discussion but I definitely anticipate it being tried.) Loki (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Loki's proposed draft

Some of the discussion on the previous drafts appears to be going in circles. Repeated objections to the third and fourth points have not been reflected in previous drafts. So, I've written my own draft with some of the changes that have been repeatedly proposed, as well as fixing some other weaknesses I noticed in previous drafts:

Proposed MOS:GID section draft #5

Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. A transgender or non-binary person's former name (deadname) should be considered a matter of personal privacy and removed, with the exception of: Individuals who were notable prior to transition. Individuals who have said post-transition they are okay with having their prior name disseminated. Deceased individuals whose name was used or mentioned in multiple reliable sources that exercised some editorial judgement, however slight. When the individual was notable prior to transition, the former name of a transgender or non-binary person should be included somewhere in the lead of their article to avoid confusion from readers who are unaware of the individual's transition. Usually it should be included in the first sentence, but in some cases where the risk of confusion is low, it may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article, to avoid giving it undue prominence. After this one time, it should not be mentioned again. When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated, or a deceased individual's name has been included in multiple reliable sources, it can be mentioned in the same situations that any other name could be. However, be aware that former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value, and therefore the name still should only be included if there is a compelling reason to do so. Do not give the former name undue weight or overemphasis. If the appropriate weight is ambiguous, lean on the side of mentioning it as infrequently as possible, up to and including not mentioning it at all. In either case where an exception applies, articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnotes. When the individual does not meet one of the exceptions, the former name should not be used in lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, etc., even in quotations, even if a reliable source exists. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Specifically, I've:

1. Rephrased the second bullet: "making the name public" is IMO not a good description of what we mean here.
2. Deleted the previous third bullet about public figures. IMO it's redundant with the first one, so the only practical effect would be to incorporate the significant issues around defining a "public figure".
3. Deleted the two-year requirement on what had been the fourth bullet about deceased individuals, as the consensus arrived at for deceased individuals in the previous RFC did not refer to any such time limit, and there were significantly more objections to such a time limit than support.
4. Significantly rephrased the sourcing requirement on the bullet about deceased individuals to pull in an editorial judgement requirement, and added a footnote explaining further.
5. Added some extra explanatory text in the previously second footnote.
6. Broke the paragraph about what to do if an exception applies into separate paragraphs about the notability exception and the other exceptions. These exceptions are not really parallel, as they're motivated by entirely different concerns: the notability exception is a real exception to a strong privacy concern motivated by a specific strong encyclopedic need, while the other two exceptions instead establish any privacy concern that still exists is not very strong. The previous paragraph as worded would have, oddly, made the notability exception a lot stricter than it had been, as it encouraged exclusion of the name entirely.
7. Moved the paragraphs about if the exception does not apply nearer to each other, just for flow reasons.

Loki (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue of public figures is misunderstood here. I applied BLPPRIVACY to this guide, and there is a privacy exemption for public figures. This is not the place to debate whether BLPPRIVACY is correct, and it's not the place to make policy. The brief discussion at BLP was misrepresented on this talk to suggest that it's a questionable phrase. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you misunderstand the problem with the public figure question as it applies to BLPPRIVACY. For our project, an individual is either meets our notability guidelines and may have a page written about them (or not). We look at individuals over the context of their entire life (and, potentially, their legacy after their death). A public figure, by contrast, is a momentary thing. Someone may or may not be a public figure at particular moments of time (as recognized in the last paragraph of the essay on Who is a low-profile individual). So, even if we could agree on whether an individual is (or who is not) a public figure (which could be subject to walls of text), we should not explicitly state that once a public figure all verifiable aspects of one's life are now encyclopedic (as Loki mentions in the footnotes to the draft). So, all I see with the public figure exemption is a loophole to drive a truck through since it could be argued that many, if not most, individuals we consider notable could be public figures (See most elected and appointed officials, entertainers, athletes, journalists, business owners, influencers...). - Enos733 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point as well. Someone who seeks public attention has a different level of personal privacy protection under BLP. In the case of public figures... BLPs should simply document what these sources say, there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures, and names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. Without BLP, we would always include former names if properly sourced. Because of BLP, we require a higher bar for inclusion. The justification for removing the former name is for personal privacy, and we can't use the MOS to create a more restrictive policy. An elected official is a public figure, and if they have a former name that is documented in numerous reliable and neutral sources, it should be on Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that people who are high-profile individuals have a different level of personal privacy. That said, people may be high-profile individuals at certain parts of their lives. An athlete may be a high-profile figure during their peak playing years and a low-profile individual at other times. Recognizing that once notable = always notable under our policies and guidelines, it is not equally logical to say that once a public figure = always a public figure. But creating an explicit exemption means that once a public figure = always a public figure in terns of what material may be included. - Enos733 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example? I can't think of how this could be a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Imagine a CEO of a large Fortune 500 company who transitioned before becoming notable. Ostensibly a public figure, with lots of influence, the individual does not want their deadname (or even their transition) to become public. Under your draft, the name can be shared when "multiple reliable and neutral sources have documented the name." As Loki mentions in the footnotes, an editor who knows and wants the deadname to become widely known can search for the deadname and find a couple local stories, perhaps as a child the CEO won a spelling bee and was in the local paper, and because there were a couple reliable sources, the name is now able to be added to the CEO's page. - Enos733 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Consider pretty much any actor who retires. During their career, when they are appearing in film or television frequently, or press junkets promoting their latest production, they are unquestionably public figures. But after they retire, unless they stay otherwise active in public life by transitioning to another role, they stop being public figures. Sure you might hear from them once every so often, typically when one of their well loved productions has an anniversary, sequel, or reboot, but are they still a public figure when they're living quietly at home?

For an actual example, consider Peter Ostrum. In 1971 he starred as Charlie Bucket in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. After that, he retired, and as our article states in the lead "became reluctant to speak about his one starring role". Was Ostrum a public figure in 1971, when the film was released? Absolutely. Was he a pubic figure after that when he became a veterinarian however, or got married? No. Aside from some interviews over the years, and giving an annual speech at a non-notable school in New York state, he largely seems to stay out of public life. Or consider John Deacon. Between 1971 and 1991 Deacon was a member of Queen, writing many songs for the band, and appearing at countless concerts and music venues. After the death of Freddie Mercury however, Deacon started to withdraw from public life, before retiring from the music industry in 1997. Since then, aside from giving a couple of interviews, Deacon has avoided publicity. Was he a public figure during his decades with Queen? Yes. But since retiring? No, very clearly no.

Being a public figure is not a once-and-done thing. The WP:LOWPROFILE essay, as limited as it is on an actual clear definition, states clearly in the last section that the high/low profile status of an individual changes over time. BLPPRIVACY and BLPPUBLIC likewise adapt over time, with respect to a person's status. A person who becomes a public figure has the same reasonable expectation of privacy up until the point at which they become one as any other low profile individual. Likewise a person who was one and ceases to be one, has the same expectation of privacy after the point at which they retire from public life. However, even when one is a public figure, there are still aspects of their personal life that they have (or should have, tabloids notwithstanding) a reasonable expectation of privacy over. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:BLPPRIVACY or WP:PUBLICFIGURE that would mean a former name of a public figure is automatically not a privacy concern (even if we can source it). Would we publish the address of a public figure, even if sourceable, simply because they're a public figure? Obviously not (and in fact WP:BLPPRIVACY specifically instructs otherwise).

The exception, as I read it, is for current full names that have been widely published by reliable sources, not former names (and this guidance isn't specific to public figures either). There's no instruction about former names other than the instruction for miscellaneous personal info (which is to say, it should be removed). Loki (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

So, on the whole I think this is definitely more solid than the other drafts we've seen so far. There's a few bits though where I think some clarification and tweaks would be helpful.

On exemption 3, what does exercised some editorial judgement, however slight actually mean in practice? How do you define a source that has exercised editorial judgement? Is this something as general as the source publication having an editorial policy and team, or is it something else entirely? Do you have any examples of this in practice so we could see what it looks like?

In paragraph 3 the proposal states When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated. I'm concerned that this doesn't properly differentiate between someone who acknowledged their former name once or twice when first coming out, and someone who later distanced themselves or otherwise refused to acknowledge their former name. Would this not lead to the inclusion of deadnames that we currently exclude because they were not notable under that name, like for example Nicole Maines (see this November 2020 RfC for why we currently exclude the name)? Or are we seriously considering consent for dissemination a one-and-done thing that cannot be revoked at a later date?

In paragraph 4, the proposal states articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name.... Is that not softer than the current guideline? The current guideline text is a lot more definitive, use their current name unless they prefer to be credited under their former name for past events. The implication that I get from the text in the proposal is that using their current name is optional in all cases, whereas the current text is optional if the person prefers it. To better fit with the current text, I think this would be better phrased as something like articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name should use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnotes, unless they prefer their former name be used for past events (changes in italics). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

For exemption 3, I mean basically the same thing as WP:BLPPRIMARY means. Honestly, I probably should replace it; I just wasn't aware of it at the time of writing the draft. (My one remaining qualm is that it's a BLP policy and this is explicitly about dead people.)

For paragraph 3, I'm not sure of the distinction you're trying to get at. Reading the RFC, it seems the supporters are trying to argue that Maines' former name should be used because she has said it publicly, which is the exact distinction between "made public" and "consented to have disseminated" that I'm trying to get at with the wording change.

For paragraph 4, I was just copying over Cuñado's wording. I'm fine with that amendment. Loki (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

On exemption 3, you could maybe replace it with some sort of reference to WP:NOR#Primary for deceased individuals. A court transcript, or some sort of public governmental record is no more or less a primary source whether the person is alive or dead. I'll reserve judgement until I can see your replacement, but I would urge some sort of consideration towards source quality here, as well as source quantity when you're redrafting. The first of the two recent RfCs mentions concerns about both source volume and source quality in its closure.

On paragraph 3, the distinction is I'm trying for is, is the consent for dissemination something that's done once and is otherwise irrevocable? Or is it something that can be withdrawn in the future? If a person gave an interview shortly after coming out saying something like "my former name is X", but at some point after that interview being published they withdrew that consent and otherwise never acknowledged the former name, would we still include it? If they contacted the original source publisher, and the publisher agreed to remove it because they no longer consented to it being disseminated, would we not include it?

I guess I'm deeply uncomfortable with this new inclusion criteria, because it would result in the inclusion of the deadnames of many trans people that we currently exclude for privacy concerns, as they changed their names prior to becoming notable. With the exception of rare cases, like Sarah Ashton-Cirillo or Caitlyn Jenner, who are pretty open about their former names, most trans and non-binary people are not. Deadnaming, as the article lays out, is generally regarded as harmful, and most trans or non-binary people do not ever wish their former names to be known or mentioned. I would honestly see a change along these lines as a step backwards, as it would allow for the routine inclusion of names that, for the most part, our article subjects do not wish known. I'm reminded of what Laverne Cox said in 2019 when she remarked on IMDB including her deadname prior to changing their policies; "the ultimate insult", yet any of the changes presented so far by Tamzin, Cuñado, or yourself, would allow for us to start including her former name. That is something that, until this set of TNT proposals, I'm not sure the community has even discussed anywhere, let alone recently. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The wording is "consents" not "has ever consented". I'm really not sure why you think this is a real possibility. Loki (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

After this one time, it should not be mentioned again. There is no consensus on how often a former name can or should be mentioned,[32] so that sentence should be removed. And if the person was notable prior to transition, the former name should be in the lead sentence and bolded, as the MOS currently advises, not floating around somewhere in the lead unbolded.

The third paragraph wiki-links to WP:WEIGHT twice... I would simplify that paragraph to say When the individual has consented to have their prior name disseminated, or a deceased individual's name has been included in multiple reliable sources, it can be mentioned in the same situations that any other name could be. However, former names are not automatically of encyclopedic value, and should not be given undue weight or overemphasis. If the appropriate weight is ambiguous, lean on the side of mentioning the name as infrequently as possible.

I would change "have said post-transition" to "expressed post-transition". I would get rid of the first sentence from footnote B as I don't think it's necessary to single out books and newspapers; 'reliable sources' is already mentioned. I would also remove the first sentence from footnote C since that seems more like an opinion rather than a fact. Some1 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Also strongly disagree with After this one time, it should not be mentioned again as it's in clear violation of how leads are supposed to work. There should not be content in the lead that is not also contained in the article body, and this goes for names as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And there's weird wording in some places, like "avoid confusion from readers" (try "avoid confusing readers"), etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

should not be mentioned again is very clearly how the guideline works now, so no, I'm not removing that. You'd need a strong consensus of editors to overturn that. Mentioning the former name only in the lead is how every article about a trans person notable before transition on Wikipedia is currently worded. See for instance Chelsea Manning, whose deadname we mention once in the lead and thereafter only in quotes, or The Wachowskis, whose deadnames are mentioned in the lead and thereafter only in quotes.

It's also required by the current text, which starts out by insisting that we refer to any person by their most recently expressed name and pronouns, before adding an exception in the case of trans people who were notable before transition which only applies to the first sentence of the lead of the article about them. The general rule applies after we're done with the mention required by the exception, so after that point we can only use the name and pronouns they prefer. Loki (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

is very clearly how the guideline works now The current MOS doesn't require that a former name be mentioned once, only in the lead. For example, Caitlyn Jenner and Elliot Page's former names are included in the lead, but also in the Early life section of their respective articles. At least for deceased trans or nonbinary people, there's no consensus for including language about how often a former name can/should be used, see the RfC from two months ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1158982243#Topic_3:_How_often_to_mention_deadnames?_(MOS:GENDERID_3rd_paragraph*) Some1 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography

Split Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. Currently the topic is a WP:FORK between the two. Being a subtopic in MOS:Biography perpetuates forked discussions, forked manual-of-style-guidance, prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature and accessing this policy discussion, and floods disinterested wiki policymakers with a high-barrier-to-entry inaccessible discussion. We already have about 100 conversation threads identified for this and it is unsustainable to center them here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. I fail to recognize negative consequences of this proposal; if anyone sees any then please state them.

Proposal -

1. Replace {{Further}} {{Further|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity}} with {{Main}} {{|Main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity}}
2. Summarize this topic at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity in 3-5 sentences - no great detail here
3. Future development and discussion go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity
4. Shortcuts now go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity including
   1. MOS:GENDERID
   2. MOS:GID
   3. MOS:DEADNAME
   4. MOS:NB
   5. WP:GENDERBLP
5. Similarly, merge Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, because it is another WP:FORK of the same topic

• Support as proposer. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would take it a step further… and remove it from MOS space entirely. That happened because originally it simply discussed pronouns (which was a style issue)… but it has grown well beyond that. The issues we have been wrestling with for the last few months are far more than style issues… there are mostly content issues: focused on relevance, Verifiability and reliability, Neutrality, and a host of other things. I would suggest a separate WP:GENDER guideline. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: the large majority of discussion on this talk page is about this one guideline and that strongly suggests to me that it deserves its own page.
  In addition, I agree with Blueboar that MOS:GENDERID is really not a style guideline, it's a content guideline with style implications. It bears more relation to WP:BLP than to the rest of the MOS. So I wouldn't oppose breaking out the parts about excluding names for privacy reasons to WP:BLP or a subpage, and leaving the MOS parts for how to properly word things given those content restrictions. Loki (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I can see good reasons for a simple split. The amount of discussion on this guideline, not just the current discussions on amendments and rewrites, but also discussions on how to interpret and apply it to relevant content are pretty lengthy and frequent. Separating this out would allow for those discussions to occur without impacting on other discussions here relating to MOSBIO.
  I also find myself agreeing with Loki and Blueboar, GENDERID has grown beyond a simple style guide into something that touches upon inclusion criteria, neutrality, privacy of biographical subjects. There is a strong argument here for making this or elements of this either a standalone guideline or policy in its own right, or integrated into the policy or guideline they are founded upon. If this finds consensus, I would still be minded to leave behind transclusion of the style related aspects (ie, use the most recent name and gendered terms for the person), as those are truly style related issues, and can be considered separate from content inclusion issues. I'd prefer a transclusion though than a summary, only because that means we only need to update it in a single place should the style text be amended in any major way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  To restate succinctly why I think we've reached the point where this needs to be split off into its own stand-alone guideline. When GENDERID was first added to MOSBIO in something resembling its current form it was a style guideline with content implications; use the name and pronouns the subject uses; if they weren't notable prior to changing their name, don't include the former name. As time progressed, the guideline was amended to and added, and in its current form I think it's more accurately described as a content guideline with style implications; use the name and pronouns the subject uses; if they weren't notable prior to changing their name, don't include it; don't detail name and gender presentation changes in other articles unless pertinent; paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to avoid deadnaming and misgendering in quotes.

  MOSBIO on the whole a style guideline, with some minor content implications, which typically amount to "don't give undue weight" (see the sections on bad nicknames and sexuality). However because GENDERID is now a content guideline with style implications, and is typically enforced as such at dispute resolution and behavioural noticeboards (AN, ANI, AE, BLPN) it's clear that it has outgrown this guideline. That alone is sufficient reason to me to split it off into its own guideline.

  Finally, on the arguments that this split would result in local consensus or ownership problems, frankly in my opinion that isn't a reason to not split, nor is it one I can find that's supported by policy or guideline. If there is a policy or guideline that supports not splitting, could it please be linked? Editors who are fearful of such a situation would be able to watchlist it just as easily as the stakeholder groups that Blueraspberry has mentioned. Likewise there are well established mechanisms to prevent and challenge local consensuses, like RfCs and notifications to relevant noticeboards or WikiProjects, and WP:CENT, which are designed to stop such a thing from occurring. The option to use a contextually relevant mechanism will remain open regardless of whether future discussions on the guideline occur here, on a stand-alone guideline page, or some other venue like VPP (the forum for the two most recent RfCs). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support, particularly the idea that this should be split out and separated from the MOS. That said, I worry that a move to this guidance mainly residing at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity (or wherever that page moves to) might incidentally downgrade most of the guidance from guideline status to explanatory essay status. If the resulting page is a guideline page, I'm all for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in part because the material is short and isn't really suited to being an entire guideline page, in part because orders of magnitude fewer people would be watchlisting it, leaving much more room for mischief, and in part because a separate page on this would be highly likely to develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION. This material is much safer in a major guideline page with over 700 watchers, over 100 of whom are actively engaged in keeping this page sensible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Similar grounds to SMcCandlish.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. The proposal is explicitly made because the status quo prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature. I am not sure whether there are other stakeholder communities this could be referring to, and if not, then the question remains that once this change is made, would there will be appropriate balance in resultant discussions, instead of a local consensus? starship.paint (exalt) 04:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. This is a topic of discussion that needs as much sunlight on it as possible. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing is preventing certain communities and "other stakeholders" from watchlist-ing this page or participating in discussions here. SMcCandlish raises good points, particularly that a separate page would develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION. Some1 (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the issue of local consensus can arise wherever the guidance is located, but making it a stand alone guideline under WP:BLP (rather than an MOS page) would lessen the chance. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Anything other than making it policy and making it clear that WP:NPOV does not mean that we have to deadname people just because reliable sources do is a complete waste of time. As long as people use WP:NPOV as an argument for deadnaming any MOS on the matter is completely meaningless. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW it's already the case that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to deadname people. That's always been a losing argument whenever I've seen it, which is very rarely. I much more often see arguments based off WP:NOTCENSORED among people who want to ignore this guideline. Loki (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW it's already the case that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to deadname people. If it's WP:DUE, then it does. If there are losing argument[s], then it's because you're witnessing editors willingly choose to violate the non-negotiable status WP:NPOV enjoys and it's a shame because our ability to cover topics neutrally is a deeper concern than helping someone trying to stop a streisand effect (or put a genie back in a bottle, etc, etc) over something that not all of society agrees with (as evidenced by reliable sources). Of late, the arguments for change are boldly running straight through WP:RGW and are disruptive with the non-stop proposals/threads/debates and it grows tiring. If someone had told me 3-4 years ago I'd be on Wikipedia arguing about transgender topics, I'd never have believed them. And yet here I am, because apparently we're trying to change Wikipedia from being a follower of sources to being an encyclopedia that picks and chooses which reliable sources to ignore or acknowledge. And that's the most dangerous thing to come out of this to me in my decades of being here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain please, why you think a person's name (or in this case former name) is a point of view on a topic? And how a name could a dispute? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  From WP:DUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. And I don't think it's a point of view (and it doesn't really matter what I think here), our sources do. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't really answer the question, and opens a few more. Our sources don't have a concept of what we define to be a neutral point of view. They have their own criteria and reasons for including or excluding content, just as we do. Despite this, you're asserting that including or not including the deadname of a trans or non-binary person is a point of view on that person, so I return to my original question, how is a person's name a point of view?

  Just because our sources include a piece of information doesn't mean we have to include it (see WP:VNOT, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). A piece of information must have encyclopaedic value before it can be included in any article. Now if you want to make an argument that the former name of a trans or non-binary person (living or dead) has encyclopaedic value, then by all means make that argument. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  You asked Why [do] you think a person's name (or in this case former name) is a point of view on a topic?, I cited the exact wording from WP:NPOV that addressed your question. As to the rest, I'll leave you with WP:RGW which addresses what's happened here far better than I'm capable of. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've stated what you think, but I was asking why you think it. I want to understand why you think a trans or non-binary person's deadname is a point of view, as NPOV defines it. Or perhaps, based on this reply, why you think our sources believe the former name is a point of view, and not a factoid (as in the CNN definition of it being minor trivia) about the person. If our sources believe, as you assert, that a person's name is a point of view, could you perhaps cite a relevant style guide or editorial policy that elaborates on this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, you misunderstand. I don't think this, WP:NPOV says it. And you apparently can't understand that. If you think something as integral as how we identify someone in an encyclopedia article is simply a factoid, you'll need to let the folks who came up with WP:AT and the various Wikipedia naming conventions that their work was all for nothing. But this is all basic writing: who someone is (their name) is as important as what they've done, where they did it, and the why of what happened. This is all very academic. I won't be re-quoting NPOV since apparently the words don't mean anything to you, but it's all right there. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  AT, and the various naming conventions deal with an article subject's name, and with a few exceptions will typically follow WP:COMMONNAME. Name changes of article subjects are one of the major exceptions to the article naming conventions for why we might break with the historical common name for a subject. And that policy point, alongside GENDERID is why our articles about trans and non-binary individuals always use the current name of the article subject, and not their former name. However, we're not discussing article titles and naming conventions, we're discussing content inclusion or exclusion.

  The NPOV policy covers points of view on a topic. The purpose behind it is that we describe disputes, and not engage in them. As DUE states, neutrality requires that our articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Ordinarily when we discuss DUE, we are asking and answering questions like "does [insert label] apply to this article/?" or "what does current academic research state about this topic?" or "is this theory disputed and by whom?" This is so that whenever we're answering those questions, we're always following whatever the mainstream view on a topic is.

  The logical leap that I can't understand is why you're asserting that the former name of a person is a point of view, as that is in no way clear from the text of the policy. The only places in NPOV that actually use the word name are WP:POVNAMING and the paraphrasing of Jimbo Wales' 2003 mailing list post about naming the prominent adherents to a significant minority viewpoint. The questions that I've been asking have been to try to understand this logical leap you're making, because it is not an obvious one from the text of the policy. In other words, there is some base assumption that you are making here when reading the policy text that I am not, and it is one that I would like to understand. Based on your most recent reply, the only way I can think of that your interpretation makes sense is if you believe, or you're asserting that our sources believe, that a person cannot ever change their name, and that the act of changing names is a dispute that we cannot engage in. Is that the case? If that is not the case, would you please elaborate on what non-obvious base assumption you are making, because again, it's not obvious from what you've been saying or quoting? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to (emphasis added, the "several ways" provided are just a sampling and not an exhaustive list) the depth of detail (a name is a "detail" that sources may go into depth on, omitting such a detail when reliable sources report it runs afoul of DUE) [...] the juxtaposition of statements (our sources may list a "deadname" near a subjects current name, deviating significantly from that would again run into NPOV concerns). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so why is that encyclopaedically relevant? To pick another characteristic for a moment, if the majority of our sources said something like "X had curly red hair" or "Y spoke with a Scottish accent", is that something that NPOV would compel us to include in our articles? How do you balance that against other policy points like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:5P1? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  If lots and lots of sources highlight the fact that someone has/had curly red hair, that fact is obviously considered a significant trait for that person. It would be UNDUE for Wikipedia to omit it. The same is true for former names. We can quibble over how many sources are needed, and about the quality of those sources… but… eventually it comes down to: if enough sources all highlight a fact about a person, that fact should be considered encyclopedic and worth including in our article about that person. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  NPOV isn't just about points of view; it's also about aspects. See WP:BALASP and WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is true but IMO irrelevant. If lots of sources said what a BLP subject's current address was, we still couldn't include that information. That's not a WP:NPOV matter, because neither WP:NPOV nor WP:V require us to include information no matter how well it's sourced.

  Rather, if we do include information we need to include all significant points of view about it in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, but we always have the option of just not including it at all, and there are many polices (WP:NOT for instance) that instruct us to not include some information sometimes. Loki (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  We can include a BLP subject's current address, and often do so. The article on Donald Trump, for example, states that he resides at Mar-a-lago. WP:BLPPRIMARY only forbids the sole use of primary documents for the purpose of identifying a subject's address. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLPPRIVACY says articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons. Loki (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are a few rare cases where WP:NPOV overrides that aspect of WP:BLP. For example, Donald Trump and Jeremy Hunt. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am not saying that WP:NPOV does mean that we have to deadname people. Personally I think that is a bizarre interpretation of what a point of view is (and conflicts with a whole host of rules and guidelines, including, but not limited to the ones listed by Sideswipe9th). But WP:NPOV is used to argue for deadnaming. Of course most people just go with "reliable sources do it so we have to do it" without giving any policy rationale. And unfortunately I don't share you optimism that it is a losing argument. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Move out of MOS. I also agree with Blueboar and LokiTheLiar that much of MOS:GENDERID is about content not style and should be part of WP:BLP, not MOS. And yes, I do think that it should be restricted to living or recently dead people. The same rules should apply equally to all people, regardless of gender or gender identity. But even if we have different rules for trans etc people, it should still be a content guideline, not a style guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  It actually is a bit of BOTH content and style… but that just highlights the need for it to be on a page of its own. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Lots of bits of MoS have elements of content guideline to them; that's not a good rationale for such a split.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMc. I support it in principle, but it's not a simple split as we'd be effectively elevating it from a MOS guideline to either a guideline or a policy. And that makes the NPOV/DUE conflict even more important to resolve. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I posted this invitation to comment to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, WP:Feminism, WP:LGBT, WP:Women, WP:Men, and WP:Gender studies. These were stakeholder communities that I imagined might have opinions. If anyone else knows of others, then invite more participation. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, but really agree with Mitch Ames and others that the best solution would be a short section in BLP (perhaps based on proposal #4 above) to decide on content exclusion, and leave the MOS for style tips. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I previously proposed this, which I believe would incorporate the principles into BLP in an appropriate and consistent manner. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; this will reduce the number of eyes on this section and I do not believe that is a positive change. There are also WP:CONLEVEL issues with this proposal; it will either upgrade Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity to a style guideline, or it will downgrade Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity to an essay. Which one will occur isn't specified, but either way a split discussion lacks the CONLEVEL to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  this will reduce the number of eyes on this section — I don't think the number of watchers should affect where a guideline goes. It's either about content or style (or both, as Blueboar pointed out), and its location in the guideline/policies structure should be dictated by its scope, not by how many people chose to watch it. Anyone can watch or subscribe to anything - we don't hide our policies and guidelines. If anything, it should be easier to find and watch if it is in a sensible place, matching the scope of the guideline/policy. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as second preference to moving out of MOS per Blueboar. This needs it's own page that deals with both the content and style issues, the former can and should be summarised at WP:BLP, the latter can and should be summarised here, with both pointing to the specific page for more detail and precision. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is something I could support. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMcCandlish; it's not necessary and it shunts it off somewhere with less scrutiny. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support for alternative proposal to move this out of Manual of Style altogether. I've seen discussions as to whether revision deletion or oversight is acceptable for violations of this guideline, and while I can understand that sort of thing on BLP grounds, I cannot accept it on MoS grounds. The Manual of Style – Style! – is a guideline, not a policy, that discusses how to write, not what to write, and the idea that MoS violations should be deleted/oversighted is extremely WP:TROUT-worthy. As for other places where the MoS dictates what content is allowed, those should also be pruned down; I'm not so sure why, for example, relevant portions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games should be treated differently from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which notes that [t]here are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia and focuses on avoiding the loss of information (MOS:SAID is a good example of this). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

GENDERID in BLP

Based on the consensus that seems to be forming around the split, here is a proposed wording for a paragraph in BLP, so that the MOS is for style and not making content policy.

Proposed paragraph for WP:BLPNAME
For the special case of the former name of a transgender or non-binary individual, it is reasonable to assume they would not want the name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure. Any inclusion must be supported by multiple reliable and neutral sources.

Proposed MOS:GID

Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person should only be included if the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure (See WP:BLPNAME). The former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest that we NOT change any existing language at this point… but merely MOVE the existing guidance to a new WP:GENDER page. Once people get used to it being consolidated at a new location we can discuss changes. Go one step at a time. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see where there's consensus to take anything out of the MoS.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, consensus that seems to be forming, whaaaat? No jumping the gun, please. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  The "consensus that seems to be forming" is opposition to splitting this material out of MoS. And as Blueboar says, trying to change the material in the process of proposing a different split is just asking for opposition. We already know from all the discussion prior that there is considerable opposition to phrasing like "they made the name public post-transition" (which is a rephrasing of the same idea behind "clearly expressed their consent to share the information"), because these are matters of public record that are not dependent on what the subject themselves did/said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• While there certainly are a few comments supporting moving parts of GENDERID into BLP, I don't see anything close to a consensus or even an emerging consensus. I also don't see anyone in the above discussion having mentioned the public figure changes that are part of this proposal. Once again I agree with the points that Blueboar and SMcCandlish have made, either move the guidance or change the guidance. Don't do both at the same time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  But policy opponents will likely assume that a proposed move is motivated by a desire to make changes under more friendly circumstances, so there's sort of a linkage. Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  What is amusing is that I have the exact same concern about leaving it here (“hidden away” as a section within a “Style” guideline). By promoting it to its own guideline, I would expect that any proposed changes would be spotted sooner, and can be discussed by a wider selection of the community. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  This page has 773 watchers at present. A new page would, by default, start with 0. There's also the matter of what status it should have if it's moved out of the MOS. I would support an essay, but I would oppose any attempt to enshrine this as guideline or policy while the NPOV conflict remains. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's also the matter of what status it should have if it's moved out of the MOS. That's easy. GENDERID is already a guideline, and is regularly enforced as such at both content and behavioural noticeboards. As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity.

  while the NPOV conflict remains While this has been going on, I've re-read every formative discussion on the text of the guideline (ie those that were on the text of the guideline or lead to changes of it, and not application of it). In doing so I discovered that NPOV concerns have been raised by a handful of editors in total, across the hundreds contributing to the various discussions. The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  GENDERID is already a guideline It's a style guideline and part of the manual of style. It is not a traditional content guideline. As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity. This would not be parity, but a promotion by fiat unless it was accompanied by a community conversation that showed support for such a promotion. The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this. NPOV is non-negotiable, whether a community of editors supports something is irrelevant. If you want to split it off and promote it, you'll need to address these issues or face the reality that it will likely fail. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV is non-negotiable; however your particular interpretation of NPOV is very much negotiable. It seems to be a very small minority, in fact.

  Like it or not, all interpretation of policy on Wikipedia is determined by consensus. If you really want to settle the issue, we can take it to an RFC. But if not, nobody has any obligation to WP:SATISFY you or your decidedly minority interpretation of WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. I'll note that WP:SATISFY is an essay. We'll go with the policy here. But we won't be sacrificing our neutrality on the altar of WP:RGW just because a vocal minority (the small group here) wishes it so. The community decided the principles of NPOV are above consensus decision making, and likely rightly so if the conversations here are any indicator of how quickly some groups are willing to set aside our neutrality in the name of "feeling good" or some misguided desire to "respect" people in a way that society (and more importantly, our sources) have not. There is genuine real-world progress to be made on these issues, but Wikipedia cannot be the "leader" of change that some here seem to be pushing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  NPOV is indeed policy, but what NPOV means in any given scenario can only be determined by consensus. You seem to be (nearly?) the only person here who thinks a person's name is a point of view, and thus the (nearly?) the only person who thinks including or not including a person's former name is something that is of any relevance to NPOV. This is exactly the same way that reasonable editors may disagree about whether an actor should be primarily referred to by their stage name or their real name, but that disagreement is not an NPOV matter. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - While the majority opposes the specific proposal by Bluerasberry, there are five comments that suggest moving the content guideline to BLP would be an improvement. Considering the hurdle of getting agreement for a new exception at BLP, I think my proposal is about the best you can get. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference though between simply moving part of the existing guideline to BLP, which some editors do seem to support above (though not yet a consensus), and moving part of the existing guideline while adding to it, which no-one other than yourself seems to support.

  We could very easily make a proposal here that just replicates the existing inclusion guidance into the relevant portions of BLP, and that otherwise does not contain the new public figure and "made the name public post-transition" exemptions. Simply moving the existing guidance without any significant change to scope is a far easier thing to "sell" to the community than moving it and changing it at the same time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you propose that we move to BLP to exclude all former names unless they were notable under the previous name, it would fail. I think even my proposal might fail for the opposite reason you're saying, due to being overly censoring. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you propose that we move to BLP to exclude all former names unless they were notable under the previous name, it would fail. Outside of IAR, we already exclude all former names unless the person was notable under the former name. Moving the relevant parts to BLP for something we already have a long standing consensus for and have been doing routinely for years is much easier to do than adding wholly new exemptions or moving and adding new exemptions.

  The problem with this proposal is that it's trying to do two things at once. Move part of the guidance to BLP, that is already enforced as though it were part of BLP, and add a new exemption. As multiple editors have said now, those need to be done separately. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft RFC

I'd like to get feedback on this proposal before taking it to VPP. Assume a preamble and option to oppose all.

Option 1 - Expand MOS:GENDERID to deceased
Add this paragraph to MOS:GENDERID: For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

Option 2 - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with normal privacy exceptions, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, it has been widely published by reliable sources, or it may be reasonably inferred that the individual does not object to the name being made public. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup: Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Option 3 - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with only exception for notability, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup (same wording as Option 2): Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've some thoughts on the phrasing of options 2 and 3, but have an immediate question on the format. While option 2 and 3 are clearly mutually exclusive, due to the conflicting nature of what they'll respectively add to BLPNAME, is option 1 supposed to be mutually exclusive to 2 and 3? Or will this be the sort of RfC where you could !vote "option 1 and 2" or "option 1 and 3"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The question of deceased individuals can't go in BLP because it is about living or recently-deceased persons. I (personally) think it also can't go in the MOS, but considering that the last two RFCs came close to doing exactly that, then option 1 is there. I think to expand the exclusion of deadnames to deceased individuals you need to figure out a policy/guide that makes sense and run a policy RFC to do exactly that, or create a new one. Would it help to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other options to enshrine an MOS-based policy about past-RDP deadnames? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Would it help to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other options Perhaps, though that particular clause might just be better handled as a separate RfC, or as a separate question within one overall RfC. I'm not entirely sure that the drafting of that text has reached a conclusion yet and I wouldn't want to pre-empt it by placing a non-final version of it in here. The alternative would be to wait until that process and this process has finished and we have finalised text for all of the options/options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, wouldn't options 2 and 3 remove large chunks of the GENDERID guidance without moving them to any other page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add a 4th option: “Move/Promote the current text of MOS:GENDERID to a stand-alone WP:GENDER ISSUES guideline page - without any changes. (Changes can be discussed separately, at a later date.)” or similar language. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on the phrasing of options 2 and 3. Beyond the text that's moving to BLP, and the excising of the examples, there's also some key elements of the existing version of GENDERID that have been removed entirely. I'm using del and ins tags below to (hopefully) highlight the differences a little more clearly.

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent).The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. 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. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote.

When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc.(e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover) the quotation or work may be included

• Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person.

Some of the insertions and deletions are where sentences have been moved about, or subject to some minor word changes that don't significantly change the meaning. However there are several sentences that I'll now highlight separately that have been removed entirely

• 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
• Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.
• 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.
  • Note while some of this text has been moved, there is a significant change between use their current name as the primary name and may use their current name as the primary name
• In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)".

I'm very concerned that once again we're looking at a proposal that radically alters the scope of the current version of GENDERID while also moving or rewording portions. It's one thing to move portions of the guideline to BLP and make small textual changes to accommodate the move, while keeping parity with the current scope of the guidance. It's another thing entirely to reduce the scope of the guidance, while moving portions of it to BLP. Until the text of the guidance that will remain as part of GENDERID in options 2 and 3 maintains parity with the current scope of the guidance, this option cannot be brought forward to an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have made a good-faith draft to clean up the section and accommodate moving content restrictions to the policy page. The specific examples you brought up either do not "radically alter" the scope or are wordings already discussed on this page. For example, Tamzin previously commented, In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names. Which resulted in the change to "may use their current name" addressing works published under pre-transition names. In another example, even if it does not match what is most common in sources is redundant and unnecessary. You have the right to oppose all of my efforts, but you can't insist that it cannot be brought forward to an RFC with specious complaints. Due to this topic having a history of WP:GAME and WP:ADVOCACY by WP:ACTIVISTs (as noted in numerous RFC comments) I don't expect 100% agreement on this page but I welcome any feedback to make it a better proposal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The feedback I'm giving is the same feedback that SMcCandlish, -sche, Loki, Tekrmn, Blueboar, and I have given you already at multiple stages throughout these discussions. Stop trying to do two things, move/rewrite GENDERID, and change the scope of GENDERID at the same time. Either propose a split that otherwise keeps parity with the existing guideline with some minor textual changes to accommodate the split, or propose an amendment that alters the scope of the existing guideline. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th et al. Trying to make multiple changes at the same time is all-but guaranteed to result in no consensus for any of them and possibly even consensus against all of them. You stand a much higher chance of getting consensus for both if they're discussed one at a time, so pick which you think is the highest priority and discuss only that. When discussion of that has concluded and consensus reached on a change, then return to the other matter. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're suggesting running two RFCs? How many people have been commenting like this or this, ready to put a lid on all the GENDERID discussion? And these complaints about my revision are an example of why it's helpful to incorporate a cleanup into a single RFC. My cleanup has already received generally positive comments from less-active editors. The only scope altering is to move inclusion criteria to BLP. I'll respond to each of Sideswipe9th's points here to show what I mean:

Removed: even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise - this is redundant to the "Refer to any person" in the previous sentence, and the "unless they have indicated a preference" is just obvious. It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writing, not scope of guideline. Even though it's not my preference, I can put it back in to build unity.

Removed: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. - 1) this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographies, 2) it's in scope for removing in the spirit of moving content criteria out of the MOS, 3) also obvious given many relevant content policies.

Changed use their current name as the primary name to may use their current name as the primary name for pre-transition publications. This was not my idea but I was incorporating a recommendation from Tamzin: In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names. Nobody opposed this until now. As I've been reading hundreds of RFC comments over the last 3 months, proposing drafts and soliciting feedback, I'm trying to get the best version forward. Similarly, the change in the first sentence from "questioned" to "unclear" was a result of feedback from Jerome Frank Disciple and SMcCandlish on this page.

Removed: In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated. See WP:KISS. If you think it's important, please propose a better wording. This is a style example and has absolutely nothing to do with scope. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writing The content that refers to is part of the Manual of Style. It makes sense for style guidance to be a part of that text.

this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographies Per the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles. All biographical content, regardless of whether it's in a biography or any other article is subject to MOSBIO.

Nobody opposed this until now. I cautiously opposed it on 24 July. However that is separate to the reason I'm opposing it now. The reason I'm opposing it now is because it represents a significant departure from the current scope of the guideline, by adding a new exclusion criteria to GENDERID. We should not be launching an RfC that alters both the scope and location of the guideline at the same time. Do one of those two actions, and do that one action well. Now if it was only that change of scope that was being discussed, I would be somewhat more inclined to support it, but I still think it has issues that require further wordsmithing.

This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated. Possibly, and given the widespread shift in academic journals with regards to allowing for silent retrospective name changes for trans and non-binary authors this might even be (partially) outdated. That said, removing it again represents a significant change in scope of the guideline, in this case by removing guidance on how to handle source author name changes in citations. However saying this is a style example is again irrelevant, because this is referring to content that in options 2 and 3 will be remaining in MOSBIO. And as I've said above, MOSBIO refers to all biographical content and not just biographical articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise - If I hear wider support that this is important I'll include it. Again, not a scope change.

the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO - you win! I'll add it back in to the MOS text.

may use their current name as the primary name - nobody opposed this particular change until now, and the change was in drafts #2,3,4, and 5 above. The link you gave of you opposing it is just some general opposition to Tamzin's draft (#5). Perhaps some wording along the lines of "...unless they have a preference otherwise" would be in order, but I don't think it is very consequential whether we use "should" or "may". The proposal is clear that we assume privacy concerns unless the individual says otherwise, so that would override the "should". If I hear wider support that this is important I'll change to "should".

In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". - Please propose a better wording. Both sentences look like they were formed by committee. To me at least, it's not clear what situation it's trying to address, or whether the "author is notable" refers to the new or former name. Try writing like you're explaining it out loud.

I realize that I should not have used the phrase "style" in my last comments because this is the manual of STYLE. I was talking more about style of writing the guideline, not style guidance. As in, each person has their own style of writing. I'll try to be more clear. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Thryduulf and Sideswipe. This RFC is trying to do too much in one question. "What should be the wording added to the guideline for deceased individuals?", "Where should the guideline be?" and "Should we have extra exceptions other than notability?" are three different questions that should all be asked separately. It'd IMO be fine to ask those three different questions at the same time but they are three different questions and should be asked separately. So for instance:

Question 1 - Wording for deceased individuals

Which of the following paragraphs should be added to the guideline on referring to trans people? For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person. For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources. lorem ipsum dolor sid amet None of the above

Question 2 - Location of the guideline
Where should the main guideline on referring to trans people be located? MOS:GENDERID, a subsection of MOS:BIO, where it currently resides A subsection of WP:BLP Its own separate guideline page, with references from MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP Split between MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP, according to whether each section pertains to style or content

Questions 3 and 4 - Exceptions

Which of the following reasons should require mention of a trans person's former name in the lead of their article? (You may select more than one.) The person was notable under their former name The person is currently a public figure The person was a public figure at some time after transition but are no longer The person has said, in a way we can source reliably, that they are okay with their former name being mentioned Which of the following reasons should allow mention of a trans person's former name in their article? (You may select more than one.) The person was notable under their former name. The person is currently a public figure. The person was a public figure at a previous time (but #1 does not apply i.e. they were a public figure after transition) The person has said, in a way we can source unambiguously, that they are okay with their former name being mentioned

Loki (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Given how many contentious MOS:DEADNAME debates we have had recently, I would strongly encourage any RfC we have to be simple, and to propose something that is all but certain to receive consensus.

I don't believe Questions 2, 3, or 4 meet this definition; Question 2 in particular, as a proposal to change the level of this guideline, should be a standalone debate.

When we do hold Question 4, I would also suggest The person's former name has been widely published by reliable and secondary sources, based on WP:BLPPRIVACY

For question 1, I would suggest we have a single wording to propose, as a support/oppose option. Trying to give multiple options will make the debate more contentious and less likely to find any consensus; I would suggest For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person. However, I am still hoping we can avoid an RfC on that question. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Loki's proposal is actually doing more things than mine was. My proposal really only has one main fork: should we add a deceased exception to MOS, or move content criteria to BLP? Due to the inability to agree on this talk page, there is a second fork of whether the BLP move should be limited to notability only. Loki's question 2 would be a disaster by asking a question of where policy should go without specific wording, resulting in more (likely failed) RFCs in the future. Keep it simple. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What Loki's proposal is doing is more clearly delineating the change aspects of your proposal. Your proposal's option 2 is implicitly asking questions 3 and 4, because it contains text that incorporates those questions (ie the new public figure exemption). If Loki's proposal seems to be doing too much to you, this might perhaps give you insight into why I've been opposing your proposals, because by my reading yours and Loki's proposal have the same overall amount of change to the guideline. The differences are in the presentation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For question 1, the lesson we should learn from the first of the two recent RfCs is that too many options makes determining consensus difficult. Ideally we should have one reasonably robust option that we're asking a yay/nay on, as that will result in the clearest consensus either way.

For question 2, we do seem to have at least three mutually exclusive options here; split part to BLP while keeping the rest in MOSBIO, elevate all to a standalone guideline, or no change. I'm not sure we can pare that down any further than that. RfC formatting wise, that could be asked akin to the three question format of the first of the two recent RfCs, where we have one RfC tag and asking multiple independent questions. But I do fear that in total we might be asking too much at once. While I do agree with Cunado that question 2 would benefit from more concrete wording in principle, the way that I'm reading Loki's proposal here is that it's more of a draft formatting/structural proposal on how to present and ask the generalised questions, than one that has the specific phrasing for any given question or option in place.

For questions 3 and 4, those maybe need to be standalone RfCs. They're wholly new exemptions, and both the phrasing and location of the finalised text would be highly dependent on the outcome of question 2. I'd worry that asking this, alongside the question on splitting/moving GENDERID, would come across as too much simultaneous change by the broader community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I am also okay with simply skipping Questions 3 and 4. I don't think there's really much cause to ask those right now. I included them because I was making my version of Cuñado's proposal, and Cuñado's proposal included those questions. Loki (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think the questions are distinct enough that I would trust the community at VPP to be able to parse them without much impact on the outcome of any one proposal, but, at the same time, I don't see any harm in staggering them either. However, I would suggest a different order of operations:

• Question 1: It's the simplest inquiry, has fairly streamlined language at this point, and I believe it is something the community can get behind at this point. Let's try to get the benefit of inertia from the start.
• Questions 3&4: I actually think it maybe makes sense to run these concurrent with Question 1, as they really should be considered in tandem insofar as each contains language that will impact the others. I also think that this approach runs the least chance of fatiguing the community's remaining reserves of patience for proposals in this area. But we can always try them back-to-back; it's possible that one of Question 1's proposed wordings have hit enough of a sweet spot that the support will be overwhelming and that the mood surrounding this cluster of disputes will turn much more positive in light of finally having a consensus.
• Question 2: I agreed with Cuñado that a serious discussion about where this wording ultimately goes is important (and honestly, there's strong arguments for all the variations, imo), but I really do think it can and should wait until we iron out the actual language. Besides, the discussion about the language itself will heavily inform the pragmatics of determining what will go where.

So, either Q1, Q3 and Q4 ---> Q2. Or Q1 ---> Q3 and Q4 ---> Q2. But I do think the community can handle all four at once if it came down to it. What has held up the previous proposals has been less procedural hitches and more a lack of preparation at the front end, I suspect (no offense intended to anyone who worked on those proposals, but we've just had a very healthy amount of discussion dialing the current proposals in, further informed by the previous discussions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think we should combine "moving the guideline" and "modifying the guideline"; those are two completely separate things and should be totally separate unrelated RFCs. The bare minimum requirement for any move RFC should be that the overall guidelines will not change as a result of any options in it, and such an RFC should clearly state at the top that no change to the substance of the guideline can result from it regardless of outcome; if it's impossible to do that for one reason or another then the guideline shouldn't be moved. "We should cut it it fits in slot XYZ" isn't a good reason to change a guideline that has received as much input, discussion, and consensus-building as this. If people want to tweak, trim, or otherwise alter the guideline that should be a totally unrelated RFC that does not discuss moving it at all - trying to combine everything into a single do-everything RFC for something with as much history and complexity as this is doomed to failure. And if people want to cover the same material elsewhere or incorporate this elsewhere, that can be done without substantitive changes here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• I confess to some confusion. What are questions 3 and 4 "exceptions" to? Are the lists of four items meant to be exhaustive? What is a "public figure"? How does "public figure" differ from 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense? EddieHugh (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is specifically supposed to be a rephrasing of Cuñado's RFC wording. So I don't have a great answer for you on the public figure question. Questions 3 and 4 are supposed to be exceptions to the general rule not to use/mention a trans person's deadname. None of these lists are necessarily exhaustive, feel free to suggest things. Loki (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC at VPP

RfC has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on GENDERID in BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

And quickly procedurally closed as premature because the discussion above is still ongoing and the RFC posted was the version that has been rejected by everyone who has commented on it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

But this is a good time for a page break anyway: is a proposal nearing ready?

I'd like to suggest that Loki's presentation of the issues, divided among three potential proposals, looks to have a the requisite levels of simplicity and clarity to my eyes, and has taken the feedback of the above discussions into account, regarding what we can predict from the last two RfCs and how ambitious the new proposed wording can be while still standing a decent chance of capturing community consensus. The advocates for increasing the privacy protections of trans individuals as biographical subjects have adjusted their approach, and I am hopeful that those with strong NOTCENSORED conerns among the respondents of the next RfC at VPP will also give some ground in light of / as a result of the extra level of preparation and tailoring that went into this language.

As such, I'd like to read the room and see if we are good to go on this in the coming week or so, pending some additional tweaks to the precise language? (For example, do we want to leave the inquiries of Q3/Q4 open-ended as they stand now or propose precise language?) If there is support to propose this soon, I think the following timeline is most advisable:

1. We ask Q1 at some point in the next week. The OP should foreground the fact that this will be a series of RfCs but that they will be held in series in order to not confuse respondents, overwhelm this page with feedback from what is already likely to be a large and involved discussion, or tax the community's patience on these matters unnecesarily. We let this first RfC run its course at VPP for 30 days and hopefully get a timely close with a clear consensus.
2. Repeat the process with the complimentary (and I think clverly presented) wording of Q3 and Q4. The results of this discussion should, by a combination of the responses to each question, create a sense of the range of acceptable commentary about deadnames in relevant articles. Wording can then be drafted for the policy with close fidelity to the outcome. The only concern I have here is that with a two-part inquiry, each of which allows for four options, we may not end up with a clear consensus. However, it's possible we will and even if we don't the feedback may be of substantial help moving forward. Given the complexity of the issues involved, and the foregoing disputes, I think this is a reasonable way to present the inquiry for this cluster of issues and get useful community input. Again this should run for the full 30 days, needless to say.
3. Once the language is dialed in, if we have remainign appetite for it and a strong consensus here that the matter should be pursued further, we can discuss a third RfC for purposes of re-distributing the resulting language of GENDERID between BLP and MoS sections.

I appreciate this puts us potentially more than three months out before all of this gets resolved, but there seems to clear consensus above not to run all of these inquiries concurrently, and that may well be for the best (and ultimately save a lot of time and effort) in the long run. Incidentally, my thanks to everyone for pulling together and trying to meet in the middle after a tumultuous start to this series of discussions. Thoughts? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Loki's suggested structure and with your suggested sequencing and timing with two caveats

1. I'd consider waiting a week or so between each part (maybe more if discussion was intensive up to or beyond the 30 days) to further mitigate against fatigue and reduce conflating of issues.
2. I would avoid starting it until at least a full day or so after the ANI discussion about Cuñardo has concluded.

Regarding the actual options, I'm not completely sure I am happy with the language of all the options yet (I need to do more thinking), but I don't think we're far off. If others agree with the structure and sequencing then we should focus energy on the wording of Q1 for now, especially as feedback from that may inform later options. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

All good points, I think. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep to all of that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I like this schedule with Thryduulf's suggestions, and Loki's structure. Assuming we're all not exhausted, we'll have the time while Q1 is running to get the wording sorted for questions 3 and 4.

On the wording of the amendment for question 1, I'm still concerned that the barrier for inclusion is too low with respect to the consensus established by the first RfC. It's not enough of a concern to say "we can't launch the RfC yet", but it is enough that I think there might be a slightly better text we could use. There's one editor who I'd like to hear from on this, who has contributed to earlier parts of this discussion but not on this specific issue, but I'd like to check with you all if it's OK to notify them. Is there any objections to asking that person for an opinion here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious who you mean but it doesn't matter for me, I'm fine with asking them. Loki (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition to filter

Hi, I've noticed there's a filter or something called "possible MOS:ETHNICITY violation" in Wikipedia's code. How does it work? Does it for example avoid edits consisting in the removal of demonyms from an article? If so I'd like to propose an addition. But firstly I'd like to know what does it do. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Those tags are applied by edit filters, and the best place to discuss them in general is at the Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard, to request a new/expanded filter post at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Note that while the workings of most of them are public there are some that of necessity that need to remain private for WP:BEANS reasons (this is unlikely to apply to one that tags MOS violations though). Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll start a thread there. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor?

MOS:ETHNICITY covers several useful situations for how to refer to the nationality or ethnicity of a biography subject in the lead section. However, there is no guidance on whether duress can be a factor in determining a person's nationality. At Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, there is currently a riveting discussion regarding how to refer to Sergei Bortkiewicz' nationality and/or ethnicity in the lead section. Even if these questions are mooted by other factors, the question of duress may still relevant to many biography subjects who have lived in the middle of geopolitical conflicts, especially if they lived in occupied territories. @Mzajac raises an interesting concern regarding Bortkiewicz: "His own comments have to be interpreted in his cultural and historical context: in the Russian empire one could get in serious trouble for publicly acknowledging Ukrainian as a separate national identity so it wasn’t done, and the name Ukrainian wasn’t universally used as an ethnonym until after the revolution (in Austro-Hungarian Ukraine, Ukrainians had referred to themselves as Rusyns, Rusnaks, or Ruthenians). This coloured the way people from there referred to themselves and others, and the way the rest of the world referred to them."

To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity? 169.156.16.220 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity? No extent, because that requires WP:OR. Instead, we should just follow the sources; if the sources describe Bortkiewicz as Russian, we describe him as Russian. If the sources describe him as Ukrainian, we describe him as Ukrainian. If the sources are conflicted, we reflect that conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Duress doesn't really apply to Bortkiewicz since he was living in Germany for most of his life. But as @BilledMammal said: we should trust sources that they are able to acknowledge every factor while determining subjects nationality, we shouldn't do that ourselves. Marcelus (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with BilledMammal and Marcelus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn’t duress, it’s colonialism. Bortkiewicz grew up in imperial Russia where everything Ukrainian was either denigrated as low peasant culture, or appropriated as Russian. He was from a landlord family of foreign ancestry. Why would he ever associate himself with Ukrainianness?

And of course, these prejudices were exported to Western academia by Russian émigrés, and are still only partially addressed,[33] so his connection to Ukrainian culture is only now beginning to be examined, as evidenced by sources that I quoted from in Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz#Edit war regarding Countries of Bortkiewicz’ Heritage.  —Michael Z. 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the academic RS consensus on Bortkiewicz's identity is about to change, but until it does it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to jump the gun. At most it may be reasonable to omit content relating to Russian identity if it is connected to outdated scholarship, but purporting new content about connections to Ukraine in the absence of sourcing is OR._signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And (not looking specifically at the sources in this case) if only Ukrainian sources describe him as Ukrainian and other sources describe him differently, like it currently happens a lot, this situation should be mentioned in the article (rather than saying 50% sources so, other 50% sources so). Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can automatically treat sources as WP:BIASED solely because of their nationality. That would lead to problems for eg. Arab–Israeli conflict. Or, for another example, would we require that every source about the Vietnam War published in the United States or written by an American attribute that fact? The fact that sources from region X tend to say Y is something we could attribute to a secondary source observing that fact, but putting a bunch of sources together and using attribution to say it seems like it could lead to problems. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a lot of situations when Ukrainian sources say something and all (or almost all) other sources say smth else. And the proponents of Ukrainian POV bring these sources en masse and demand changing the text of the article. We need to learn how to deal with such situations. Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

[citation needed][citation needed][citation needed][original research]

Now lecture us about Russian sources.  —Michael Z. 02:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources I cited in the discussion linked above are published by:

1. The New Criterion, New York NY[34]
2. Roman & Littlefield, Lanham MD[35]
3. Orpheus Publications, Harrow, Middlesex, UK[36]
4. Doubleday, New York NY[37]
5. Alfred Publishing, Van Nuys CA[38]
6. R. Glier Kyiv Institute of Music, Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine, Kyiv[39]
7. Notes Muzyczny, Academy of Music in Łódź [40]
8. University of Nebraska – Lincoln.[41]

So what is it we need to learn how to deal with?  —Michael Z. 02:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm strongly inclined to agree with the general sentiment Michael is expressing here and the points raised by Aquillion. I'm not going to challenge Ymblanter's subjective read of this particular corpus of sources in this particular context, because that is an exceedingly difficult or outright impossible thing to do in most circumstances, and even if you accomplish it, you may not convince the other party. But I will say that our policies are very obviously, directly, and deliberately design to have us avoid introducing meta-analysis of the sources unless an WP:RS compliant source can be found supporting it: ideally with attribution.

That said, attribution can be used to operate in the other direction as well: if you have a concern about the balance of sources along some criteria, attribution is the one way you can flag that. You just can't get too extrapolative/OR/SYNTH about how you describe things in doing so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That said and returning to the OP's original question, I'm in agreement with BilledMammal, Marcelus, Rosguill and SmMCandlish above: just map to the sources. Implications of duress or cultural suppression or appropriation are WP:extraordinary claims (that can really only come in the midst of controversial issues) that must meet a high burden of sourcing. Mind you WP:BIASED does tell us to present all significant viewpoints, but you still need at least one or two high quality sources for such observations of purported systemic bias. But you can reasonably, briefly, and neutrally point out any very obvious (and easily verifiable) connections between the sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Again, just don't get excitable with the wording. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I am making a general point. I did not even look at a specific corpus of sources in this case, and it might very well be that the Ukrainian point of view is prevalent in the sources for this specific issue. Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a “Ukrainian point of view” that Bortkiewicz was from Ukraine (except in that the musician from Ukraine literally wrote this fact about himself). On the contrary, there is a POV pushed in the original discussion, the baseless or distorted assertion that Ukraine “wasn't even existing at that time.”  —Michael Z. 13:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Although I originally opened the topic to discuss the limited topic of duress, this section has clearly blossomed into a healthy discussion about the proper application of MOS:ETHNICITY to the broader question of Bortkiewicz' nationality/ethnicity. Several users have weighed in here supporting the general concept that the lead section should guided by WP:RS, to prevent WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH. At Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, multiple WP:RS each were raised identifying Bortkiewicz as Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and Austrian.

I cannot take seriously Marcelus' argument that multiple sources describing Bortkiewicz as "Ukrainian-born" or listing "Ukraine" next to his name do not consider him Ukrainian.

Similarly, in response to Michael's arguments for rejecting the sources that facially identify Bortkiewicz as Russian, I'm concerned this would risk committing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Even if Michael's claim that anyone who was born and grew up in Ukraine was Ukrainian were valid, this would not answer the question of whether Bortkiewicz was also Russian, which the WP:RS clearly answer in the affirmative.

Previously, I suggested the compromise solution of omitting both Russian and Ukrainian references in the first sentence, based on the potential conflict between sources and the Copernicus example in MOS:ETHNICITY, but that didn't seem to gain support. I am also convinced by BilledMammal's point that the sources should reflect conflict, if any. Thus, I have edited Sergei Bortkiewicz to note in the first sentence that he was Ukrainian as well as what was previously listed, with multiple WP:RS each to indicate his Ukrainian, Russian, Austrian, and Polish identities. The citations allow the readers to make their own informed decisions about Bortkiewicz' identities.

(Also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not reject sources that identify Bortkiewicz as Russian. I did say (somewhere) that it is better say exactly what that means, that he was a subject of the Russian empire. This is what some recent sources say is better (I’ll provide a reference if I can find it).  —Michael Z. 15:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the body should definitely be improved to describe the identities in more detail, including his statements about his identity, and the ethnological interpretation of his music. The lead would not be the right place, to avoid MOS:LEADCLUTTER. However, the content should be specific to Bortkiewicz. If we have two sources that identify Bortkiewicz as Russian, and a third source that says that "Russian" at that time meant subject of the Russian Empire (generally and without specificity to Bortkiewicz), then WP:SYNTH might incorrectly follow the form, "Bortkiewicz was Russian[source 1,2], which means that he was a subject of the Russian Empire[source 3]."

(Also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is already going on: Talk:Sergei_Bortkiewicz#Edit_war_regarding_Countries_of_Bortkiewicz'_Heritage, there is zero reason to start another one here. Everybody who has interest in the topic is free to join the discussion there. Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This page frequently hosts WP:RFC regarding disputes about the application of MOS:BIO. You yourself have raised some important points on Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz regarding the proper application of Wikipedia policies. It is important that these pressing points be discussed by the broader Wikipedia community, instead of just a Talk page. (Also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to put in a plug here for just omitting nationality from the first sentence when it's complicated and not very relevant to the person's notability. In fact I'd even be good with omitting it (from the first sentence) just whenever it's not very relevant to the person's notability, complicated or not. Whether that's the case for Bortkiewicz I haven't bothered to form an informed opinion on, but I'd like to challenge the apparently popular assumption that we should always or almost always lead with nationality. There's plenty of time to discuss it in the body of the article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more perspectives on this. I'm not closed to the idea of removing both "Ukrainian" and "Russian" from the first sentence, although I believe that only including "Russian" and not "Ukrainian" is neither supported by consensus nor by references. At the moment, I'm quite convinced by the argument of BilledMammal, that the article should reflect any conflict between sources. I don't see much of a conflict: only one source says Bortkiewicz was not Ukrainian, and none say he was not Russian. This does not seem inconsistent with a claim that he was both Ukrainian and Russian, and this claim seems well supported by references. While Copernicus is precedent for how MOS:ETHNICITY need not be included for someone whose ethnicity/nationality is disputed, I don't see any similar standard for not including a complicated nationality. If someone has four different ethnicities/nationalities and all four are well supported by sources, and all four are WP:NOTABLE, I think all should be included. But I'd like to hear from others on this point.

I think the Johnson dissertation and the Levkulych paper, and the Polish language source provide the best arguments for the notability of each of these ethnicites/nationalities: they were notable because they heavily informed Bortkiewicz's music, which itself was notable. (Also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I only learned of this discussion now; it would have been very helpful, not to mention a welcome sign of goodwill, had IP user mentioned they were going to take the Bortkiewicz discussion elsewhere after failing to achieve their aims at the article talk page.

Some points:

• "Duress" isn't a credible excuse for why Bortkiewicz self-identified as Russian and not Ukrainian. As has been mentioned before, his stated being Russian after leaving Russia, when he was no longer in danger of official reprisal. Even had he remained in Russia/the USSR, the notion of official reprisal for asserting one's nationality isn't as clear-cut as others make it here. During the Soviet period, expressions of nationalism were encouraged by authorities, so long as they did not threaten the integrity of the Soviet state. Levko Revutsky, Boris Lyatoshinsky, Viktor Kosenko, among many others, not only were allowed to assert their Ukrainian identity, but were allowed to thrive because of it. In the case of Revutsky, his being Ukrainian even ended up being a professional advantage during the nominations for the 1940 Stalin Prize. The committee ultimately booted Sergei Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky from the short list in favor of Revutsky's Symphony No. 2 because they needed more non-Russian nominees. All of these composers were highly regarded and were honored by the state.
• His nationality, whatever it was, ultimately played no part in his notability. These certainly did not secure him lasting fame in his lifetime, nor did it prevent him from being practically forgotten by the musical mainstream in Russia, Austria, and Ukraine until the late 20th century. Bortkiewicz also did not appreciably influence or participate in the musical history and development of infrastructure anywhere, much less in Ukraine, unlike the aforementioned composers who are crucial figures in the ongoing history of Ukrainian music.
• That he used Ukrainian music in his own work does not make him Ukrainian. If that were the case, then Colin McPhee would be "Indonesian", not Canadian; Béla Bartók "Romanian" and/or "Turkish" instead of or in addition to being Hungarian.

The best compromise would be to omit all mentions of nationality in the lead. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A formula I've used occasionally for subjects whose current nationality is non-obvious is to omit the nationality from the first sentence, but then later in the lead to list the relevant nations for major life phases like "Born in Argentina and educated in France and Switzerland, she works in Germany as..." —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very good technique and should be used more. (I've seen a few places where both at once are being done, though, which is clumsy. E.g., Alex Pagulayan "is a Filipino-born Canadian professional pool player. Pagulayan was born in Cabagan, Isabela, Philippines and was raised in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. In 2012, Pagulayan became a citizen of Canada and now resides in Toronto."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a sensible choice elsewhere, but I don't think it would work here as editors with a nationalist agenda would likely try to game this one way or another.

The main problem is that Ukraine, in the sense of an independent polity, didn't exist at the time of Bortkiewicz's birth. Adding to the confusion—and frustration to nationalists on both sides—is that notions of what it meant to be Ukrainian and Russian were a lot more ambiguous and fluid back in Bortkiewicz's time than today. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Why not just name the bad-faith editors instead of casting aspersions widely to show you have no trust in the discussion and poison it?

I don’t know why that would be a particular main problem. Plenty of independent polities didn’t exist throughout much of history. Somehow we manage to label Bach and Beethoven German before 1866 and Vivaldi Italian before 1861, and Ghandi’s not even “British.”

The question is about “notions” in current sources, not in Bortkiewicz’s time.  —Michael Z. 03:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep derailing discussion by accusing others of attacking you and Ukraine? I even forgot about you until now. Furthermore, nobody here or at the other discussion was maligning Ukraine. The only person who kept bringing up outdated terms for it that are now considered derogatory was you. So please take my word: I neither hate you, nor am I trying to attack you or Ukraine, whether directly or by implication.

Getting back on-topic, Vivaldi, for example, was ethnically Italian, spoke Italian, contributed to the development of Italian music, and was referred to as Italian by sources in his time and since. Sources are clear that Bortkiewicz was born in what was then Russia and that his ethnicity was Polish, but arguments for his Ukrainian nationality, on the other hand, did not appear until well after his death. As I mentioned above, "duress" cannot be the reason he self-identified as Russian even after leaving Russia; even had he remained, the cases of Revutsky, et al, prove that assertions of Ukrainian identity were celebrated and encouraged in the USSR. (Since Bortkiewicz never returned there, however, this is besides the point.)

Bortkiewicz himself neither ever identified as Ukrainian, nor had any ethnic connection to Ukraine. So the grounds for him being Ukrainian, aside from being born in a territory that 114 years later became Ukraine, are a lot more debatable. If anything, the situation here is more like trying to refer to E. T. A. Hoffmann as Russian or Béla Bartók as Romanian simply because their respective birthplaces eventually became Russia and Romania. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Now you’re making up false accusations. Please take them back.

And you’re indulging in a straw man argument, or maybe several. I’ll repeat what I said before: the article should say Bortkiewicz was from Ukraine. Since that meets the definition of a Ukrainian, it could use that term to say it, but it would be better to be specific.  —Michael Z. 04:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The only two sources raised that claim Bortkiewicz was Russian were Grove (2001), and Johnson (2016), both long after Bortkiewicz died. If you found fault in the recency of the sources claiming his Ukrainian nationality, the sources claiming his Russian nationality would be weak for the same reason. Claiming Bortkiewicz was Russian because he was born in Russia would be impermissible WP:OR, which is the same thing I said to @Mzajac about the claim that Bortkewicz was Ukrainian because he was born in Ukraine. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One minute before I opened the new topic here, I wrote in Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz: "I am consulting Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Biography for an opinion on whether duress can be a factor in determining the nationality of a biography subject." (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Your wording implied that you merely were referring to the MOS for guidance, not opening a new RfC which is what you did here. Regardless of what you meant, you should've notified editors in the other talk page that you were opening this; that you didn't is a bad look. The fact that you also attempted to WP:WL @Marcelus (by "weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards ... with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem") also does not reflect well on your intentions. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I would merely read a talk page. People consult talk pages by opening new sections and participating in discussions.

If you're concerned that my report violated Wikipedia policy, please contact the administrators. It didn't, and there's nothing else I can say. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, whatever wording you chose, it would have been a welcome gesture of goodwill had you informed involved editors that you intended to open a new RfC. You chose not to, which is as I said a bad look, especially after you gained no consensus that favored your edits at the Bortkiewicz talk page.

Unless a user is unambiguously vandalizing mainspace, I'm not interested in reporting anyone. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)