Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive

A different approach?

Whilst I'm sympathetic to the proposal, I think @Sideswipe9th: might be approaching this from the wrong angle. I don't think it's too unreasonable to argue that names are gendered terms for the purposes of GENDERID and as such, we should prefer their chosen name. Indeed, as I've pointed out in previous RMs, the articles for high-profile trans people such as Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner were moved almost immediately on this principle.

However, there are some times where inclusion of a deadname has editorial justification; for example, Caitlyn's athletic career or Elliot's early movie career. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, but neither does Wikipedia include needlessly provocative content. There is a fine line between content being included for being encyclopaedic and being included for the sake of inclusion; for example of a different area where I think we struck the right balance on this, the article for Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I believe, strikes the balance correctly when it comes to depictions of him.

As such, I propose the following paragraph for inclusion between paragraphs one and two of GENDERID:

Where a person has changed their name for reasons related to their gender identity, it is generally preferable to use their new name in most contexts. Ensure that when their former name (colloquially known as a "deadname") is included, it is done sparingly and is editorially justified.

As it is at the moment, there's actually nothing in the letter of GENDERID that would prevent The Wachowskis being called by their former (and credited) professional name at The Matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), even though we generally agree it would go against the spirit. This would close this hole and formalise the default to preferred names, but provide an opportunity for inclusion of deadnames if (and, I hope, only if) it can be justified editorially (in the case of The Matrix, I think the "credited as" footnote is the right balance). Sceptre (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I think this is already covered further down: In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion..--Trystan (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

How about amending the fourth paragraph to say "In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name..."? That should broadly prohibit using a deadname for any individual, living or dead. I hope it is a change that could gain a clear consensus, as it is seperate from the more contentious question of when it is appropriate to mention a deadname.--Trystan (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Support: There's no reason to include a deadname whether a n is alive or not. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed RfC questions

Should MOS:DEADNAME apply after the death of the subject?

A: Yes

B: For a limited period, in line with WP:BDP

C: No

Currently, the former name of a living transgender or non-binary person can only be added to their article if the individual was notable under it. Should a second exception be added to MOS:DEADNAME for when inclusion of the name is WP:DUE, such as when it is often included by reliable sources?

Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs when their former name is disclosed?

BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  Oh. Support the first question. I consent to having my vote copied and pasted by anyone, when appropriate, as long as it's in whole. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs ... — I think "a risk of harm" is either to restrictive (do you mean "any risk, no matter how small") or too subjective (how much risk?). Some qualification may be required. See also: WP:HARM. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

• The scope of the second question is unclear. Is that an intended changed to MOS:CHANGEDNAME (applies to everyone) or MOS:DEADNAME (applies only to trans/non-binary people)?
  Similarly the third question has a problem with scope. Should MOS:DEADNAME be altered to apply to all living individuals...? As it currently stands, MOS:DEADNAME applies only to "any person whose gender might be questioned" and/or any "transgender or non-binary person" (as does the verb deadname, typically) but your proposal to "apply to all living" apparently includes all people (including unambiguously cisgender males and females). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I think the reference to BDP in the options for the first question unnessecarily complicates things. BLP continues to apply for a period after death, and this RFC isn't going to change that. I would propose asking "Should MOS:DEADNAME continue to apply after the subject is no longer covered by WP:BLP? (A) Yes (B) No (C) No, but a different standard should apply." For question 3, I would suggest "MOS:DEADNAME currenty applies to living transgender and non-binary people. Should this scope be expanded to apply to all living individuals where a risk of harm occurs when their former name is disclosed?"--Trystan (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• The first question is the same as the last RfC, less than 19 months ago. I don't think it was an enjoyable experience for anyone. Has something substanial changed since then to warrant going through it all again? I don't think so. The closure of the last RfC recommended "a subsequent RfC that frames the subject very narrowly: Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be", not re-running the whole thing. So something such as:

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

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

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

  If B, then a subsequent RfC could determine the period (which of course would be finite, given the outcome of the previous RfC). EddieHugh (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  I agree that having three questions is too many, I don't think it makes any sense to have two options that are basically no different than each other. the whole point is that someone dying doesn't make it okay to deadname them for no reason, so whether that changes one year or 10 years later does not matter, the questions should be do we keep "living" qualifier or do we get rid of it. Tekrmn (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  That makes you opposed to WP:BDP, which is a policy on a different page (WP:BLP), so would have to be discussed there. It makes an exception in some circumstances for "people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside". EddieHugh (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Madeline's RFC proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since many RfCs (about many topics) go nowhere if people split between too many options, my suggestion FWIW is to ask a single yes/no question on whether to add a guideline that for dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be excluded if they are non-relevant [or non-notable, or un-due, whatever word we decide to go with]. (Or, to word it a different way: included only if they are relevant/notable/due/whatever.) -sche (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That said, I think Madeline's approach is also good. Let's consider how to word option 3, though: what idea are we trying to cover with this option? A previous RfC had an "Only if they died before a certain time" option, which covered the idea that historical people from before a modern understanding a trans people might merit different treatment, whereas "Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time" suggests we can't deadname Brianna Ghey yet but it'll be fine twenty (or however many) years from now — is that an option some subset of people want?
BilledMammal, when you say that Madeline's proposal only includes one of two options for revising the guideline, what is the option you say is excluded? Is it the question you proposed above about adding a guideline to include 'DUE' former names of [even] living [and not just dead] people? IMO that feels like a separate issue, changing the existing guidelines that affect living people vs. the rest of this discussion being about adding a guideline about dead people, so it might be better suited to being asked separately, IDK (this requires more thought). -sche (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly option 3 "Only once they have been dead for a specific period of time" should be split into "... a specific period of time" (which will stated in the DEADNAME guideline) and "... an indeterminate period of time, based on per-case consensus, per WP:BDP". I know adding another option is not good, but I think BDP ought to mentioned explicitly, because it's not clear whether it is covered by 5 "No guideline (status quo)". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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

-sche's proposal

Based on my and others' comments above about the need — highlighted by the last RfC and by its closers — to ask something very tailored and without overmany options, my proposal is to ask a single yes/no question along the lines of

Should we add the following guideline to MOS:GID?

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

Possibly we could include some short neutral explanation (in the framing of the RfC, not the guideline) that This is only about dead people because there is already guidance about living people. (Anything about changing what's done for living trans people, or for non-trans people, should be a separate RfC.) -sche (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

My first shot at a clarification would be ...included only if not including it would confuse the reader. But that's just off the top of my head, there could definitely be other better options. Loki (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

For the most part I like this question. My only concern is specifically relevant is kinda a nebulous term, and could lead to many prolonged article talk page discussions over its meaning. If we could clarify what that means more specifically, even if we include that as a footnote in the sentence then I think this could be the simplest way to resolve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Next steps

We currently have five different proposals, from Sceptre, BilledMammal, Maddy from Celeste, -sche, and myself. Each proposal has had some supports and some opposes, which I'll not summarise here, and there does not seem to be a clear best option at least by my involved reading. In order of proposal:

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

If we are to take only one of these proposed questions to an RfC, which one should we use or take forward for further refinement? And when we've got a final phrasing, where should we hold this RfC? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

For myself, I tend to favour the 3 yes/no proposals from Sceptre, -sche, or myself. When looking at the close of the August 2021 RfC on extending GENDERID/DEADNAME in a similar manner to this discussion, the closers of the RfC remarked We also feel this RfC, by offering several options, made it harder for any consensus to emerge. and made a recommendation that any subsequent RfC on this issue [framed] the subject very narrowly on Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be.

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

However, where all three of these proposals fall down in some way is on the second part of the recommendation from the August 2021 RfC closure, on extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be. While I could argue that my proposal would fulfil that in part, as it would in effect make an implicit indefinite extension of the BLP protections for deadnames, that seems unfair to the two other proposals that fulfil the narrow requirement.

If instead I look at taking one of these 3 narrow proposals forward for further refinement, I think -sche's proposal would make the best base to build off of. In doing so, I would suggest that the phrasing be amended to something like For dead transgender or non-binary people, former names should be included only if they are specifically relevant were notable under that name or a period of [to be determined] has passed since their death. The RfC would then have two questions, the first being a yes/no on adding the proposed sentence, and the second for determining what the period of time after death should be. For the second question, a small number of default options like in-line with WP:BDP, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years should be included, along with the option for editors to write in shorter or longer periods should they desire. Doing it in this manner, a suggested addition that extends the BLP protections for deadnames, and a second question that determines for how long, would best fulfil the recommendation from the August 2021 RfC.

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

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

Maybe let's try something like As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, only mention the previous name of a deceased transgender or non-binary person when there is some concrete encyclopedic value in doing so? Loki (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

On some concrete encyclopaedic value, do we actually have a policy, guideline, information page, or essay that expands on what that means? WP:NOTEVERYTHING has a somewhat brief note about how we are a summary of accepted knowledge, before going into various NOT examples. I would fear that, by not having an accepted definition of what encyclopaedic value means somewhere, we'd ultimately wind up with the same repeated discussions as if we kept the specifically relevant part of -sche's original proposal. It would also open the door to both good and bad faith versions of arguments like this is a biography of X, their birth name is relevant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The criticism of some concrete encyclopedic value is fair. I don't think we'll be able to get too concrete here because it's hard to think of every single edge case. But here are some examples of cases that might be illustrative:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I commented above, I think there is the possibility for two RFCs. One on the difficult question of when to mention a deceased trans/nb person's deadname. (My preference is for -sche's original proposal, as I think "specifically relevant" is reasonably clear for a guideline, and certainly clearer than "encyclopedic value".) And a second one to clarify the guideline on the use of a deadname (i.e., to refer to the person by the name). It would be fairly straightforward to amend the first and fourth paragraphs of MOS:DEADNAME to clarify that using a trans/nb person's former name, whether they are living or dead, is only acceptable when the individual clearly expressed that as their preference. Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. ... In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name... I think an RFC on use has a good chance of achieving a clear consensus and resulting in a positive improvement to the guideline.--Trystan (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

One comment that's partially based on the debate at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting and my efforts to determine how this policy would apply to the shooter. A few of the proposals concern this language: "notable under a former name (a deadname)". But I think there are two different interpretations of that language, and some more clarity might be appreciated:

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

While I don't want to blend the talk pages, Hale does serve as an example in which the outcomes would be different depending on the interpretation used. Hale was not notable when he identified by his deadname. However, when the incident occurred, his deadname was widely reported—possibly (for example, in the case of the New York Times) because, at the time of the breaking-news reports, it was not clear how Hale identified. ("There was confusion about the shooter’s gender identity in the immediate aftermath of the attack" ).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

That close recommends a binary choice question about Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be. A proposal to remove "living" doesn't do that; if you want to follow its recommendations then I suggest asking Should MOS:DEADNAME continue to apply after death in line with WP:BDP?

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

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

How about an RFC to eliminate the two paragraphs on former names and use the existing policy at WP:BLPNAME, which already addresses privacy and sources? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Plus even if we did all that, which would I think be an improvement for how we handle non-trans or non-binary name changes, we would still have the issue that after death, someone could include the previously excluded by policy/guideline name whenever BLP ceased to apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Surely, under most circumstances where a trans person's status and consequently their birth-name was not at all notable while they were alive, that would continue indefinitely after their death, irrelevant private info is still private and irrelevant whether the person is alive or not. However, if their name and status become widely covered in RS as part of their dying, or after their death for reasons we may not be able to wholly foresee, we should be free to ignore the letter of MOS:DEADNAME - or we cannot cover the topic clearly. This isn't substantially different from what we would do in any other circumstance with info that might be regarded as 'private'. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. BLP deals with all the issues we're debating here, and does it better. If a person is a public figure their privacy is different, etc. If we just apply BLP to the case of transgender former names, most would not be included, but when former names are widely documented in RS for public figures, they *probably* get included in a neutral and factual way, while referring to the individual by their current name and pronouns. When someone has died, the rules change. I think if we need a change, it is to reduce the scope of GENDERID. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

When someone has died, the rules change. I've seen several editors express this above, but none have expressed why. What is it about the death of a trans or non-binary person that makes it acceptable to subsequently start including the name under which they were not previously notable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I’d expect it to be if our RS documented it and such inclusion was an NPOV concern. This doesn’t mean we suddenly start misgendering them or use the deadname excessively, it should be proportionate to its use in RS. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Surely, under most circumstances where a trans person's status and consequently their birth-name was not at all notable while they were alive, that would continue indefinitely after their death While I can see why it's reasonable to think this, unfortunately it's not true. As I said in my initial post opening this discussion, there are a couple of reliable sources that published the deadname of a recently killed transgender teen from the UK. There are also multiple reliable sources (and numerous unreliable) that have published the deadnames of Laverne Cox, and Rachel Levine, the two named examples for individuals who were not notable prior to transitioning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you are arguing for excluding the original names because they are offensive, and that reasoning will fail. Wikipedia includes information that is exceedingly offensive all the time. The only valid argument to exclude the names is for verifiability or privacy, and the latter is governed by BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

It's the same reason we don't generally include complete lists of medical issues or addresses in biographies: there's just no good reason to do so. Loki (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking over these, my opinion is that we should start with the first two questions (Sideswipe9th and Sceptre's) as separate RFCs; additionally, they don't really overlap or contradict each other, so they can be run as separate RFCs. These are simple, straightforward yes-or-no questions with direct, specific, proposals for wording, which addresses the lack of clarity in the previous RFC. The other three RFCs would only be relevant if Sideswipe9th's RFC failed; if it did, one of them could be held after that, depending on what the tone of that initial RFC looks like. --Aquillion (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that the discussion on Sideswipe9th proposal already looks pretty split, and so I don't think an RFC would gain consensus. If we're going to make a decision based on what Sideswipe9th's RFC looks like, we can just make that decision based on the discussion above. Loki (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above before I realized the full size of this discussion, I would say that in addition to Sideswipe9th's proposal, the phrasing "transgender or non-binary" is in my opinion unnecessary and this should be broadened to read "If a person was not notable under a former name..." This removes the need for specific mention of deadnames entirely while increasing the privacy of living individuals (and dead individuals, if such a thing is desired.) I also think it's an entirely ridiculous statement to claim that someone's birth name will suddenly become encyclopedic at any point after their death if it was not encyclopedic while they were living. (I do think there is probably more nuance in this situation, on a per article basis, then a hard and fast MOS rule really can account for.) casualdejekyll 22:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought it would have been obvious from context that I was specifically referring to situations where a person was not notable under their former name. If the name was notable, then it's worthy of inclusion for sure. That wording was bad, actually. What I'm trying to say isn't that ALL uses of it are indiscriminate, so much as saying that MOST of them are. casualdejekyll 02:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How would the knowledge of the birth name help a reader? — If the reader wanted to more research about the person, in particular their pre-name-change years, then the birth name would certainly help.

100 years from now, will anybody care about the deadname? — People doing any genelogical research will. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small proposal

There appears to be universal consensus in the above discussion that we should not use deadnames to refer to trans/nb individuals in wikivoice (as distinct from the issue of when we mention/include them). Does anyone object to clarifying MOS:DEADNAME so that the provisions on using a deadname are no longer limited to living individuals?

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification... In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...

This change would not preclude an RFC about when to include deadnames for deceased subjects.--Trystan (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

So, if the ellipses are removed, the first sentence would read: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources." In other words, I think your first point—that we should follow reliable sources as to the most recent (or last) self-identification—is already captured by the policy.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

• Strong support (though, as a minor note, I'm not sure I see the need for the second sentence alteration—seems redundant to me). I was actually really hoping this would get addressed. It's not at all rare to see the argument @Trystan is attempting to address—I've only seen 4 or 5 discussions concerning naming, and I think I've seen the argument in all of them. And, if we're getting into wikilawyering, I have to say it's not an unreasonable argument: What they say is that the phrase gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) does not encompass names, given the examples in the parentheses and the fact that deadnames are only specifically mentioned in the next paragraph (on living subjects). Still, I'm persuaded by the counterargument—that gendered names are an example of gendered words. And, in the debates I've seen, at least, that argument has consistently won out—any enduring debate (if any) concerns how often (if at all) a birth name should be mentioned. Still, I think the guideline is currently ambiguous, and it fosters making the guideline explicit, as Trystan suggests, would save a lot of needless debate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Alternative proposal - Follow WP:DUE

Is there a reason we cannot follow WP:DUE here? For example, are there any articles where mentioning the name would be WP:DUE but we should not mention it? For borderline cases, we can have a guideline that states we should err on the side of not including the name, strongly so in the case of living individuals. We wouldn't need a guideline telling us to prefer sources from after the name change as WP:NAMECHANGES already does that.

It would neatly resolve this entire debate, it would prevent any conflicts with a policy we are forbidden from having conflicts with, and it would help with WP:CREEP. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't quite understand. Are you saying that for these individuals the inclusion of the deadname is DUE, isn't DUE, or is borderline? Alternatively, are you saying that it is debatable? BilledMammal (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that for these individuals the inclusion of the deadname is DUE, isn't DUE, or is borderline? It is all of these things at the same time, because DUE is a subjective measure. There is no objective test over whether something is or is not DUE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to bring us back to my comment below: DUE is how we handle every controversial topic in the encyclopedia. The argument that it is fit for purpose for all those other topics but isn't fit for purpose for this one doesn't make sense to me. BilledMammal (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that including the deadname would be DUE for all of them? As an aside, this particular question is one why I and I suspect several other editors have hesitated on producing any such lists. While there are many editors like yourself who will be asking this in good faith, there are also many editors who will ask it in bad faith. Because of the current anti-trans culture war and moral panic, particularly from the United States, there are editors who edit articles relating to trans and non-binary individuals and topics solely for the purpose of denying self-actualisation and claiming that trans and non-binary people are not who they say they are.

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

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

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

but it shouldn't result in endless discussions and RfC's Please look through the talk page history, including both comments on the current live page and its archives, as well as comments that were removed prior to archiving. Even with the current objective version of the deadname guidance, where inclusion is only warranted if the trans or non-binary person was notable prior to transitioning, which Thomas was not, there are endless discussions and edit requests for including Thomas' deadname. Making the deadname guidance subjective based, by tying it to DUE, will result in countless more discussions on it because even if we exclude all of the bad faith editors for conduct problems, every good faith editor defines DUEness differently. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I have to say, the possibility that WP:DUE alone would provide sufficient guidance and not "result in endless discussions" ... is a little undercut by what's happened to this section, which quickly blown up and currently features a majority of editors asking, "What? How would this work?"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

all of these individuals were not notable prior to their transition — Le Brocq was notable pre-transition under his birth name as "a musician, music teacher and radio presenter. ... as well as for ... numerous charitable efforts". He was also notable under his intermediate names Eddie/Ed Ayres (he changed his surname when he married), including for writing his memoirs about his transition.) Mitch Ames (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Later in this section, you asked for an example of where a DUE based guideline would require us to include a deadname that should be excluded. While that is a valid question, and one that I'm know there are examples of that I just can't recall at this time, it's not the only type of article that would be affected by this. Elisa Rae Shupe was, back in 2016, the first person in the US to obtain legal recognition of having a non-binary gender identity. Three years later, she detransitioned, changed her name back to her birth name, and became very prominent in anti-trans political circles and publications with her story being used to push pro-conversion therapy narratives. It was during this period that the majority of sources about her were published. In 2022, she retransitioned, and took on the name Elisa Rae, however because of this the sources that were previously giving her coverage simply stopped. After all, why could anti-trans sources cover someone who made the decision to retransition? Until recently, with the publishing of a large series of leaks of emails that Shupe was party to, no sources covered Shupe's retransition or her name change. Thankfully the current formulation of GENDERID, alongside a request from Shupe to update her article and WP:ABOUTSELF allowed us to use self-published sources (in this case, Shupe's blog) to cover the basic uncontroversial facts that she retransitioned and took on a new name. A straight DUEness based guideline would have prevented this, or at least would have required significant lengthy discussion that could otherwise be avoided. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

An individuals birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included when such inclusion in WP:DUE. In circumstances where inclusion is borderline we should err on the side of exclusion.

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

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

DUE is how we handle every controversial topic in the encyclopedia. The argument that it is fit for purpose for all those other topics but isn't fit for purpose for this one doesn't make sense to me. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested RFC Questions

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

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

I suspect (hope?) that the first question isn't very controversial, but, for the reasons I mentioned under User Trystan's proposal, I think it should be separated and included. On the other hand, I think the last issue there is the hardest one, and maybe the hardest to answer or even ask about. Certainly, I think any guideline we come up with will have to allow for discretion and will, at best, only serve to guide that discretion.

A few people have brought up WP:CREEP. I think that's, on the whole, a misplaced concern here. I've now seen more than a handful of these debates. It's true, there are differences between them—there are nuances that we probably can't address with a guideline—and we shouldn't try to! But it's also true that many of these debates do hit the same notes, and when those same notes are debated from scratch each time, the discussion of the nuances is actually hindered. In particular, as to non-living subjects, almost every debate ends up devoting a large amount of texts to the issues I mentioned above: In terms of (1) how to principally refer to the subject, (2) whether to use their former name at all, and (3) how (or how often) to use their former name, what are the implications of a large amount of media sources using the former name? It's extremely repetitive, and it doesn't make sense to have that broad of a discussion on each individual page—it's the type of recurring issue that absolutely should be handled by guidelines.

That doesn't mean a one-size-fits-all approach should be used. Most of the proposals leave room for discretion. But if we address these macro, recurring issues at the guideline level, and properly leave room for discretion, we can actually better address the nuances of particular cases.

I've seen a lot of great points made by editors on every side. But I think, to some degree, we're getting lost in the weeds. I think we can narrow down an RFC to a series of yes or no questions.

Proposed RFC Questions:

1. As to deceased trans persons, should we always principally refer to such persons by their last-used name of choice, as reported in reliable sources? (If yes, we could use Trystan's proposed wording.) (For the historical figure issue, which is often brought up, we could also add a caveat that this guideline is only triggered when a majority of the reliable sources that discuss a person's last-used self-identification agree as to that identification, but think that's implicit)
2. Should we always exclude the birth name of deceased trans persons who were not notable prior to transitioning?
3. When a birth name should be included in an article, should that birth name be included as a parenthetical with the page's first reference to the subject (e.g., "Gloria Hemingway (born Gregory Hemingway)?"
4. After the first reference to a birth name, should every reference to the birth name need to be specifically warranted by context?

I've tried to capture some essence of most of the proposals in these questions. @Trystan:, obviously the first question is entirely thanks to you. @Sideswipe9th:, you'll probably notice I took from your proposal to craft the second and (partially) third questions. @Sceptre:, I'm sure you'll see your proposal in the final question, and if you think it'd be better, I'm happy to switch "warranted by context" with "editorially justified". @BilledMammal:, you might think I've snubbed your proposal—on some level, I don't blame you. But, as the guidelines exist now, the deadnames of deceased trans persons are not covered. As such, if the consensus is straight-up "no" for questions 2, 3, and 4, I think your proposal wins by default.

Realistically, I think we have a shot of consensus as to question 1 and question 2 (though I'm actually not totally sure which way question 2 will go!). But I think it's worth asking these questions and getting to the RFC, because I think any consensus we do achieve will provide not just more, but better guidance.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

On the proposed questions, I think questions 1, 2 define the scope of what we're seeking consensus on, but that these particular issues are I think better addressed by making a straightforward yes/no proposed change to the existing guidance. If we ask those questions, as written, then I think a lot of the comments will be along the lines of Maybe, but I would like to see a definite proposal before supporting or opposing, which could leave us in a no consensus situation where we'd need to re-run it again with defined proposals.

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

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

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

agreeing to Trystan's proposal would be the exact same as agreeing to question 1 Yes based on implication, but not exactly in practice. Trystan's proposal is a concrete, definite change to the guideline. It's asking should we insert/rephrase the text of the guideline to this other version, yes or no? In doing so it lets editors compare the current version and a specific replacement version when making their determination for supporting or opposing. Question 1 as you've formulated it however is asking if there's consensus for a change, without specifying what form of that change will take. As a result it's a much more open ended question, because that particular change has many different forms.

your proposal doesn't allow for discretion as to persons who were not notable prior to their transition Do we need much, if any, discretion for trans or non-binary people who changed their names prior to becoming notable? The historical examples that have been mentioned previously, like James Barry and Public Universal Friend wouldn't fully be covered by any version of this, including the current version of the guideline, as their gender identities are unclear in the historical record. I'm trying to think of a modern example where we'd explicitly need such a discretionary statement in the guidance that ultimately wouldn't also be inherently covered by WP:IAR.

Question 3, I think, is fairly non-controversial—it asks, assuming a name should be included, whether the name should be paired with the first reference to the person. I don't know that that many people would disagree with that. True, and it would largely be seeking to codify standard practice. Again though, this is better handled by asking if we should make a specific change to the existing guidance along these lines, as that gives editors something concrete to compare against (ie new and old versions).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Doesn't WP:DEADNAME already address the three points at the very outset of the OP? Taking each in point, with the relevant quote from WP:DEADNAME: 1) how we principally refer to a trans person, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." when should a birth name should be included "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name... and if a birth name should be included, how/how often should it be included "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly"." It's pretty straightforward already. Why do we need an RFC on this? --Jayron32 11:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi @Jayron32:! As to your first bold point, I agree with your interpretation, and I think a consensus of Wikipedia editors do. But it is a recurring point of debate, as I mentioned in my Strong support vote under Trystan's proposal (link to section). (Sorry—I don't mean to send you all over the talk page—the fact that I'm so spread out here is my fault, but I don't want to overload the talk page by repeating my points too much). In short, many editors argue the phrase "gendered words"—partially given that it identifies the type of words it addresses—(e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server)—doesn't include names. As to your second and third bold points—that does absolutely address names for living trans persons. But this discussion is mostly on how to address deceased trans persons.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's simple as can be. Simply remove the qualifier "living" from any and all parts of WP:DEADNAME. --Jayron32 12:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Well, that's what Sideswipe9th proposed (or, at least, proposed proposing), though, as you can see, there's a fair amount of opposition.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Though, as you can see, I voted in that discussion some time ago. --Jayron32 16:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
        • When and how to use former names is at WP:BLP. This MOS is censoring information to avoid offense, which eventually will be changed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure if that was meant as a response to me, but this comment confused me. As I understand, this RFC is focused on deceased trans person (and all of my proposed RFC questions were specifically directed to the treatment of deceased subjects). With the exception of potential application via WP:BDP, WP:BLP wouldn't cover those cases. (I do know you've, in other cases, opposed to any MOS:GENDERID policy and said we should follow whatever a majority of sources use(d), so I assume that is still your position.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

          Now, you may accuse me and other trans editors of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:ACTIVISM, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. Others have. I'll say in response that conversations that ignore or minimize the well-being of our trans editors and readers diminish the usefulness of this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Referring to a trans person by their deadname" has nothing to do with what I said or proposed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  My personal feeling on this is that we should have separate guidelines for modern trans people who are dead and historical trans people. But I don't have a great idea for what the separator should be other than maybe year of death. Anyone who died before around 1950 would be a historical figure by this standard. Loki (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  ... wrong ... for us to also misgender her. That's probably why that featured article does not contain her deadname — Surely mentioning a deadname ("John Smith (born Mary Smith) ....") is not the same as misgendering ("John started her first job"). Mitch Ames (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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