Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I've seen any number of biographies in which the entire biography is organized within a single, large section entitled "Biography". Case in point just now is Pablo Casals. This seems entirely redundant - the "Biography" section might just as well be omitted and the included subsections elevated to regular sections. I've done that before with biographies (no complaints), and contemplate the same with this Casals article. But it happens so often, that I thought I would check here regarding the issue; am I missing something? Is this just a bad habit that editors have fallen in to? And/or perhaps this MOS ought to provide some guidance on this point (couldn't find it anyways...) Thx! Bdushaw (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd just promote all its subsections up one level. The page itself is the "Biogrpahy". —Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s what I’ve done as well. Sometimes the “biography” section is so short that there are no sub-headings, so I just delete the “biography” heading. I don’t know that we need to put a direction in the MOS; seems like micro-managing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I just remove the section heading or re-name it, with the explanation that the bio article is a biography. They're (the 'Biography' section headings) holdovers from Wikipedia's early years. GoodDay (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

There are roughly 120 FAs that have a section "Biography", including a recently promoted one Mary Fortune. It is obviously a small percentage out of more than 1,500 FA bios, but it is large enough to say that such a section is acceptable as long as the author desires to have it. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Have to agree with Good Day here, the entire article is a biography. Having a 'biography' section is just poor writing. GiantSnowman 20:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It's large enough to say that the FA process is not perfect. —Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It's patently not true that every article about a person is only a biography. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree - the example that came to my mind was Mary Mallon ("Typhoid Mary"), someone whose notability has less to do with their lives, and more to do with events they find themselves in. I could see that the article about Mary would start with a brief biography before describing the typhoid epidemics she sparked. That said, that article again is organized in a lengthy "Biography" section...other than it being just "inertia", that organization does not seem logical or effective. Just a bad habit, it seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's still a biography... GiantSnowman 17:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

'Things happening to a person' - oh wow, how novel! GiantSnowman 17:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It's patently not true that every article about a person is only a biography: Nobody claimed they all were. —Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Life, Career, Works" are often workable alternatives, but many if not most short articles of most types just have too many sections, which can be merged. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Or if it's really short, the article doesn't need sub-headings at all in the body of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Main headings should reflect the main things people are coming to the article to read. That would be things like Early life, Career, Personal life, Works. Some people's careers are so intertwined with their personal life that separating the two is not ideal, and so it might be better to break things up chronologically. Either way, a Biography section seems appropriate if the article contains non-biographical sections that are of equal importance. This is the case for people who are culturally significant, like Jesus. Clearly his article is not solely (or mainly) an account of his life; his cultural impact is of at least equal importance. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Utterly pointless and removed whenever I see it. Divide directly into subheaders if necessary, leave as a single block if not long enough to subdivide. It's not hard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't agree at all. The first part of the article is about the life, divided into early, middle, late as necessary; then there follow all the bits that aren't the subject's life as such, like accolades, honours and distinctions, lists of works, bibliography, perhaps reception of their works and actions, i.e. the article falls naturally into two parts, what they did and what others did or said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

They're all part of the biography! An article on an individual is, by definition, a biography. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple discussions about how to describe the business Moroccanoil that I think would benefit from editors who are familiar with our approach to nationality. Please consider putting this page on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I don't care much about Rt. Hon. or Hon. or what not, but "Sir" and "Lord" were, until fairly recently, absolutely treated as part of the name. someone like Lord John Manners was basically always referred to that way, and should be referred to as such in lists and infoboxes and on first reference in articles. Obviously most of the time we'd just call him "Manners" (or "Rutland" after 1888), but the idea that we should be otherwise agnostic seems wrong to me. "John Manners" is basically wrong, he was never called that. This is less true for knights and baronets, and I don't have as strong It feelings, but I'd tend in that direction for those as well. In both cases, it provides useful information and is also usually the most common way of referring to those people. john k (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:City of London (UK Parliament constituency) seems to be the result of my running across the same issue a few years ago. I agree with the premise that "Sir" and "Lord" are functionally different but I guess I didn't feel like fighting that one out. Choess (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

'Sir' is an honorific prefix and should be displayed accordingly in the infobox. GiantSnowman 10:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No a knighthood is a title not an honorific. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yup. Honorifics are like "The Honourable" or "The Venerable" or "The Right Reverend". I'm fine with those only being in the infobox. "Sir" and "Lord Firstname" are titles. I think this is a lot less clear than it should be because over the last 50 years there's been a big move towards informality and lots of people entitled to "Sir" or "Lord Firstname" just don't use it. So we rarely actually see "Sir Keir Starmer" or "Sir Paul McCartney". And I'm fine with not using those ones much! They really are formalities not much in common use. Even peerage titles are often like this now! But that's not true for these titles in the mid-twentieth century and earlier. They really were used pretty invariably. We shouldn't project contemporary informality backwards to times where it doesn't apply. john k (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a distinction without a difference. Honorifics are titles. Mrs and Dr are both titles, too, but we generally don't use them on Wikipedia. There might be good reasons to make exceptions for queens or popes or some other titles, but there's no clear distinction between "honorifics" and "titles". pburka (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't care about that semantic distinction. I think the correct distinction is that all honorifics are titles but not all titles are honorifics (a peerage title is a title that is definitely not an honorific, for example). "Sir" and "Lord Firstname" are titles (we could argue whether they are honorifics or not, but who cares?) that were until the last few generations used as part of the most common name to refer to people, and this should be reflected on first reference and in lists, infoboxes, succession boxes, and the like. john k (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that again I'm absolutely not asking for this for people who are generally not referred to that way. We shouldn't use "Sir Paul McCartney" in infoboxes, because he's only referred to that way in the most formal situations (maybe in an infobox or list that is *literally about him being given an honour*, like a list drawn from the Gazette or whatever). But someone like Sir Robert Peel or Lord John Russell was *very commonly* referred to that way, and we shouldn't erase that. Again, my point is that modern informality should not be extended backwards into a time that it is not appropriate for. john k (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Well let's write historical biographies like Beowulf, shall we? GiantSnowman 16:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

What? Do you think calling Lord John Manners "Lord John Manners" is like writing in Old English? What kind of argument is that? john k (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you basically said 'let's write like in olden times'; I made a facetious example to show how ludicrous your statement was. GiantSnowman 18:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not "let's write like in olden times." This is how these people are generally referred to in scholarly literature now. The 19th century isn't like old English, anyway. john k (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Nobody at any point has ever talked much about "Sir Paul McCartney," but "Sir Robert Peel" you can find all the time in basically any source talking about him. john k (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, because the vast majority of normal people - including Sir Paul - don't care about stuff like that. GiantSnowman 18:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Snowman is right. We don't use styles contemporary to the subject. While old texts about Peel certainly use the honorific, it's increasingly less common, at least since the 1960s. e.g. https://www.proquest.com/openview/801ff2ed10f36b5a5a757d5437f5b383/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=32374 pburka (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not a good example for you. The title is "Robert Peel" (and I'm not proposing that titles be changed). But the text of the article refers to him as "Sir Robert Peel" whenever it's not just using "Peel." It also uses "Sir Thomas Lawrence" and "Sir Charles Eastlake." john k (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it also refers to him as just "Robert Peel" e.g. ...then Robert Peel's hinterland was art..., which fully supports what pburka is saying. GiantSnowman 19:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

As a rather unscientific method, I searched "Robert Peel" in Google Scholar for the last two years, and just by eyeball, I'd say ~60-65% turn up "Sir Robert Peel" rather than "Robert Peel" on first mention. And a lot of this is in policing literature, not exactly an arena where authors usually reach for their *Debrett's*. I am not convinced that "Sir Robert Peel" is being nudged into obsolescence. Choess (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The article doesn't support the idea that people have stopped using "Sir". My proposal, at any rate, was first reference and in charts and tables. The first reference certainly uses "Sir" for all three knights referred to in the article. It is not at all an example of the honorific being unused. (I'd also add that I think "Lord Firstname Lastname" is more universal than "Sir Firstname Lastname". Like you definitely see both "Sir Robert Peel" and "Robert Peel," but I don't think you very much see "John Russell". He's either Lord John or Earl Russell (the latter for specific discussion after 1861 only). john k (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

(And of course, for Peel, it is in fact correct to just use "Robert Peel" when referring to things happening before 1830, so we'd expect a certain amount of results without the "Sir") john k (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we should absolutely include "Lord", "Lady", "Sir" and "Dame" in the bolded section of the infobox. They are not honorifics and it looks ludicrous for them to be on a separate line and not bolded. We don't do it in the first line of the article. Why should we do it in the infobox? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly kind of confused about this whole topic. Is this a question, or a proposal to change the MOS? If a question, is there anything that's not already answered by MOS:SIR? If a proposal, what specifically are do you want to change? pburka (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, I did some deep digging on the question of names in UK election tables (which is what seems to have prompted this). In the discussion I linked in my original response above, a user asserted that a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom concluded that "for the results boxes for individual elections all titles would be excluded". This is mostly true. However, looking at earlier discussion followed by a successful RFC, the inclusion of the titles covered by MOS:SIR as honorifics definitely prohibited was objected to, and they were removed from the examples in the final RfC. (I also looked at the legal guidance to returning officers on the names of candidates on nomination papers and its statutory basis and it simply says "full names"; there's no clear guidance as to whether the MOS:SIR titles are considered part of the full name.)

So I think the answer here is that there's no guideline prohibiting the use of "Sir" and "Lord" (as opposed to other titles and honorifics) in UK election tables/boxes, and no bar to adding them where absent. I'm not sure it's a great idea to ask for more positive guidance in the MoS. To my mind, they're appropriate and somewhat desirable in the context of articles, lists, etc. germane to UK politics and government, but I don't wnat to create guidance that would let someone force "Sir Elton John" into lists of international music awards. (Incidentally, see this short article under "Forename Errors" if you want confirmation that MOS:SIR reflects a—not very logical—external convention.) Choess (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonable, and I wasn't really meaning to suggest any need for "Sir Elton John" outside of the infobox and first mention in his own article and literal articles about honours he's received from the crown. john k (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

To be specific about my objection to the MOS, it was this part: "do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, because doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on English spelling differences)." Since it also says not to remove them, presumably this is referring to Sir or Lord Firstname, and not to "The Rt. Hon" or whatever which we don't include no matter what. john k (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

I have been considering an RFC making a change to Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles saying that links to knighted individuals should not be piped in article text just to add Sir to the link; as an example Sir Robert Peel instead of Sir Robert Peel. WP:NOPIPE already seems to suggest the first method is the preferred usage but editors are using both methods and the existing guideline may not be strong enough? Ecrm87 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

My position would be that I disagree with the convention and "Sir" ought to preferably be in the link if it is being used. It is part of the name. I understand that others disagree and don't feel too strongly about it. Also, is this a frequent source of controversy? Are there lots of edit wars over it? Seems fine to leave it to discretion? john k (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I feel this is clearly covered by WP:NOPIPE already ("Avoid making links longer than necessary"), with the example to avoid being President George Washington. To me this is exactly the same as Sir Robert Peel. Unless the honorific is part of the page title (not redirects), don't include it in links. pburka (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It really is not exactly the same as President George Washington is the thing. "Sir" is part of Peel's name in a way that "President" is definitely not for Washington, and in many cases "Sir" is part of the most common name, and is only not part of the article title because of specific naming conventions that say it should not be. john k (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue of 'Sir' being a part of someone's name has already been settled in that it's been removed from article titles except in the case of numbered baronets, which is understandable given that baronets often have the same name. Ecrm87 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with *omitting* "Sir", which obviously people do all the time, but I think when it is used it should typically be included in the link, at least for lists and infoboxes (running text I have only the mildest preference) john k (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not very common, but I think I have occasionally seen "Sir" used for natural disambiguation in the name of a knight. But let me make sure I understand, using an excerpt from a list of sheriffs, material that's familiar to both of us. You find that

• 16 November 1621: Sir George Booth, 1st Baronet
• c. November 1622: Sir Thomas Smith
• c. November 1623: Sir Richard Grosvenor, 1st Baronet

is preferable to

• 16 November 1621: Sir George Booth, 1st Baronet
• c. November 1622: Sir Thomas Smith
• c. November 1623: Sir Richard Grosvenor, 1st Baronet

am I correct? Choess (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

"Sir" is borderline, but e.g. Lord Palmerston should clearly be linked or the Duke of Wellington. Jahaza (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

See the discussion above and MOS:SIR. "Sir" and "Lord" are weird anomalies compared to most other titles in that they are often coupled to the forename even in informal use. In lists of blue-linked people, the unlinked "Sir" looks jarring, to my eye. I don't think it matters as much in running text. Choess (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's the distinction I'd make as well. "Sir" linked in lists if it's mentioned at all (which it doesn't necessarily need to be), but not in running text. john k (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Totally disagree. They should definitely be piped. They look stupid otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Why does MOS:NB redirect here rather than to the same target as MOS:NOTE? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

NB: NB also means non-binary. pburka (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess I should have thought of that one. (I have to say that it seems weird to give priority to that usage over the far more common meaning (nota bene) but I don't plan to waste time trying to change it.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

pleas change 'if a person exclusively goes by neopronounes such as ze/hir then the singular they should also generally be used instead of neopronouns' if a person goes exclusively by neopronouns that is also appropriate and should be used at least more than they ~2026-28746-58 (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC) pleas fix this i will keep asking

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Callmemirela 🍁 00:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this must be said somewhere, but I can't figure it. For nicknames that aren't a common hypocorism, we do First "Nickname" Last. In Eastern name orders, do the same principles still apply, and we do Last "Nickname" First. So, imagining that the Barbra Streisand article was written in Eastern name order, would it be Streisand "Barbra" Joan Barbara? That doesn't feel right to me, but I can't think of a better alternative. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

Recently there has been new discussion surrounding the use of slave names for black people who have since adopted a new chosen name. (The video that sparked this new conversation is by zaydupree on TikTok, which I believe is worth watching to understand the topic.)

The reasoning behind the current state of things seems to be the fact that they were notable and known under this slave name. Because of this, they're referred to using their slave name for the period of their life before they changed their name.

However, I believe this should be reevaluated. It seems this isn't consistent with other style guide policies. We don't refer to transgender people by their deadnames, not even for their pre-transition life. We don't refer to married women by their maiden names up until the point they got married.

Using their slave names might be confusing to readers, but more importantly, it's also highly offensive and racist.

There is already a topic on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's talk page, and it's probably best to unify the conversation here. Cloweee (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

+1, it's completely inconsistent with this site's other naming policies Fivework (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 it helps to smooth out an inconsistency in the way we handle naming, on the talk page for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar I linked this Article from ESPN that shows I believe the AP stylebook’s (if not ESPN’s own) handling of chosen names which we could definitely draw from. Jkpowers (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

With gender identity, most cases probably involve only a change in their given name. People are usually referred to by their surname per MOS:SURNAME, so deadnaming is less of an issue than with people like Abdul-Jabbar who change their surname for religious reasons. —Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s true, but maybe there could be a culturally specific guideline like there is for places where people don’t commonly use their surnames? WhoIsConfused ( talk ) 21:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, in Abdul-Jabbar's case, he also changed his given name (from Lew to Kareem). It seems the general question for people (regardless of race, religion, or gender) is when is it suitable to mention their historical name and when should their newer name be used. —Bagumba (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't refer to married women by their maiden names up until the point they got married.: It probably depends. Michelle Obama's page refers to her maiden name, Robinson, in her early life sections. —Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

1. I've added {{Not a ballot}} to this as the first three comments came from accounts with 27, 125, and 15 edits, and were all posted within 23 minutes.
2. Noting that the section title betrays that the OP was composed off-wiki.
3. Is this an actual concern in reliable sources? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

   What do you mean by point 3 exactly? Cubnorth (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

   Uhh, there's no need for reliable sources for a discussion about Wikipedia's policies? This isn't about adding this inconsistency on Wikipedia's MoS to the article's text, it's about the inconsistency itself. Octolin (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s one of the stranger inconsistencies present on Wikipedia, because it’s not the case for most women but First Ladies of US the are referred to in this way (see Jill Biden, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Mamie Eisenhower,etc.) Jkpowers (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Not just those; see Christiane Vulpius, Aloysia Weber, Constanze Mozart – never referred to by their married name, except in the article name for the latter. Fanny Hensel and Clara Schumann switch after their marriage. In short: it depends. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The Manual of Style states:

"Any subject whose surname has changed should be referred to by their most commonly used name. If their most commonly used name includes their earlier surname, and you're discussing a period of their life before the surname change, refer to them by their prior surname."

Note the "and" there. The example the Manual of Style gives is:

"For example, when discussing the early lives of Hillary and Bill Clinton, use 'Rodham met Clinton while they were students at Yale', referring to Hillary using her then-current surname."

Hillary Clinton's current full name is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, thus meeting both criteria. Likewise, in your example with Michelle Obama, Robinson is still part of her current, most commonly used name, thus meeting both criteria.

In Abdul-Jabbar's case, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is his most commonly used name. This name does not include his prior surname, so even when discussing the period of his life prior to his name change, we should use Abdul-Jabbar.

As long as there's a redirect, and as long as his birth name is included in the parenthetical at the beginning of the article ("Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (born Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor Jr., April 16, 1947)"), I don't think using Abdul-Jabbar throughout the remainder of the article would cause noteworthy confusion. Geoffreylikespie (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be using people's current names in articles throughout. A person doesn't become someone else when they change their name. I think this goes for any situation in which someone has changed their name for personal reasons, but especially when you factor in the implications of continued use of former names associated with slavery and the like. Hopefully a more robust policy can be made here because it seems to have slipped under the cracks. Cubnorth (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a WP:COMMONNAME element to this, and another example is Kanye West. He's been wanting people to call him "Ye" and did legally change his name, but his birthname remains his COMMONNAME last we checked. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That being said, most people who weren’t UCLA fans in the 60s only know the individual who sparked the conversation here as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar rather than his given name of Lew Alcindor, which is totally different than Kanye West. What we are trying to do here is uniformly handle chosen names, which this is something that the frustrating realization here is that there is no uniform way that Wikipedia handles chosen names. Jkpowers (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"Ye" is his "chosen name". And we still call him Kanye West. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe that's exactly the point Jkpowers was getting at. We still tend to call Kanye West "Kanye West", not "Ye". We do not still tend to call Kareem Abdul-Jabbar "Lew Alcindor", so West isn't a good comparison. Geoffreylikespie (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

There might be at least two cases to consider here:

1. How to refer to him in his own biography before his name change.
2. How to refer to him in other pages about his activities before his name change (e.g. 1968–69 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team).

—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Since his common name is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and his surname is not included in his birth name, I think it’s only appropiate we should use Abdul-Jabbar instead of Alcindor per MOS:SURNAME in the biography section.

Same goes for his activities before the name change since Abdul-Jabbar is still the common name.

Tschusstachelly (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• There is no one “right way” to handle name changes. We have to look at each case individually. Were they notable prior to the name change (under the previous name)? If so, we should probably use the old name in historical context, and then shift to the new name in more modern context. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  we should probably use the old name in historical context, and then shift to the new name in more modern context: For comparison, MOS:GENDERID reads:

  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.

  —Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is actually handed by MOS:BIO#Anachronistic names (that paragraph is written strangely, but the last sentence makes it clear that it should apply here). That would advise using Alcindor for the parts of the article that cover him prior to his name change. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I understand where you're coming from, but the logic here just doesn't hold. The example given is for a pope, who's new name is explicitly tied to his position at the time, which is a very different situation.

  Even if we assume that guidance should apply in other situations, the page you linked then immediately goes into numerous exceptions. There's no reason another exception can't be added, especially when we're talking about African Americans shedding the name they got from the person who enslaved their ancestors. ~2026-31178-68 (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

+1. Using a former name is just plain disrespectful and unnecessary. Like why even do it? Are we worried that someone reading his Early Life section is going to see "Jabbar" and say "Who??" MartinTDR (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the controversial term 'slave name', there's WP:SELFID and WP:COMMONNAME. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar legally changed his name. It's not his stagename or a nickname. I would mention his birth name and refer to the person by his chosen name, which is also the one most commonly used. See a Google ngram of the names used. For future reference, go by SELFID first (legally changing a name takes precedence), COMMONNAME second. My two cents. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

For transparency, this discussion was first raised in this YouTube Shorts video. I agree with the fundamental issue at play here, as § Anachronistic names is not ideal and already de facto at odds with our current practices re. trans people. A Black person moving away from a slave name isn't analogous to a performer choosing a new stage name, but is something much more deeply personal, and more comparable to some extent to a trans person moving away from their deadname. Of course, I don't pretend to speak for Black people – who are still underrepresented here, part of why it took so long for this topic to be brought up – and I would be happy if folks more familiar with the matter could weigh in. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Since this is getting a lot of support, the next step should be to draft a proposal and submit it as a broader request for comment to the community, to get input beyond the video's viewers and avoid canvassing/local consensus concerns. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not yet clear to me yet if a proposal should deal strictly with "slave names" or more broadly with name changes in general. We seem to be revisiting concepts that previously were only narrowly afforded for gender ID. —Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think both are relevant discussions to have, but a broader one about name changes can obscure various specific dynamics (re. my example with stage names), and an RfC on that broader theme should involve a proposal for issue-by-issue determination. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I'd suggest continuing the discussion here a bit to further gather ideas. Most RfCs fail from not vetting out obvious issues and rebuttals from the start. —Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 that this should be RFC'd, but it seems pretty straightforward that we should use be applying our (in my opinion very successful) guideline of MOS:DEADNAME to chosen names more broadly. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The MOS:DEADNAME policy is a good precedent to apply to all chosen names. Article titles should still be under WP:COMMONNAME like Stokeley Carmichael and Kanye West, but they should be referred to as their preferred names Kwame Ture and Ye West within the article, and their name changes should be mentioned. Scooglers (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd fully agree to remove the use of slave names. Now, I do think that a persons birth name should be mentioned (not used throughout, but just briefly mentioned) if they were notable before their name was changed (this is how we deal with those who have undergone a name change due to them coming out as transgender), but if they were only notable post-name-change, then I'm a bit unsure. On one hand, I think that more info is always better. But, on the other hand, I think this rule should remain consistent with the policy on trans people. Obviously, they are two completely different groups, but it seems to be a similar issue nonetheless. Obviously, I want to make it clear that I'm not particularly well versed on either trans culture or african american culture, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding wording for a potential RFC, IMO narrowing this to slave names and deadnames only leaves open the door for further issues of this nature. As an idea for how we could broaden this to chosen names more broadly, here's an example of a generalization of MOS:DEADNAME, with new portions underlined:

In the event that a person has requested to go by a name that is different than one previously used by that person, refer to that person using the name which reflects the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. Unless that person was notable under a former name, the former name should not appear in any page (including questions, lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest, as in these examples:

• From Laverne Cox:
  Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• Avoid phrasing like this:
  Jane Doe (formerly John Smith; born May 1, 1980) ...

The birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in a minimal fashion in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

• From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name:
  Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
• From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name:
  Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail the changes of a person's name unless pertinent. In articles on works or other activity by a person notable under a former name, 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.

Throwing this out as a first draft, welcome feedback on it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Really like this! The part I'm surprised isn't mentioned there is how to apply this to people who were notable under their birth name, but still changed it for one of the reasons we've mentioned. In that case, we would still like to only briefly mention it, but use their current name throughout their biography. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I've added this text, also modified from MOS:DEADNAME! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, looks great! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's case, he was already notable under his former name, Lew Alcindor. Should he be referred to as Abdul-Jabbar or Alcindor on his page during the period before his name change? —Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bagumba - I added in an edited version of the next few sentences of MOS:DEADNAME to address this. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wasianpower: Abdul-Jabbar's lead currently reads: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (born Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor Jr., April 16, 1947) .... Later in the lead, it has: Abdul-Jabbar was known as Lew Alcindor when he played at Power Memorial ... Do we present the subject's common (WP:COMMONNAME) alternative name at the time when it's a variation of their birth name? —Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wasianpower: What, if anything, would we do with content in the body of Abdul-Jabbar's page that mention his former name, such as:

1. During the offseason, Alcindor and Robertson joined Bucks head coach Larry Costello on a three-week basketball tour of Africa on behalf of the State Department. In a press conference at the State Department on June 3, 1971, he stated that going forward he wanted to be called by his Muslim name, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, its translation roughly "noble one, servant of the Almighty [i.e., servant of God]".
2. He stated that he was "latching on to something that was part of my heritage, because many of the slaves who were brought here were Muslims. My family was brought to America by a French planter named Alcindor, who came here from Trinidad in the 18th century ...

—Bagumba (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The first one doesn't have to mention its old name, as it is obvious enough that he wouldn't be changing his name from Abdul-Jabbar to Abdul-Jabbar. In the second case, it isn't using "Alcindor" as his name but as that of the slaver who forcefully brought his family to America. The fact that we shouldn't refer to him as "Alcindor" in Wikivoice doesn't mean all instances of the name should be hidden. To use once more the analogy of trans people, as he was notable under that name, it isn't to be treated as a privacy interest. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 05:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In the event that a person has requested to go by a name that is different than one previously used by that person, refer to that person using the name which reflects the person's most recent expressed self-identification ...: That proposed wording would require Kanye West to instead be referred to as simply "Ye", superseding WP:COMMONNAME. —Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Definitely support this, but with the detail that WP:COMMON NAME would still supersede chosen names for article titles, like Kanye West and Stokeley Carmichael. Scooglers (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Question: What names should we use for Malcolm X? I don't think he was notable under his birth name, but it's widely known, so not a privacy concern. But he later changed his name to el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, which most readers probably wouldn't recognize. pburka (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would say we handle his various name changes quite well. No need to change it. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think the proposal above would require us to suppress his birth name and refer to him as Shabazz. pburka (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  If that is the case, then I would object. The fact that he rejected the birth/slave name “Little” and adopted the name “X” is part of his notability. It needs to be mentioned. The birth/slave name does not need to be highlighted or used beyond a brief historical mention … but it does need to be mentioned.

  As for the subsequent “Shabazz”, that should also be noted, and perhaps mentioned a bit more… but since he is most notable as “Malcolm X”… that name should get the focus.

  It all comes down to following the sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  "Following the sources" is easy enough for high profile people like Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, or Elliot Page, but it's harder for more obscure figures where we may not have many recent reliable sources following a name change. I do think that we need better guidance on chosen names, but I worry that if we adopt the very strict guidelines we use to protect transgender biographies, we're going to discover some unintended consequences. For example, I don't think we want to move John List (murderer) to his chosen name, Robert Peter Clark. pburka (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps we need a carve-out for non-BLPs for whom using a different name would be excessively confusing to readers, if consensus is established on the talk page. I agree it would likely be unhelpful to move Malcom X's article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

To offer a comparison, the article for Chappell Roan refers to her as "Roan", which the Huffington Post reported in 2024 is only her stage name. Why can't we do the same for people who stop using a slave name? HemlockLeaf (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

There are several questions that need to be asked:

1) was the bio subject notable prior to the name change (ie notable under the “old” name)? If so we probably need to mention the “old” name somewhat extensively while covering that era of their lives.

2) did the person become notable after the name change? If so, we probably don’t need more than a passing mention, and maybe not even that.

3) did the person become notable because of the name change? Rare, but it does happen. Here we probably need to look at the specifics.

Remember that our job is to inform… and information is not always comforting. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason for the old name to be mentioned "extensively" when discussing their life pre-name change. Surely a passing mention of their previously known name is less confusing and still understandable, especially when the subject remained notable under their new name. I also don't understand your mention of the information not being "comforting"? Cowlan (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposal. Let's just keep things simple and address the immediate problem, which, I think, is inconsistent use of older names within biographies. I propose that we introduce some wording saying that the person's common name (usually the page title) should be used throughout the biography, even if they've used other names or it's not their legal name. Editors can mention other names where appropriate, but never refer to them directly using that name, except in a direct quote. In quoted material, the name may be substituted with their common name in square brackets, if appropriate. If the old name isn't well known, it should usually be treated as a privacy concern and be omitted, especially in a BLP.

Examples:

• Malcolm, who was still using the surname Little, ...
• Abdul-Jabbar, competing as Lew Alcindor, ...
• John was born Reginald Kenneth Dwight on 25 March 1947...

Is this satisfactory? pburka (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - first this depends on whether someone became notable after or before the name change. For those who became notable before the change, I would use either the modern name or the COMMONNAME for the title… but I would mention all names in the lead, and for running text I would use historical names in historical contexts… we can explain the name change in running text so readers won’t be confused as they read. Blueboar (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide a specific example of a biography where you think this would be confusing? Surely using one name for the subject throughout the biography will be less confusing to our readers than switching names depending on the time period. pburka (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that your proposal presents a useful and clear framework for dealing with these inconsistencies, especially when considering similar practices for married women and transgender persons. It also creates a clear and standardised framework for other articles with name changes, which will prevent similar disputes in future.

Further, the entire purpose of disambiguation & redirect pages, along with the clarifications notes at the start of articles, is to kill ambiguities like those @Blueboar takes issue with before they can become an issue. Consider that Cassius Clay already redirects directly to Muhammad Ali. I see no good reason for making a double standard between black people & slave names verses transgender people & deadnames. L.H. (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Our Muhammed Ali article is actually a good example of what I suggested above. Since Ali was notable before the name changed, the article uses “Clay” when discussing his early life and Olympic boxing… it then informs the reader why and when his name changed… and switches to “Ali” for the remainder of the article when discussing his later career. Blueboar (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Ali on his birth name: I didn't choose it and I don't want it. In addition to certainly not being less confusing, switching surnames mid-biography is (verifiably, in this case) an insensitive denial of a subject's self-identity.

Regardless of what name we choose "primary" (for the named articles, existing guidelines and local consensus already appear to be solving this), I would like to see us ditch Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Anachronistic names and consistently use a single surname throughout. I would not like a guideline which treats trans deadnames and slave names as politically radioactive exceptions to the rule. In my mind, the rule makes little sense. Biographies are told from the present-day perspective, so "anachronistic" phrases like As a boy, Pope Paul... and Young Hillary Clinton met Bill Clinton in college... are perfectly cromulent. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I very much disagree with the idea that biographies should be written from a “present-day” perspective. Biography as a genre is a sub-set of History… and so should be written from a historical perspective.

For biographies about living people, it is appropriate to blend historical and modern perspectives (depending on what is being discussed)… but once the person dies, the writing should shift to historical. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Any broad proposal needs to avoid whitewashing criminals who have gone by a variety of aliases. Test case: British far-right activist now commonly known as "Tommy Robinson", previously known as "Stephen Yaxley-Lennon" and various other names. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Wikipedia style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the above section, a discussion was started on the use of former names for subjects that have adopted, legally or personally, new names, and multiple editors have called for an RfC.

The section of this MOS page on anachronistic names says that the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described. (e.g., referring to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as Lew Alcindor)

Many have argued above that this may create a double standard compared to the section on the very same page on gender identity (retroactively applying a transgender person's chosen name) and our handling of maiden names in other biographies. As pointed out by zaydupree on TikTok (whose video kicked off this discussion), this distinction may be culturally insensitive when applied to Black individuals who explicitly no longer use a birth name they consider a "slave name". On the other hand, others have raised concerns that retroactively applying names could confuse our readers or conflict with historical accuracy, particularly to subjects that were highly notable before their name change.

Therefore, how should the Manual of Style guide the use of former names in biographical prose?

• Option A: Universally use the current name when referring to a subject throughout the running prose (while still noting the former name in the lead and at the point of the name change)
• Option B: Use the current name universally, unless the subject was highly notable under their previous name prior to the change.
• Option C: Create an exception targeted solely to names linked to slavery, colonization, or religious conversion, mandating retroactive use in these cases.
• Option D (Status quo): Continue to apply MOS:BIO#Anachronistic names as written.

Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: @Cloweee, Fivework, Jkpowers, Bagumba, Whoisconfused, The ed17, Cubnorth, Octolin, Michael Bednarek, Geoffreylikespie, Muboshgu, Tschusstachelly, Blueboar, MartinTDR, Soetermans, Chaotic Enby, Wasianpower, Scooglers, Gaismagorm, Pburka, HemlockLeaf, Cowlan, Dinosaur Rider, RoxySaunders, and JMF: this should be all participants in the above section. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option A > B > C, although with a caveat that this applies to deliberate name changes when the subject desires to cut the ties with their birth name, instead of pure stage names or other reasons for name changes (Augustus being a great example). I acknowledge that the distinction can be difficult to make in some cases, in which case, if reliable sources and self-identification don't provide a clear answer, we should err on the side of privacy and respect the individual's most recent name choice. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I would say Option B. I don't think any Wikipedia rule can be applied 100%, but exceptions should be kept only for cases where it could cause serious confusion to the reader. For example, name changes that are being done for publicity stunts (like Joe Lycett), criminal reasons like mentioned above, etc. I would also argue for one name to be used throughout the article, and I'm again going to reference how gender identity is handled: when someone uses multiple pronouns, one pronoun is chosen for consistency. I think this should go for names as well. Cubnorth (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option D as the discussion above demonstrates, there's simply too much variation in circumstance to make a general rule, and stringent application doesn't help us. Some articles are going to be better served by a chronological approach and introducing new names according to when it happened, others by using the same name throughout. This is an excessively broad change that doesn't deal with the numerous issues inherent in a blanket approach described above. And most of these described cases aren't a privacy issue at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

A > B > C per Chaotic Enby and Cubnorth. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option D - Sometimes “inconsistency” is a good thing. David Fuchs says it well, when it comes to name changes, taking a one-size-fits-all approach is simply not appropriate. Our current guidance gives us flexibility to deal with name changes on a subject by subject level - as it should. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option A*: Use the common name (i.e. the article title) throughout. This is slightly different than A above, which says "current name". We should use the same name as the page title, regardless of whether it's the subject's most recent name (e.g. Malcolm X, not Shabazz). This is both respectful to our readers (someone jumping into a section on Muhammad Ali's Olympic career may not know who "Clay" is), and it's respectful to our subjects. pburka (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, consider someone who has never heard of Muhammad Ali (unlikely, but possible), but has read that some guy named Cassius Clay won an Olympic gold medal in boxing, and wants to know more… that reader would be confused if the article didn’t at least mention the name “Clay”. They would probably think they were misdirected to the wrong article. Nor would they discover why Clay changed his name to Ali. In the case of Ali, his rejection of “Clay” and adoption of “Ali” is an important part of his life story. We need to cover it. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option A already addresses both your points (did you read it?), it explicitly states that the original name can be stated twice in the article, at both of your concern points. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I think we should be permitted to use the former name as many times as necessary, as long as we're not using it to directly reference the subject. e.g. This is fine: "Before the match, Ali mocked Patterson, who was widely known to call him by his former name Cassius Clay, ..." pburka (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

We need to discuss his name change, absolutely! It's an important part of his biography, and it's also worth explaining that many people refused to call him by his chosen name for decades and continued to use "Clay" as an explicit sign of disrespect. But I believe that, in wikivoice, we should consistently refer to him as "Ali", not switch between "Clay" and "Ali" depending on the time period. pburka (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option D, with the caveat that consensus can (and should) lead to a different usage on an article-by-article basis. (MOS:BIO#Anachronistic names states that the anachronistic names style principle is "also usually employed in the subject's own biography", but it's not universally used required, so consensus can override things when it makes sense.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option D, Tcr25 pretty much says exactly what I would have said. I almost favoured Option C until I got to mandating retroactive use in these cases. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option A* - Option A with the same caveat @Pburka proposed seems like a nice middle ground which fixes the consistency issue, keeps articles accessible to the general public and respects the subjects.

We already have a solid base in order to help us determine the title of an article (see WP:COMMONNAME), so I believe that's the name that should be used all throughout the article too. Although this can be overridden (title name not matching the name used in article) in cases where the new name is relevant enough, such as in the case of Kanye West's article using Ye in it in order to not end up being outdated; or in cases where it might come off as disrespectful towards the subjects, such as ones related to gender identity or an express desire to cut ties with the previous name such as in the case of Muhammad Ali. Tschusstachelly (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Tcr25's D; it is generally clearer and more accurate to reflect the name used at the time. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Option A. I do not see a clear argument for clarity or accuracy introduced by the "contemporary names" style. It is normal and common, to use a present-day proper noun to refer to a person/place/thing in the past. In the lead of Hillary Clinton, the reader is meant to intuit from the sentence In 1975, Rodham married Bill Clinton that she took his last name (a specific and decreasingly universal practice within some Anglophone western nations) in order to understand the next sentence where "Clinton" suddenly refers to her and not to Bill.

Using someone's "slave name" which they have denounced is about as offensive as using a trans person's deadname, and off-site commentators are fully correct to treat it as an embarassment and an injustice that Wikipedia has not already fixed these articles. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 06:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED; we don't base our articles on whether something is offensive. A better option would be to follow reliable sources, and if reliable sources typically use a contemporary name to refer to a person then we should do the same, but I think that is aligned with Tcr25's D. BilledMammal (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

But the point here is that, when it comes to name changes and self-identification, we do take into account not "offending" people regardless of the reliable sources, as evident by the very first paragraph of MOS:DEADNAME:

Refer to people whose gender might be questioned using the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) 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.

"[The subject's self-id] holds for any phase of the person's life" goes directly against the guideline of avoiding anachronistic names by using the name they were referred to at the period being described, but we make an exception to that for trans and nonbinary people to respect their current self-id (in other words, to not "offend" them).

And to be clear, I agree with this exception, it is unnecessarily rude to deny people's current names in their biographies just for "historical accuracy", but it makes no sense (and completely justifies the off-wiki criticism in my opinion) why that exception isn't extended to other types of name changes, such as religious conversion (Muhammed Ali, still referred to as Cassius Clay in his biography section until his name change in 1964) or disassociation from a slave name (Malcolm X, referred to mononymously in his biography section, but not as Malik el-Shabazz, even after his name change (except when Shabazz Academy is mentioned, due to it having his full name), and still being referred as Malcolm Little in his "Memorials and Tributes" section). Octolin (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, when we have trans people who were notable under their old names it usually isn't a problem as last names usually (with exceptions) aren't gendered/perceived by society as belonging to a certain gender, and that really enables the guideline to work while having a minimal impact on the encyclopedic value of our articles. That wouldn't really be the case if we extended it to cover any name change, first name or last name, for any reason. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 11:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a clear difference here, and that's that the concept of unchanged names being "slave names" applies to everyone who hasn't changed their names or doesn't desire to change them too. What makes something a deadname is that a person has ceased going by it, but for "slave names" the underlying idea is that everybody of a certain origin has them. It's independent of whether or not somebody sees their name as a "slave name". So for us to embrace that idea seems ridiculously offensive to all the people who do not view their own names like that, as we would implicitly be saying they have "slave names" that they haven't changed. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 06:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, then why don't apply it just to abandoned slave names? Like, if a person has a name that could be considered a "slave name" but they don't view it as such and have not changed it, then keep it as is. But if a person does view their former name as a slave name and have changed it to remove that association (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Muhammad Ali, Malik el-Shabazz (a.k.a. Malcolm X), etc), then we treat it just like a trans person's MOS:DEADNAME. Octolin (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Option D: anachronistic names should be the exception (in the event of privacy/deadnaming concerns or similar, or local consensus for any other reason), not the rule. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Option D, but let's workshop B. I'm not going to vote for a guideline without knowing what it will actually say, so I can only judge off what is currently being said. I was going to go with an example of how the proposed options have unintended consequences wrote a bit about how it would affect Augustus before seeing that Chaotic Enby had already noted that, which is somewhat funny. I do think it's worth mentioning that Augustus is a title (see Augustus (title)) rather than his name, which poses additional difficulties, and he is far from the only person known better by their title than their name.

Option C is entirely off the table for reasons that I stated above, in addition to likely having WP:NPOV issues, but I will say that Option B is better than Option A, and I think it has potential to be workshopped into something I'd support. That said, its current phrasing is inviting disaster: "highly notable under their previous name prior to the change" is worded in such a way as to only care about contemporary notability, which means sources talking about the person written after the name change can't be used to establish notability under a certain name unless they explicitly state that the person was notable even before the name change happened. How would work in practice for historical figures? As I said before, I can't really vote for something unless I know what it will actually look like when written into the guidelines, so that kind of forces me to go with Option D here, but I would encourage further workshopping of Option B. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 07:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Option A, I understand why some might think this phrasing is too restrictive, but it's important to remember that the style guide is in fact a guide. We're not writing hard rules here. Any exceptions can still be made and discussed separately for those articles. While I do prefer Option A, Option B would also be an improvement. Cloweee (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Light option B, I personally think that they can be referred to by a past name if they are the most notable under a past name. For example, Malcolm X later changed his name, but pretty much everybody knows as Malcolm X. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Option A comment ... while still noting the former name in the lead and at the point of the name change ...: For someone like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, what about a page like 1967–68 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team, where his name is not (currently) in the lead and the page covers a period before his name change?—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, that page should call him Abdul-Jabbar, with a parenthetical noting that he was called Lew Acindor at that time. The reader is far more likely to recognize him as Abdul-Jabbar, and shouldn't need to click through his former name to learn who this Acindor guy is. (This is how we usually treat screen credits, for what it's worth. In Nightingales (American TV series), for example, we use Roxann Dawson, rather than the name that appeared in the credits, Roxann Biggs.) pburka (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My issue is that this RfC option didn't address this scenario, regardless of how it's recommended to be handled. —Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I think the RfC needs some further refinement before any change is implemented. In my opinion the current guidance on anachronistic names is plain wrong. Using the name the subject is currently commonly known as is no more anachronistic than using the name "mercury" in historical contexts, rather than than historical terms for the element like "hydrargyrum" or "quicksilver". pburka (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option B comment ... unless the subject was highly notable under their previous name prior to the change ...: That's exactly the case with Abdul-Jabbar. What is the guidance for mention or not of Lew Alcindor, his notable former name?—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your assertion that he was notable under his old name is true, but if it is, Option B would specifically not apply to it. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

While you are not sure, I can assure you that he would have already had an article in college named Lew Alcindor if Wikipedia existed back then as it does today. Option B would specifically not apply to it: Which leads back to the original question of what is the guidance for his case? —Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Then the guidance would be the status quo, I believe. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Option D comment. How do supporters of the status quo think we should write the lead for Elton John? Currently it says:

John learnt to play piano at an early age, winning a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music. In the 1960s, he formed the blues band Bluesology, wrote songs for other artists alongside Taupin, and worked as a session musician, before releasing his debut album, Empty Sky (1969).

Should we change that to this?

Dwight learnt to play piano at an early age, winning a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music. In the 1960s, he formed the blues band Bluesology, wrote songs for other artists alongside Taupin, and worked as a session musician. In 1969 John released his debut album, Empty Sky (1969).

pburka (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that Elton John is a case where consensus might well lead to deciding that the anachronistic names principle shouldn't apply in part based upon WP:COMMONNAME and a lack of notability under his birth name. Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam is a more complex case (and I'm not sure if the current use of Stevens there is the best solution or if it is the best solution now but might not have been in 2008).—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Question If prose mentions of Cassius Clay are removed at Muhammad Ali, what would happen to the image caption at Muhammad Ali#Amateur career, "Cassius Clay and his trainer Joe E. Martin, January 1960." Would it be changed to "Muhammad Ali and his trainer Joe E. Martin, January 1960." That almost seems incorrect. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's not incorrect: it's just two names for the same person. It's as natural as saying "Muhammad Ali was born in 1942 and died in 2016." It doesn't matter that he changed his name at one point. But the caption could also say "Ali (then Clay) and his trainer...", especially if the name might cause confusion (e.g. if it's visible in the photograph). pburka (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how no one noticed this yet, but people here keep saying that the "Anachronistic names" section says that the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described, when... it doesn't say that?

It actually says A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described, only noting at the end that The principle of avoiding anachronistic naming is also usually employed in the subject's own biography, which means that avoiding anachronistic names is a guideline when mentioning people in other articles ("of which they are not the subject") but just a common practice when talking about people in their own articles (of which they are the subject).

By that logic, John learnt to play piano at an early age would still be correct under the current "Anachronistic names" guideline "as written", since it only states that we shouldn't use anachronistic names when referring to them in articles where they're not the focus like, per example, how Bluesology (Elton John's first band, pre-name change) uses "Dwight" all throughout it, and then mentions that Dwight used the names of fellow band members Elton Dean and John Baldry to create his new solo stage name of Elton John in "Later activities", when describing what the group's members did after the band separated. Octolin (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)