Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Hadley Kay

The article at Hadley Kay contains the custom hatnote:

This article holds a Kay clan name. According to Kay custom, this person is properly addressed by his name, Hadley.

This seemed kind of inappropriate, and my first instinct was to remove it, but I've seen similar sorts of standard ones when there's some sort of clarification for family/given name order. So I thought I'd just double check here first. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Similar standardized hatnotes, as those for Icelandic names (patronymic) and Japanese names (reversed order compared to European names), concern well-known and well-documented name practices that somehow differs from what most modern-day Westerners may expect. (Which is not to say that they are unusual or non-standard. Patronymics have been common in large parts of Europe in the not-so-distant past and are still the normal type of name in e.g. Ethiopia and Somalia). In contrast, I don't see how this one, for a contemporary Canadian person, would make any sense, and it is not supported by any source in that article or in the Kay (surname) to which it links. Cena Arz (talk · contribs) who added this hatnote on 24 Dec. 2016 added similar ones to other articles, but as far as I can tell, they have been removed. --Hegvald (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY and context question

I have a question about MOS:ETHNICITY as relates to articles where it may seem obvious that a person has a certain nationality but they did not actually have such citizenship. The example article I am going to use is January Suchodolski, who I think most would agree is Polish. However, "from 1795 until 1918, no truly independent Polish state existed" and he lived entirely in that period. If we go by the MOS as currently worded I think we would have to omit "Polish", but that would, to my mind, greatly diminish the context conveyed. How should that be handled, and should the MOS be updated to reflect this scenario, or update the article? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

In cases like this, I think it should be removed from the first sentence, but I think there's still a better way of conveying the information in the lede. For example, adding a sentence like "A member of the Warsaw Cadets Corps, he took part in the 1830 November Uprising of young Polish officers against the Russian Empire." Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In such cases it's important to link the "nationality" correctly. In the January Suchodolski article, "Polish" currently links to Poland which is surely incorrect, since during his lifetime there was no Poland. Jayjg's sentence links "Polish" to Poles (aka Polish people) which is better. — Stanning (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Poles is an ethnicity not a nationality, and (according to the linked MOS) "should generally not be in the lead". I think this case may be an exception, as his Polish ethnicity is highly relevant to his participation in the uprising, but it would be a mistake to generalize from it and start linking to Poles in the leads of all pre-independent-Poland people of Polish ethnicity. I certainly agree that we should not claim that people are citizens of countries that did not exist during their lifetime. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the old nonsense about Germany and Italy not existing until the relevant 19th-century dates, which ips regularly drag up. All these countries existed both as nations and as geographical countries before the states were formed. There must be a link for Russian Poland. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian Partition or Congress Poland, maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Distinguishing honorific from religious post-nominals

The current policy on post-nominal letters is to remove all post-nominal letters except in the lede sentence. The problem is that this policy only contemplates honorific post-noms like CBE. The usage of post-nominal letters that indicate membership in a religious order is very different, where the letters are very commonly appended to a name and serve a useful purpose of communicating information about the person. E.g. John W. Beschter, S.J. (with S.J. standing for Society of Jesus). Therefore, I propose adding to the policy a statement on religious post-nominals that they may be included in infoboxes (because this communicates continuity of a particular religious order holding an office) as well as anywhere within an article upon the first introduction of a new name that bears post-nominal religious letters. They would be used only in the first instance and never thereafter (except for in succession boxes). Ergo Sum 01:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, although saying "the Jesuit John W. Beschter" in running text is more clear for those not familiar with the abbreviations. Only a few are very widely understood - S.J. and O.P. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Without your Wikilink I would have understood only SJ. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Postnominals are commonly used in infoboxes! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The MOS states Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honor. Can you (Ergo Sum give an example of where religious post-noms would be needed outside of the one given in the MOS? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This has come up with regard to edits at Loyola Marymount University, removing S.J., C.M., R.S.H.M., and C.S.J. from various faculty and administration members. These are in a different class than honors/awards, giving relevant and useful information about the person's religious order affiliation, as justified (I believe) by the second paragraph at MOS:CREDENTIAL: ... may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify that person's qualifications with regard to some part of the article .... Should these remain in the article? How about Ph.D., which can also be justified as a qualification? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

(Pinging Ergo Sum and Gaia Octavia Agrippa) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd say on pages of a religious institution that religious post-noms would be acceptable. If its a Jesuit university, for example, an SJ post-nom alongside the names of the teaching staff would serve a purpose rather than being "decoration" (and writing out in full that they were Jesuits would take up more wording). Likewise, they can be used in church or monasteries articles, etc. On other articles, eg a secular university or a home town, they are likely not appropriate. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 14:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Positions, offices, and occupational titles needs clarification

There are not enough examples provided for this section, especially for the "Unmodified, denoting a title" part. This has lead to a lot of confusion, since it is hard to interpret if it is correct to capitalize something when there are only three examples of capitalized nouns. Can anyone who is very experienced and knowledgeable in this area add more examples to the article, and provide me with some as well? BobRoberts14 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Non-notable birth names

I would suggest that if the individual has not been notable under their birth name, but couldn't change it due to legal requirements, the birth name should not be given in the lead. I believe the crite

For example

(from Miley Cyrus) Miley Ray Hemsworth (born Destiny Hope Cyrus; November 23, 1992) ... She was notably known as Destiny Cyrus, but nicknamed Miley, before she changed it legally. This would mean that before she legally changed her name, her musical work would be credited under Destiny Cyrus

(from Frank Ocean) Frank Ocean (born October 28, 1987) ... Ocean never notably known as Christopher Edwin Breaux, therefore it is not listed in the lead. He didn't produce any work until after he changed his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.251.199 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Birth name, assuming we can verify it, seems like basic information that should be in the lead in my opinion. What is the objection to including it? There are many, many counterexamples like Elton John, Marilyn Monroe, Tom Cruise, Harry Houdini, Mark Twain, Shania Twain, Meghan Markle, Olivia Wilde, Reese Witherspoon, Bruno Mars, Gigi Hadid, Katy Perry, Natalie Portman, Demi Moore, Joaquin Phoenix, Julianne Moore...in fact I can't seem to come up with another example other than Frank Ocean that doesn't have a birth name in the lead. Perhaps we should just add it to his article? CThomas³ (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, include the birth name in the lede. GiantSnowman 07:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Essential and basic information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with above, birth names are encyclopedic material. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that non-notable birth names are better suited for the body of the article, or at least later in the lead. I can’t think of a good reason why the reader would need to know that info before even getting to why the person is notable.--Trystan (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is a difference between “Notable” and “Noteworthy”... the decision on whether to include alternative names in the lead (or not) has more to do with noteworthiness than notability. There is no “right answer” to the question. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

By “non-notable birth names”, I mean birth names under which the subject was not notable. I agree that most birth names are noteworthy, and thus worthy of including somewhere in the article, with position determined by its relative importance.--Trystan (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. "I can’t think of a good reason why the reader would need to know that info before even getting to why the person is notable" - well, here's one. In many cases (ok, not Miley Cyrus) the reader may have come via a redirect from an alternative name, & they need to know straight away they are at the right place. It varies case by case imo, & a firm rule is not a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s only likely where the person was notable under the birth name, in which case I agree that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. But, eg, there are no incoming links for Thomas Cruise Mapother.--Trystan (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What you are really discussing is the question of how much weight to give the alternative name. Is it worth noting in the lead, or should it be noted later in the article? Again, there is no right answer to that. It is a judgement call. I would oppose a firm “rule” either way. There is no need for uniformity on this question. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So would I. But we already have a firm rule, MOS:CHANGEDNAME. The only listed exceptions to including the full birth name in the lead sentence are (1) for people with many different names, in which case they are distributed throughout the lead section, and (2) for trans people who were not notable under that name.--Trystan (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a guideline, not a strict rule. For example, on Martin Luther King Jr.'s page, it was decided that since his name was changed in early childhood and there would not really be any people who knew him in a personal way only by his birth name, to not include it. This is different than for example someone who spent their school years going by their birth name and changed it later, in which their classmates might not know about the changed name. However, it does mention that his first name given at birth was Michael later in the article and in the personal details section (which most of us would not argue against doing except in cases where there are BLP privacy issues at stake). Okieditor (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Guideline though it may be, in my experience the inclusion of birth names in the lead sentence is nearly universal and rather zealously defended. Though I am pleased to learn of an exception in the MLK Jr article.--Trystan (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Another reason IMO for not automatically putting non-noteworthy birth names in the lead that I thought of: Wikipedia doesn't do the equivalent for non-human entities (e.g. companies, cities, etc.) that have changed their name. (In some cases the old name is mentioned in the lead if it's likely someone would be searching via that name, and it would typically be mentioned later in the article in the appropriate section(s) if a sourced fact, but not automatically in the lead as is the current standard practice for people.) Okieditor (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Except sometimes we DO mention the previous names for non-human topics in the lead... for example, see our article on the MetLife Building in NYC... which notes that it was formerly known as the “PanAm building” in the second sentence. There are no firm rules here. Nor should there be. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavaPythonLutz (talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC) I think the rule should be this: If the person was famous before changing their name, it should be listed in the lead, for example Miley Cyrus. However, if they were not, for example Frank Ocean, it should not. It still should mentioned, later on in the article, like the 'Early Life' section. However, I must add, it should be judgemental and 'case by case'. For example, nobody will ever assocaite the name 'Christopher Edwin Breaux' with Frank Ocean. But people may link Destiny Hope Cyrus with Miley.

It is traditional for biographies to include all names by which a person was known, whether notable or not. Listing them in the lede is what we have always done and that's what we should continue to do. For a start, knowing someone's birth name can be useful in tracking down information on them before they started using another name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I don't entirely agree. For example Robert Allen Zimmerman, Norma Jeane Mortenson, Marion Morrison and Archibald Alec Leach were never notable or noteworthy under these birthnames, but the names are fairly well-known (pub quiz favourites) and have various things even using them. They should certainly be in the lead, probably the first sentence. Hence a firm rule is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I would phrase the question as “Why is this information so important that it needs to interrupt the lead sentence?”. Neither “Because that’s what we have always done,” nor “Because it’s common pub trivia,” are very satisfactory answers.--Trystan (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@JavaPythonLutz, NamingforWikipedi, and 86.0.251.199: why are you using multiple accounts to edit? GiantSnowman 16:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless it's a transgender, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.66.228 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Trans Rule Suggestion

If a trans person changes their surname, their previous surname should be listed in brackets as a "né" or "née".

For example

Nikita Dragun (née Nguyen; born January 31, 1996) 

We are not calling her Nicholas Nguyen as that would be disrespectful and dead-naming.

Munroe Bergdorf (née Beaumont; born on 11 September 1987)

We are not calling her Ian Beaumont as that would be disrespectful and dead-naming.

This should be a rule as a birth name is important information and it bridges the gap between this and dead-naming.

You can't dead name a surname as surnames have no gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupremeGiraffee (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed names

In the section Changed names it states "In some cases, subjects have had their full names changed at some point after birth"

In Britain babies are born with no names ("Have you decided upon a name yet?"). They obtain a name when the birth is registered (and certified copy of the register is issued). In previous centuries the baptismal date and the birth date were rarely the same day and usually only the baptismal date was recorded along with the name. So the statement is not correct and is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps

"In some cases, subjects have had their legal names changed at some point after their birth is registered".

would be more accurate. -- PBS (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

But if Mr & Mrs Smith have a baby it is immediately "Baby Smith", so it does have a partial name at least. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Not in Britain, the surname in the registry is by tradition usually the mothers surname, or the fathers surname, but it does not have to be. The point is that although after a live birth the child legally exists as a person (for example it would be murder to kill her or him), until the registration takes place the child does not have a legal name. -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that assertion? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure which assertion so here is a shotgun reply. As it happens this has just become topical see Man who refused to register son's birth loses high court case The Gurdian (23 June 2019) legal judgment High court of Justice Family Division Case No: ZE/40/19 12/06/2019 (PDT) in the legal judgment it refers to an earlier case and states "i) the choosing of a name (forename and surname) for a child by a parent with parental responsibility; and..." nothing there about any restrictions on choice of surname. See also deed poll office-name change-children "the initial registration of the child’s name is seen to be a profound matter... it’s thought to be becoming gradually more acceptable for children to bear a different surname from other members of a family, and so a desire to fit in with the rest of a family isn’t given a lot of weight." -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, a most interesting read. The key components seem to be the Judgement Re C [2016] 3 WLR 1557 in which King LJ referred to "i) the choosing of a name (forename and surname) for a child by a parent with parental responsibility;". Changing a child’s name by deed poll emphasises that it is much harder to change a child's surname than its forenames but otherwise makes no comment upon the selection of names at birth. Clearly I'll accept that surnames are not automatic following King's judgement. There always was some wiggle room where parental surnames differed, but I had always understood that a child born in wedlock to two identically surnamed parents would automatically take the same sire-name or family-name. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this change unnecessarily complicates the guideline. “Birth name” can naturally be read as including “name registered shortly after birth”. The change also makes the guideline significantly less universal. By making it about registration, to account for a quirk of British law, it now excludes the 1/4 of children globally who do not have their births registered.--Trystan (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

in the context of the sentence I do not see how you can argue that "Birth name" can be interpreted as including a name registered shortly after birth. This is a question of legal name. It can also be a political issue because if a child is still born then they do not have a birth name even though they were born. Some pople are pressing for this to be changed.

Is there a First World Country which does not require registration of a child? I would explect most developing countries to require it as well, do you know of any that do not? -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The UK government uses “birth name” to refer to the name recorded on a birth certificate,[1][2] so I don’t agree that the term doesn’t apply to the UK legal context.

For a general guideline that applies globally, it’s preferable to stick with broad terms. It’s not necessary or practical to word it in a way that requires making assumptions about specifics, like how registration works in every country.--Trystan (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Might be having a little trouble over at the infobox of Pope Benedict XVI, concerning the usage of Bishop of Rome. More input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed/Removed Middle Name

I want to know the consensus on a changed middle name.

For example John Jacob Smith changes his name to John Smith, what would his lede be?

A) John Smith (born 25 July 1999)

b) John Smith (born John Jacob Smith; 25 July 1999)

can we please make a RULE for this please.

Do you mean if they'd legally changed it? b). But in this instance it would need to be made clear in the text that this was an actual legally changed name, not just an instance of someone not using their middle name (as most people don't), as some editors incorrectly insist on using this form for that. If they just don't use the middle name then it would simply be "John Jacob Smith (born 25 July 1999)", as the name actually used is reflected in the article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean legally. Doesn't this look a bit reptetive though?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavaPythonLutz (talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It does, but it's not a common thing in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-nom style

Given that we haven't been able to decide on a particular style for post-nominal letters, I suggest that we treat post-noms in the same way as dates, spellings, citations etc: ie, as valid, differing styles. How this is presented at MOS:NUM:

Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

And the request for arbitration referred to:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

An addition similar to the MOS:NUM one would prevent edit wars and "helpful" mass changes. Specific takeaways from the above:

• Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style - We havn't decided on s specific style and so there are multiple, valid styles for post-noms; we shouldn't be edit warring over them.
• editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another - WP:POSTNOMS shows three different styles (normal sized text without commas, normal with commas, small without commas). The template is set up for all three, though defaults to small/without.
• [...] without a substantial reason - WP:POSTNOMS specifies that "If a baronetcy or peerage is held, then commas should always be used" and "|size=100% parameter when it is used in an infobox", therefore changes would be made to uphold this.
• And to prevent edit wars: defer to the style used by the first major contributor - and not just the first use of the template, but to the first proper style used.

I think this would solve WP:POSTNOM style issues, especially given the historic precedence. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be the first style used in the article. Definitely not the first use of the template, given the template is a relatively recent innovation and has been mass-added recently, with existing postnoms converted to the template. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Gender identity section

I reverted MJL's recent addition of the Gender identity section pending further discussion. Given the MOS:GENDERID debates at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which is not yet a guideline (and may not be one in the future), is still being worked on via discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity, this addition should have input from more editors. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I support centralized discussion. I am ready to support anyone linking to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity or wherever the centralized discussion is. MJL I encourage you to develop this issue and say whatever you want, but the history is that we have had this conversation in 100 places. If you like, block off space in this manual to describe the general problem without saying what to do about it, because all the solutions are controversial. Then go to a centralized discussion elsewhere and describe everything in detail with examples or anything else.

Here in this documentation we have space for a few sentences. We should use that to link to another discussion, not try to summarize everything here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry and Flyer22 Reborn: I'm sorry to both of you, but I am confused about what the exact objection is to the addition nor how it is being suggested I move forward? Add this to MOS:IDINFO? Start an RFC? I'm open to suggestion, but I seem to be missing something here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I was only suggesting that it have more input from others first. I'm usually like this with all of the guidelines and policies I watch. When I see a substantial change, I'm usually like, "This should be discussed first." Like a part of the tag at the top of the guideline states, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." It helps to make sure that we are all on the same page and see if anyone objects to any piece or has an idea for improving a piece. I think you should wait and see what other watchers of this page have to state and what editors from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style may state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL I support the idea of putting this in its own section as done at special:diff/905215985#Gender_identity. I criticism I have is that I think that about half the content should be cut, any half. The overall discussion is huge. If we have only minimal content and link to the full discussion, then there, everyone can see all the issues covered and discuss more. Whenever we try to make the discussion here longer, we get into debates about what to include and exclude and no one is satisfied. There is not much space here, so best to not go into much detail here. Make a minimal presentation, link out, and encourage discussion centrally elsewhere. Do whatever you can to prevent small side discussions from growing, and instead put everyone in the same place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: [Thank you for the ping] how about this:

Extended content

==== Gender identity ==== {{See also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender identity|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity}} {{shortcut|MOS:GENDERBIO|WP:GENDERBLP}} Special care should be taken in the area of [[gender identity]]. Articles should always use the subject's [[WP:V|verified]] preferred personal pronoun. In cases where this may be confusing, such as describing events in the subject's life before they [[Coming out|came out]], it is recommended practice to provide a concise footnote explaining the irregularity. The lead should only include a person's (1) birth name if they were considered notable by it and (2) gender identity when its [[WP:UNDUE|especially notable]].

Fix ping: Bluerasberry –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Y Yes! Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The footnote and gender identity suggestion of "should only" doesn't work in all cases. For example, if the person is non-binary and the article uses singular they per the subject's preference, it is best to note this in the lead (if also covered lower in the article, as it should be if it's going to be in the lead) so that readers will understand why the article is using singular they instead of a gender pronoun for the person. This is done, for example, with the Emma Sulkowicz article. And what is "especially notable" compared to "notable"? Also, since "due" is what is meant instead of "notable," as is clear by you pipelinking to it, "due" should be used in place of "notable." Our notability guideline is only about creating articles or adding content to articles per WP:No page. If you reply to me on this, I prefer not to be pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I can agree with the addition of limited to bio articles... but it is problematic when dealing with non-bio articles. For example, in the article about the 1976 Olympics, settled consensus (after lengthy debate) was that we should use the name “Bruce Jenner” when discussing the decathlon. In this specific context, if we needed to use a pronoun (which thankfully we don’t), we would use “he”... even though we use “Caitlyn” and “she” at the bio article. My point is that while we do want to respect a subject’s desires, historical context also matters. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am on the middle on this. Some hardliners argue that Wikipedia should never, under any circumstances, publish a trans person's deadname. I cannot agree to this. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, if someone was famous under a former name we need to record it.

On the other hand, the harm of deadnaming needs to be recognized: a trans person's former name can have many of the characteristics of a slur. I imagine some people will find that statement hard to swallow: how can a name be a slur? Well, it's something that's affixed to a member of a minority group against their will. It's often considered harmful and emotionally charged. It can, and often is, used to demean and insult a person. In one Chelsea Manning move discussion, there's a section with sources talking about how misnaming trans people is harmful. I've copy-pasted it below:

Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people

This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question. What’s in a Name?: “I AM A SITUATION LIKE THIS” A. Finn Enke, editor of Transfeminist Perspectives in and beyond Transgender and Gender Studies, considers names, pronouns, and learning from Chelsea Manning. "it is extremely disrespectful to be called by a pronoun or name one does not chose for oneself. It invalidates ones identity and self-concept. This lack of validation and recognition can and often does lead to depression and suicide." (Transgender Law Center) Subsection of Trans media watch submission to the Leveson Inquiry (press controls in the UK, [3]). On page 11 they discuss methods by which the press aggress against trans people; the first bulletpoint in that section: "Routine use of previous names - even when the use of these names is intensely painful or places them in actual danger. Typically a transitioning transsexual person will wish to move on from their previous identity, having perhaps lived in deep distress within that ’identity’ in the past. They may be working with colleagues who know nothing of their past, or they may not have revealed their life story to neighbours. Gratuitous revelation can lead to abuse. Further, for transgender people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate, it is illegal for an individual working in an "official capacity" to disclose a person’s previous name. They are, for all legal purposes, recognised in the gender in which they live. This seldom makes any difference to the press." "The use of ‘before’ names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk" (Leveson Inquiry, section 3.20 on p65, summary) Juliet Jacques article discussing choosing a new name. She states that someone using her old name can be "a mistake [or] a malicious attempt to undermine my identity". Some editors have expressed a concern that the following source is not reliable, while other editors consider it to be reliable: Wikipedia’s Deadnaming Violence ("our old name are frequently weaponised against us, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected.") (Urban Achives) (written by digital media ethics scholar)

When deciding how to handle a trans person's former name we must be cautious and WP:Neutral. We must avoid WP:Harm and must respect the basic human dignity of each WP:living person.

Ultimately what we should do is what we mostly do already: make use of the use-mention distinction. We should never use a trans person's former name (unless they've stated a preference otherwise) but at times we should sparingly mention a former name, if it is historically relevant. This is what, for example, the Switched-On Bach article does. It says the album was created by American composer Wendy Carlos, even though that wasn't her name at the time, but then the article mentions the former name that she originally released the album under. This is what mainstream sources do as well: Here's a New Yorker piece that uses Chelsea Manning's chosen name but mentions her birth name.

Although this use-mention distinction is mostly already adhered to, it would be helpful if it was officially codified in the guidelines.

As for Caitlyn Jenner, that may be a special case, as apparently she has said she is comfortable with publications using her former name when talking about her Olympic career: With Jenner’s approval, in this story, the historical figure who won the gold medal in 1976 is referred to as Bruce and with male pronouns. The woman who lives now as Caitlyn is referenced with female pronouns. As I said above, an exception can be made if it's in line with the subject's stated preferences. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with my colleague Wander on this (because of course I do). However, I would go a bit farther in one way; I think we should never wikilink a deadname. What do I mean? Well, if we need to use Bruce Jenner in article; This creates a redirect: Bruce Jenner, but not this: Bruce Jenner. I see no reason why this needs to include a single link in the mainspace. It's only exists as a redirect for ease of search, but not for articles if it can be avoided imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Wanda. Support Flyer's desire to air this to gain consensus, as for any P&G change. Also, I would mitigate the always in the proposal with a suggestion to recast a sentence to avoid awkward constructions, e.g., "she fathered a child in 19xx".

One quibble (with 'Extended content' above): [[came out]], not [[Coming out|came out]]. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

When someone is notable under a specific name, we HAVE to at least mention that name in the bio article. If that name subsequently changed, our job is to explain to the reader that the name has changed and why. Outside of bio articles - I would agree that, in situations where we do decide to use a pre-transition name, any links should redirect to the current (preferred) name. This is done with other name changes, and name changes due to gender transition are no different. And as for pronouns... using language that avoids the issue is definitely the best solution. When that is impossible, let Context dictate. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Blueboar stated. MOS:GENDERID says, "MOS:MULTIPLENAMES calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." And its "Referring to the person in other articles" section states, "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned." What is on this guideline page shouldn't conflict with what's in MOS:GENDERID. This page shouldn't be used to try to trump MOS:GENDERID or get around the MOS:GENDERID debates. It's important that in a case like Jenner's, that historic full name with regard to Olympics is used in Olympic articles. I also stand by what I stated with my "20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)" post. I'm not on board with "it is recommended practice to provide a concise footnote explaining the irregularity" as written. A non-binary person's preference for singular they will confuse readers if it's not made very clear to readers in plain text, rather than in a footnote, that this is why the article is not using feminine or masculine pronouns. Mentioning gender identity and pronoun (and name) preference is also important in the case of Janae Kroc, whose Wikipedia article currently mismatches when it comes to gender pronouns. The discussion on that can be seen at Talk:Janae Kroc#Self identification for female pronoun. A permalink for it is here. I've personally known transgender men and women like Jenner and Kroc, who are clear that their previous name does not bother them. They do not consider it a deadname. Or they might do something like what Kroc does. While what Kroc does bothers some transgender people, it's Kroc's choice. We shouldn't force a personal style on Kroc because we think her pronoun preference for her life might have changed. In that discussion about Kroc, I noted, "I don't oppose using feminine pronouns throughout, while still noting the other gender stuff in the Personal life section." But it's her life. Not mine. It shouldn't be about me. Or any of us. It's important to remember that not all transgender people think alike. Because I'm not only around people who think the same, I know this personally. It's why I understand a person scoffing when someone takes it upon themselves to speak for all transgender people. (I'm not saying that anyone in this discussion is speaking for all transgender people. Speaking for most transgender people can also be an issue, however.) Yes, there may be general consensus on how to treat some transgender issues, but I recognize that some people in the transgender community (and those who share their thoughts) simply have more prominent or mainstream views than other transgender people (and those who share their thoughts). And I reiterate that since "due" is what is meant instead of "notable," "due" should be used in place of "notable." I'll alert WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion to see if we can get more opinions on the above proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's important to remember that not all transgender people think alike. I agree. MOS:GENDERID has language that address this: unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise and any new guidelines should as well. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL: You've sparked some discussion and thought with your changes and it's appreciated. Thank you for being WP:BOLD.

If I were to evaluate your additions on their own, I wouldn't have major problems with them. However, I'm not sure that I like how it restates things that are already in MOS:GENDERID. For example, this sentence: articles should always use the subject's verified preferred personal pronoun mirrors this sentence in MOS:GENDERID: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns...that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Why reinvent the wheel? If you think the Biography subpage should mirror the guidance in the main MOS page, why not copy-paste that guidance? Or transclude it? (No pun intended!)

I do think MOS:GENDERID has a few problems that need to be solved, but this proposal does not address the problems that I see. For example, the MOS should provide more guidance on how to refer to transgender people outside of biographical articles.

Just my two cents. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've followed much of this discussion from afar. In looking at a few of the articles mentioned in the discussion I'm not sure what this addition is really fixing. I think the spirit of the recommendations could be added to the MOS section with little fuss rather than making a largely redundant subpage. I would suggest adding the following, largely as written from the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Recommendations to the MOS section Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary. Add the "mention" vs "use" distinction. I think this is somewhat already covered by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. I don't agree with the "footnote" instead. Either the former name(s) are relevant (it goes in the text) or they aren't (it doesn't need to be in the article). That's actually redundant with the current Biography#Gender_identity guideline but it doesn't hurt to mention it here as well. I think the photo sentence could be condensed and included as well. It's basically saying the same thing as we say about pronouns. Finally, I think the part about awkward sentences should be emphasized. It's very awkward to use a person's current gender identity when describing events that clearly happened prior to transitioning. For example in the Chelsea_Manning#Background, Born Bradley Edward Manning in 1987 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,[31] she was the second child of... In that case and many other examples in the same article, "she" is used to describe actions of Manning during a time that Manning was identifying as male. "She" is used extensively in the section on Manning's military enrollment next to a clearly male looking, pre-transition picture of Manning. It's really odd to say a drill sergeant was yelling at "her" given the drill sergeant was yelling at a person who had a male identity at the time. Perhaps this is just an issue with this article but I would argue that such phrasing should be actively avoided. It might even be helpful to have writing examples to help in such cases. Springee (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of née

FYI

There's a discussion of the use of née for Hilary Clinton that you are invired to join at Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Use_of_née. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Honorifics

The guidelines about honorifics are context-dependent, aren't they? An editor recently removed all "Hon." from the Viscount Hereford article. In such articles, it seems to me honorifics are relevant.

HandsomeFella (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• @HandsomeFella: The honorific "The Honorable" is specifically mentioned in WP:HON as something that should not be included when speaking in Wikipedia's voice, which is the case with the edit that you reverted, but may be discussed within an article. For instance, if there is a section (as some articles have) on someone's titles from birth to death, then the honorifics are certainly relevant and may be included. Otherwise, they are a violation of neutral POV, just as it would be if I was to go to every mention of a US president and add "The Honorable" or "His Excellency". There are several exceptions listed, none of which apply to the page in question, and obviously those within quotations should be retained. Honorifics may also be included in the infobox of the subject's article, but in this case the subject of the article is the peerage itself, not the specific individuals to whom you reattached the honorifics. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I realize what WP:HON is saying, but that part of the guideline may need more "development". I think honorifics are clearly relevant in articles that are specifically about nobility.

Let's wait for more input, and if editors in general disagree with me (or if none show up in a reasonable timeframe), I will self-revert.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I was going to jump in and say WP:HON but actually reading the edits I didn't find what I expected. I certainly would object to every mention of a person in a article with Hon. attached. On first mention only it isn't doing much harm but it doesn't matter either way. However, where there is a list/table as in many articles of the children of a peers for example it is appropriate eg.Lord Clinton In lists of title holders its appropriate (the lists are formal) but and its a big but I've never been in favour of the recent trend of some authors for interleaving into the succession lists of peers heirs who never succeeded. Its a list of title holders *not* a family tree. So I'd rather they were not included at all but if they are then I have no issue with 'hon' in such lists Garlicplanting (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm curious why MOS:HON carves out an exception for The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered that myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

With regards to Lord/Lady, despite my generally anti-honorific stance, I can see those being useful in certain circumstances, like where it is a substitute for someone's actual title. If you're writing about John Posh, Baron Posh of Over-Poshington, in a situation where the fact that he's a peer is important (i.e., the House of Lords or some such), it can be easier to refer to him as "Lord Posh" than the alternatives. Likewise if you're dealing with someone who held multiple titles over the course of their life, the "Lord/Lady" title can be easier than tracking whether they were a Baron or Earl or whatnot at that specific time. On the other hand, there do seem to be a fair number of people who are referred to as Lord/Lady so-and-so without actually being a peer. The Sir and Dame exception doesn't make sense to me either; perhaps it's a sop to Big Knighthood. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

From my memory of many of these arguments long ago was some of the above. It can be a useful short form of disambiguation especially among families (especially where both for- and surnames can be the same) Sir/Dame can serve a similar purpose in families and both that and Lord can have some function where articles jump about chronologically and its helpful to realise that Bloggs was Lord bloggs at this point not Sir John Bloggs or his father/brother/son etc. In terms of Lord. The only non peers referred to this way are the children of Dukes/Marquesses (eldest son/daughters of earls) and the heirs apparent of and their HA (+HA) of Dukes/marquesses depending on their spare titles. (There are some other minor cases but these are rare) Younger children are indicated by the use of a forename 'Lord Thomas Fitzalan-Howard'. Whereas he elder brother and (the) heir can use Lord ArundelGarlicplanting (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)