Talk:Quinn (soccer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 12 September 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved Sceptre (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Rebecca Quinn (soccer) → Quinn (soccer) – Quinn recently came out as transgender, and announced on their twitter, @thequinny5, that they no longer use the first name of "Rebecca." This change would reflect that. I have updated the page content as well but am not autoconfirmed to be able to make this change myself. 2600:1700:9930:7CA0:F04F:963E:314C:412C (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page just got protected - might be worth discussing first as might be controversial. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've read the Instagram post and it doesn't say the article subject wants to be known by surname only? All the reliable sources covering the 'coming out' use the name Rebecca Quinn. Admittedly I haven't ploughed through the 600 or so comments on the Instagram post. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, okay, it seems the article subject has subsequently repudiated their first name so per WP:GENDERID we can't use it. Perhaps it would have been better if they had expressed this wish to be known mononymously (or by the first name '*'?) in their initial statement? Quinn (soccer) is obviously not ideal, because there are several other more notable footballers named Quinn. It would be helpful for us if their new name was forthcoming soon, although – understandably – the plight of baffled wikipedia editors is probably not uppermost in their mind right now! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Quinn has stated on Twitter their opposition to being dead named in many of the "mainstream articles" about their coming out, including replying to an Out Magazine Instagram post correcting Out's use of their dead name, replying "* Quinn". They have not yet publicly stated a new preferred given name, and on all social media are now purposefully going by simply "Quinn". Ehurtley (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per vote above it seems clear they have a preference to not use their old name and instead want Quinn for now. So a page move is justified by MOS:DEADNAME.Rab V (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – as per the reasons stated by Ehurtley and Rab V. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given the player's clear indication their deadname is no longer desired. Should they select a new first name at some point, I imagine another move would apply then. But we should respect their wishes until such a time. Radagast (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 19:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2 August 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Naming convention guidelines are clear, so being bold and moving. (non-admin closure) POLITANVM talk 14:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn (Association football player) → Quinn (soccer) – Seeking consensus to undo a move done without consensus or an edit summary. It is standard practice for North American soccer players to be titled as "John Smith (soccer)" just as much as "John Smith (basketball)" or "John Smith (American football)". The fact that these people are not literal balls does not come into it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It shouldn't have been moved to (Association football player) in the first place, per the sportspeople naming guidelines. POLITANVM talk 14:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note on August 2 move[edit]

Realizing that I didn't follow the process at non-admin closure for requested moves, I'd like to clarify why I closed the requested move without discussion. It appeared to be an uncontroversial request that shouldn't have been a move request in the first place, since:

  • Naming conventions (sportspeople) is clear than Canadian people should use "(soccer)".
  • Quinn (soccer) was the result of a previous requested move, and no new discussion was created for moving to "(Association football player)".
  • Per WP:NOTRM, this is an uncontroversial move that any autoconfirmed editor could have done without a Request for move.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that:

  • There is no deadline for closing discussion, and the article could have been left at "Association football player" for a week.
  • I didn't follow the right process to vote and close a discussion, and may have caused some technical issues in reporting on RMs, or misused a template. I should have made sure I understood all of the technical and process components of closing RMs.

I do believe I followed the spirit of WP:RM, but I'll re-open the move discussion if anyone feels this was a controversial close. POLITANVM talk 17:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed like a well done closure to me, @Politanvm. Just remember to follow WP:RMNAC. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 07:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021[edit]

Remove - Birth name Rebecca Catherine Quinn[2] from article. Because Quinn is trans they don't deserve everyone knowing their birth name and it’s blatantly offensive to do so. I would request you do the same to every trans persons article. I request this as a non binary person myself. A birth name isn’t important and needs to be removed. 2600:1700:FF80:F580:500C:DE1E:28D6:56EC (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:FF80:F580:500C:DE1E:28D6:56EC: According to the project's guidelines, specifically WP:DEADNAME, the former name of a living transgender person is allowed to be added in the lede if they were notable under that name, which appears to be the case here. Isabelle 🔔 02:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Appears to be disagreement on whether or not they were notable under their birth name. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 04:33, 3 August 2
 Done  Note: Based on the consensus of the page move, I'm going to reason their dead name should not be included in the article as well. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 06:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concern, the page name move did not include consensus for removing their dead name. Please clarify as Quinn was notable under their dead name. Aeonx (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021 (2)[edit]

I think that this bio should not include the name they were assigned at birth. 2600:1700:DDD0:4610:0:0:0:43 (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
Note: Based on the consensus of the page move, I'm going to reason their dead name should not be included in the article as well. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 06:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone Consensus for a policy-based title change cannot extend to a separate content change, and especially when that content change would contravene policy (Quinn was a notable soccer player when using their former name). IronGargoyle (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the birth assigned name should not be included in the lead. Hmlarson (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name should be included in the lead if the subject is notable under the former name. That's what the manual of style states and there is no consensus to remove the name and override the guideline. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: It should be noted you have two contributions to this article: both reverts to this edit request approved by FormalDude and seconded by other editors contributing to the article. Your reverts are not WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:EW.
The birth name is already in the infobox. Hmlarson (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is the guideline at MOS:NB. The guideline illustrates inclusion in the lead when the subject was notable under the former name. It is completely misleading to state that there was consensus to override an editorial guideline in a move discussion which only addressed the article title. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated discussion
It's not and your transphobia is really glaring. Should we add a link to your edits as a citation? Hmlarson (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blatant personal attack and completely unjustified. I would request that that you strike your comment immediately. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: I'm sure you're quite familiar with personal attacks. Back to improving the article... thanks for the inspiration. Hmlarson (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're going to double down on your personal attack by making some strange insinuation with a link to a twitter thread I'm in no way involved in? That's great. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's stop here or continue your discussion outside of the edit request please.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done Re-instituting the change and leaving their dead name in the infobox. I also removed the "female at birth" per WP:BINARY.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if you didn't edit my comments. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, feel free to change it back. I just thought it helped make it clearer.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: - if you look at the advisories at the top of this talk page, it clearly states "This article should adhere to the identity guideline because it contains material about one or more transgender people. Main biographical articles should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources." Per their declaration here, dead name should definitely not be in the lead. Hmlarson (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: Feel free to take up your concerns in the discussion below. I've put my two cents in already. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: Actually, just followed the instruction in the noted advisory. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see a lot of confusion in this Talk section. MOS:DEADNAME specifies that the former names BLPs used while Notable are to be included in the lead sentence. In this case (as in the DEADNAME example, Elliot Page), the Notable former name is not the full birth name, which is therefore not included. Also, since the full birth name is not included in the article, it is therefore not to be included in the infobox, either. After some glitches, I did finally manage to edit the article to follow MOS:DEADNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of sex assigned at birth as relevant[edit]

I believe the inclusion of Quinn's sex assigned at birth is an important aspect to the article, and that it does not go against MOS:NB. Refer to this edit: [1]. I believe this edit should be restored. Aeonx (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The rule cited to remove this information is being fundamentally misapplied. The rule cited to remove the birth information is actually intended to maintain pronoun use consistent with the subject’s expressed gender identity. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be undue prominence to have their assigned sex be the first statement after the lede. Most of the articles that mention their assigned sex only do so several paragraphs in as an explanatory note. This article already covers why they play for a women’s team in the Personal life section, so the information is there without it being the first thing. While it is well sourced, and doesn’t violate the letter of MOS:GENDERID, it overemphasizes their assigned sex, when the primary topic of notability is playing soccer. If it does get included in the Early life section, it should be given similar weight as it does in the cited sources, rather than being the very first words. POLITANVM talk 00:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don’t care where “assigned at birth” is mentioned. I agree that it shouldn’t be overemphasized. Former names (in cases where the subject was notable while using said names) should occur in the lead, however. That’s established clearly in the guidelines. Quinn was clearly notable while using their former name. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This misrepresents the BBC source slightly. The article states that Quinn was allowed to play on the Women's team because of their "sex". The article mentions "sex assigned at birth" later as a clarification related to their personal transition journey. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also reads as a clarification of the distinction between sex and gender. The article clearly connects them. It isn’t a misrepresentation to summarize three connected sentences into one. POLITANVM talk 03:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading because the leagues allowing Quinn to play probably would care if they had begun hormone treatments or gender confirmation surgery (i.e., things that would affect external physical sex characteristics). Sex assigned at birth would likely not have been as important to the Olympics and sports leagues as physical sex characteristics now. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s original research. The article says they play on that team because of their sex, and that their sex is AFAB. It’s a straightforward paraphrase, and doesn’t require guessing about a hypothetical scenario. POLITANVM talk 11:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know. What I am pointing out is that the plain language of the BBC article uses the word "sex" to explain why Quinn is allowed to play and not "sex assigned at birth". I just used that as an example of why the terms of are not necessarily equivalent in this case and why we should use the specific terminology from the source. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Politanvm's edit is fine. sex assignment is more correct than simply sex. Wikipedia doesn't need to exactly reflect the wording used by the source. The intent and meaning is clear. Aeonx (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking the unpopular stance of applying WP:IAR. The policy in question is:

A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it.

I take this to mean that the burden of proof is whether they were notable enough to include their former name in the article. If so, it can be included in the lede. I think there is disagreement on whether or not they were notable under their former name. This is where I apply IAR–I think because the notability is weak, it would be undue prominence to have it in the lede section, and therefore, should only be included in the infobox.
I'm most likely to be convinced to change my mind if there is evidence that they were significantly notable under their former name, but I have not seen any. In fact, I see evidence that they were equally notable under both names, such as reliable sources from before their name change still calling them just "Quinn" [2].  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quinn's article has been around since 2014. Quinn did not publicly come out as transgender until 2020. Here's an example of a Google news search for articles about Quinn (using their former name) from 2019 and before. There is a lot of major coverage. Quinn is one of the top soccer players in the world and has been for some time. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then based on policy it does warrant including Quinn's former name in the lead. Sorry for if my protests were excessive, I wanted to make sure we were going the right way here. I'll revert my edits.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 04:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their deadname has encyclopedic value in that it ties many references to the person; including one I add just a few days ago: [3]. If a WP policy will help comprehend the 'right way', suggest starting with WP:5P1 and WP:5P5. Aeonx (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few points here. 1. The edit in question is separate to the name issue, this is purely about factually reporting their assigned sex at birth. 2. Gender identification and biological sex assignment are different. 3. They were notably before publicly identifying their sex assignment at birth was incorrect. Aeonx (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it might be undue prominence to have their assigned sex be the first statement after the lede, a compromise would be to move it to Section 5 Quinn_(soccer)#Personal_life. Aeonx (talk) Aeonx (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could change They were permitted to continue playing professional women's soccer on the basis of their sex assigned at birth, rather than gender identity. to Since they were assigned female at birth, they remain eligible to play on the women’s soccer team.
It covers their sex assigned at birth, is a bit shorter/simpler, and is a closer paraphrase of the BBC source (though slightly re-ordered). POLITANVM talk 18:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good compromise. Aeonx (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of previous middle name[edit]

As discussed at length by others above, Quinn was notable under their previous first name. But in regards to their previous middle name, I cannot find any evidence of notability or relevance, such as news articles that used it (Google News search results for full former name prior to 2020). Even if it appeared in previous FIFA guides (as referenced), the guidelines at MOS:NB suggest their former middle name is not otherwise necessary and should be omitted. The approach taken for the article on Elliot Page ("formerly [previous first name] [last name]" in the lede and omitting their name at birth from the infobox) seems more pertinent here. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 16:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Elliot Page had a middle name; rather an unused hyphenated surname 'Philpotts-Page'. But that's beside the point here, I agree there is probably limited encyclopedic value in stating Quinn's dead middle name. It might be useful for editors for research purposes something so I'd suggest making it hidden text as per WP:HIDDEN. Aeonx (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some previous revisions of that article listed a middle name, though it's possible that was not properly sourced. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 18:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Elliot Page bears witness that the reason the birth name rules wasn't any problem with sources, but a complete lack of Notability under the birth name. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given Quinn was previously notable under a female name and given everyone else on Wikipedia has their full names listed whether their full names are widely known or not I fail to see why this would be an issue or why an exception should be made. Are you arguing that everyone should be listed only under their best-known name (a major and non-encyclopaedic change) or simply that this one person (or all transgender people formerly well-known under another name which is therefore listed) should be an exception for an unspecified reason? Please explain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that everyone else on Wikipedia has their full names listed whether their full names are widely known or not. In the case of nonbinary and trans people, only notable former names are included in WP articles. MOS:DEADNAME currently requires that all transgender people formerly well-known under another name which is therefore listed are listed only by the notable name, and not by the birth name. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Newimpartial is exactly right. I support their edits to the article. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this is reasonable (and to be honest I think that the long-term solution here is treating cis people's previous names more like the way we treat trans people's, not vice versa, but that's a larger policy question). And I really doubt that a middle name will be of much help to a researcher, when Quinn's profession and other biographical details are an easy enough way to disambiguate them from anyone else né(e) Rebecca Quinn. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:DEADNAME: From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ... So, no, this is not true at all. Manning was never commonly known as Bradley Edward Manning, but the former full name is still listed in the article and mandated by DEADNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But also from WP:DEADNAME: From Elliot Page, notable under prior name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) .... So while things are less standardized than I suggested in my last comment, and older entries are sometimes difficult to change to match emerging norms, your prior statement that everyone else on Wikipedia has their full names listed whether their full names are widely known is still demonstrably wrong, unless my everyone else you meant all people who are not trans or nonbinary - in which case it was merely irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly meant non-transgender people (and, indeed, transgender people like Manning who have adopted a new middle name as well as a first name)! Why is the middle name any more relevant to non-transgender people who do not use it than it is to transgender people who have changed it? This makes no sense and is obviously not irrelevant. It's special pleading for a particular group of people with no basis in common sense, given part of their previous name has already been listed. Why is it wrong to describe Quinn as "formerly Rebecca Catherine Quinn", but not as "formerly Rebecca Quinn"? Yet, before they became just Quinn it was perfectly acceptable to list them as "Rebecca Catherine Quinn", even though they didn't commonly use their middle name even then (as the vast majority of people do not). No argument has been advanced as to why this should be the case, as far as I can tell, other than "well, it just should be"! There seems no good reason to make an exception to our general rule (in common with most encyclopaedias) of listing full names whether they are or were used or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have a guideline, subject to wide community consensus, that we do not include non-notable deadnames of trans and nonbinary people in Article space. And since this consensus was reached (in 2019), it has been fairly consistently interpreted strictly, as requiring the removal of any elements of "birth names" that were not part of the actually notable name. I'm sorry if you can't see the basis in commom sense to that, but common sense it is, and with WP practice to back it up. And if you don't grasp on a gut level the difference between a widely-consulted site publishing your Notable professional name and the same site publishing your legal name at birth, perhaps you so not understand Deadnaming (and WP:BLPPRIVACY) as well as you think you do. Much as you might be inclined to whinge, WP policy has (since prior to 2015) recognized the trans and nonbinary particular group as requiring distinct treatment in the encyclopaedia; the community does not see this as special pleading, even though you clearly do. Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it odd how an attempt to establish exactly why consistency should not be adhered to (and once again, see Manning) can garner such an unpleasant and rude response? Clearly you don't understand WP:CIVIL (and, indeed, WP:BLPPRIVACY) as well as you think you do! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given any reason exactly why consistency should ... be adhered to with the Manning example in DEADNAME rather than the Page example. YOULIKEIT seems to be implied here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

Hi @Hmlarson, are the books in the Further reading section about Quinn or just about LGBT people in athletics and soccer? I haven’t read them, but my understanding of Wikipedia:Further reading is that they should directly cover the article’s subject. I would guess they’re mentioned in the recent ones, but one of the books is dated 2012. POLITANVM talk 19:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
photo of Quinn smiling in red and blue soccer jersey with white trim around the neck
Quinn playing for the Washington Spirit, 2018

Created/expanded by Hmlarson (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • In progress - its long enough, but old. As an expansion its 9056 now and seven days ago it was 1943. So 5 times 1943 = 9715. So its about 700 chars under by my calc. Lots of refs but a few needed at the start of "International Career". Well written but I would mention that the national team they plays for competes in the women's competition. Its neutral and I see no sign of close paraphrasing. Too small an expansion. Ping me Victuallers (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Victuallers: Thank you. I've expanded the article to 11401 characters (1931 words). This is primarily the last paragraph of the International career section (2020 Olympics). I also added the missing refs you spotted. "I would mention that the national team she plays for competes in" - not in agreement with that statement - feel free to change yourself... without the "she". Hmlarson (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complies with DYK rules. Its expanded by a factor of 5 and its recent. The hook is ok for length and interest but I think they should have an image and there is one available (and its for visibility and license). Good neutral biog. QPQ is done. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To T:DYK/P5 (i am trans non-binary and i appreciate this hook :)

Quinn's trans status and former name on mononymy list[edit]

I just reverted removal of "transgender" as the reason for Quinn's inclusion on List of legally mononymous people, which also includes their former name.

This is subject to the biographies of living people privacy policy, eg if Quinn requests it to be removed, and as discussed above.

Admins: if this information is removed from this page per WP:BLPPRIVACY / WP:RFO, please remove and salt the trans status and former name, as applicable, from the mononymy list also (and if not, not). Inclusion on the list is based on info in this article.

@Sceptre, FormalDude, Aeonx, IronGargoyle, Newimpartial, Politanvm, and Tamzin: (courtesy ping).

Have also sent this to RFO team for review. Sai ¿?✍ 10:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow. What do you think violates BLP here or could be OSable? We can debate how much weight should be given to their former name, here or elsewhere, but I don't see how it could be OSable. Likewise the fact that they're trans is very well-documented; they're currently one of the most visible trans people in the world. (Also, in general, if you make an OS request, best to wait for an answer from Primefac the OS team before discussing on-wiki.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I believe former name and ASAB are OSable in general; I'm not expressing an opinion on whether they should be here. Only saying that the list should mirror the page and OS team should review it. (Also, I didn't say anything here that wasn't already above, nor would I.) Sai ¿?✍ 10:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, never hurts to send something to OS. But this is a case where it's pretty well-established by reliable sources that they are trans and what their birth name was. There's no privacy interest at stake here as there would be if someone edits the article on John Academic to mention without a source that he was born Jane Academic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'll only reply here to avoid redundancy, but the only time former/deadnames are suppressed are when the individual was not known by that name before their announcement/transition/etc. This is clearly not the case here, so there is nothing to suppress. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Quinn was Notable by their middle name? Because I don't see any evidence of that. Per WP:CONLEVEL, please see MOS:DEADNAME and the example of Elliot Page, which it provides. The specific language there was subject to ling and extensive consultation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of an aside, and I can bring it up on the list page instead, but is there a source that says Quinn is their full legal name, and not just the name they go by in public? POLITANVM talk 14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Quinn from the list for now. We don't have reliable sourcing for a legal name change, and more importantly, Quinn was not notable while using their full legal name - which the format of the clar seems to require. So MOS:GENDERID demands exclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Quinn to ask (and point them to this etc). As for mononymous people list, the criterion isn't that the fact of their mononymy is itself notable, only that they (a) are notable, which is generally proven by having a Wikipedia page at all and I think fairly clear here (if not, propose the page for deletion), and (b) are mononymous. Canada is a common law country, so going by a name is a legal name change. See e.g. J. Remy Green's academic article titled "There's no such thing as a legal name". Therefore, Quinn qualifies for inclusion on the list. The only question is whether their gender status or birth name should be on WP at all, which Oversight will decide. Therefore I'm going to revert your good faith removal. However, please do add a better reference if you find one, and as I said in OP, remove their status and birth name if it is removed from this page. Sai ¿?✍ 14:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have removed Quinn from that list since the analysis required (that Canada allows name changes through use alone) goes beyond triviality, and is original for the claim that they are legally mononymous. Urve (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Urve: I've reverted it, and added a reference to a Canadian Supreme Court decision saying that Canada allows legal name change by usage alone. If you wish to dispute this particular aspect further, please do so at Talk:List of legally mononymous people, not here, as it isn't about Quinn themselves. Please read J. Remy Green, There's no such thing as a legal name. That's a clear and reliable expert source, talking exactly about this issue in common law jurisdictions.
I must also note with some concern the parallel to gender.
In common law countries, your name is whatever you say it is, regardless of whether the government has registered that or not. This is very parallel to the fact that your gender is whatever your say it is, regardless of whether the government has changed your ID or not.
We don't require anyone (particularly trans people) to have a verifiable birth certificate, court order, or government ID for either name or gender — nor could we, as BC & ID are nearly anyways protected by privacy laws (and for trans people, name/gender change orders are often protected by seal). Reporters don't have access to them either. How do you know what anyone's name or gender is in the first place? By common usage. Same here. You can't impose a higher standard of verification for a change than for the default.
I respectfully suggest that your position on this is not just incorrect as a matter of law, but just as disrespectful of trans people (who change names because of that) as demands to see "proof" of gender change. Sai ¿?✍ 14:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Canada doesn’t have a single concept of a legal name, why add Canadians to a list of people based on their legal name? Having skimmed the 60 page document about “legal names”, it seems reasonable to include Quinn on the list, even though based on that document, the entire article doesn’t make sense for the US or Canada. But accusing someone of disrespect for talking about legal names in a discussion about an article titled “List of legally mononymous people” isn’t helpful to improving the article. POLITANVM talk 14:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most Canadians, like most modern people in general, have only one full/primary name (usually a polynym); though many people also have nicknames, they are a socially distinct kind of name. The fact that the common law courts have a more nuanced view of names than most people do is hardly a detriment to the validity of their name; it's just a recognition of social fact which is fairly universal, even when not explicitly recognized by the courts. Mononymous people in Western countries are still extremely rare — and therefore their mononymy is notable (if the person is themselves notable in the first place). Surely you would agree that e.g. Teller's name is a notable fact, regardless of his nationality?
However, I do believe that the the distinction between "legal name", "stage name", "nickname", etc. is not very well founded. I created that list page in the first place, and the reason for its name was to contrast with the previously-existing lists of stage names and pseudonyms. I now believe that to have been an error, and have been thinking about how to fix it for a while. Before I saw your comment, I had just composed this bot request, which I hope would help address the issue by consolidating these.
To be clear, I did not mean to suggest that you intended any disrespect. I don't believe you did. Rather, I said that the framing you stated was implicitly disrespectful. Just like most people who call me "Mr. Sai" or "Sir" are unlikely to intend anything negative (usually the opposite), but it is nevertheless deprecating (since I'm non-binary, not male, and those terms are misgendering). I hope that you'll consider this simply as a learning opportunity, not a slight to your character. Sai ¿?✍ 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and perhaps I responded to curtly. I’m happy to be corrected, since while I’m familiar with the problematic ways given names are deified, I’m obviously not a name law expert and don’t have the lived experience of changing my name.
To explain why I was surprised by your response to Urve, in the context of an article about legal names, of course I and Urve framed our comments around sources documenting a legal name change. It would have been weird if we were talking about anything except reliable sources discussing legal names.
Anyway, I support your proposal to merge the mononym articles. It should solve the disagreement in this thread, and likely other indignities regarding names. POLITANVM talk 18:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, your going to Oversight isn't a valid justification for a WP:BLP vio, in this case by means of MOS:GENDERID. There is no question that Quinn's trans status is reliably sourced, but there is also no possibility that Quinn's birth name - which is not in the Quinn article - should be included elsewhere in Wikipedia. It should not, per community-level consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Quinn's birth name is in the current article, as is their trans status being the reason for the name change; therefore those parts are in the list as well.

However, their birth middle name is no longer in the article, so I have removed that part from the list, to match.

I note that having a reliable source is not sufficient to prove that a potentially private detail is of enough public interest to overcome the identified person's privacy preferences. My email to Quinn included information on how to tell Oversight about their preferences in this regard; they'll decide it.

I said at the outset that the list should have the same details as are on the page, including after any privacy redaction.

Also just FYI: I am non-binary and mononymous, and have had my birth name redacted from WP. I support Quinn having their birth name removed from WP if they want it to be.

Their ASAB is probably difficult to remove, given that their primary notability is from being on a gendered Olympic team. Neither of those are my decisions to make, though. Sai ¿?✍ 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps English is not your first language, but Quinn's birth name is not in this article; what is in the article is their notable former name, which excludes the middle name.
While WP does respond to the privacy preferences of individuals to some extent, MOS:GENDERID as a guideline has site-wide consensus, and it would take something more than an ok from a publicist to include a non-notable former name in a article space.
On the other hand, even if Quinn wanted their transgender status kept out of article space, WP would not do that because their coming out, and their olympic "firsts" as a transgender athlete, have become an important additional source of Notability apart from their career as such. It would be an immense overreach for Oversight to try to remove that information from article space, and I am confident they would not try, even if asked. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Please don't be insulting. English is one of my native languages. Moreover, I've studied naming law fairly extensively (as might be noted from my offhand cite of a law review article on that precise subject, and Canadian naming law in particular), and I run a private discussion group for mononymous people. I'm not asserting my expertise on that as a basis for any policy outcome here, just as a suggestion treat others with a bit more respect.
As best I can tell, the trinym that was previously listed was either Quinn's full birthname, or their full name prior to this change. The distinction isn't relevant here. Middle names are part of the full name of people who have them, just as much as their surnames or given names. (And yes, people can have zero, one, or multiple of each.)
I said that I personally think that Quinn has a strong privacy interest in their ASAB and even their trans status. That is limited to the extent that they have publicly disclosed it (in their own media or in interviews e.g.), that it's unavoidably public (e.g. due to being in a gendered Olympic team), or that public interest in the fact overrides their personal privacy interests (which is a gray area requiring a judgment call) — just as you alluded to.
I also said clearly that I personally support the redaction of Quinn's birthname (or former name, if there was an intermediate change) if that is Quinn's preference — not just from the page but from edit history as well — and that I gave them the information for how to inform Oversight about this. I personally don't believe that their birth/former given name or middle name are notable enough to overcome Quinn's personal privacy interest in those facts, and unlike membership of an Olympic team, those facts are not intrinsic to Quinn's notability.
However, I believe that their former name is in a gray area, because there are at least some reasonable arguments in favor of keeping that in the article. I don't agree with those arguments on the whole, but it's not my call to make. It's the Oversight team's call, and they'll address it promptly enough. Whatever the outcome, it should be applied to the page and the mononymous people list identically. Sai ¿?✍
Regardless of anyone's linguistic competency, I think you are mistaking legal expertise - and in particular, Canadian legal expertise - for something that is relevant to WP policy. It is not. Within the framework of MOS:DEADNAME - which you have not yet recognized as the guideline embodying community-wide consensus in this domain - a "notable previous name" is not the whole of a former legal (or full) name, it is only those elements of the name by which they were Notable. If a trans or nonbinary person was not notable by their former full name, but only some part of it or a modified version of it, then only the part by which they were notable can appear in article space.
Similarly, while MOS:GENDERID recognizes BLPPRIVACY as relevant to trans people's BLP articles, it also delineates the scope of that interest by community consensus: namely, aspects of an individual's biography by which they are, or were, Notable are not to be redacted. While criminal accusations and defamation can produce exceptions at the margins, routine gender identity announcements by famous people are most certainly not part of any such grey area. Finally, it seems to me that your participation in these areas would be more fruitful if you were to become more familiar with the relevant guidelines rather than applying your expertise derived from other domains to an environment where it literally does not apply. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn's pronouns[edit]

I have seen that in several instances, the wrong pronouns have been used. Quinn uses they/them pronouns and in several instances, there is she/her used. Especially under the personal life where it states about how important they think addressing people by the correct name and pronouns is important. Sage0Ashes (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Sage0Ashes. This has already been fixed by YorkshireLad, as you can see here. Isabelle 🔔 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sage0Ashes and Isabelle_Belato, apologies that I did not see this message before I fixed it. The edits in question changing the article to the wrong pronouns were made a couple of hours before I fixed it, and also changed the reference to Quinn's previous name, instead saying it was their "birth name". This latter wording seems to have been subject to debate above; I thought it better to revert to the status quo ante, especially given that the rest of the changes made were unhelpful and against the Manual of Style. Thanks from me too, Sage0Ashes, for letting us know about this. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn wiki preview on Google[edit]

It's interesting that Google has been omitting "born" and "formerly" altogether. Hmlarson (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google always omits text within brackets, this is neither suprising or profound. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it's more accurate (and interesting). "Suprising" or profound are your words. Hmlarson (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021[edit]

She is referred to as ‘their/they’ instead of ‘she/her’. 129.18.193.147 (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per MOS:NB
 Already done As far as I can tell there are no uses of the wrong pronouns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 August 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn (soccer) → Quinn (soccer player) – The current disamb parenthesis make it seem like they are a concept or term related to football, rather than a person and player. Especially their mononymous name makes it more unclear. Much like we don't title this article "Teller (magic)" and this article "Shroud (game)", we should make this parenthesis clearer too. Gaioa (T C L) 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Gaioa (T C L) 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 20:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above, article is already located at standard disambiguation. GiantSnowman 20:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dead name[edit]

I believe that it is harmful and not helpful to include their deadname on their page (first name before transitioning). 97.126.8.237 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Existing policy is at MOS:DEADNAME, it is being followed accurately here. Radagast (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unfortunately, edits are locked, but this should 100% be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.193.204 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:DEADNAME. Because Quinn was clearly notable by their deadname, pre-transition, the WP consensus is to retain their deadname in one or two places in the article while minimizing its use. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023[edit]

"Quinn was assigned female at birth but after many years of questioning themselves, realised their own gender identity did not match their sex." - this is an important part of their journey and should be mentioned. From: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54233946#:~:text=Quinn%20was%20assigned%20female%20at,did%20not%20match%20their%20sex. Bondonk (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondonk: How should this be mentioned? Be sure to specify in the form of "change X to Y" as per the edit request template. Deauthorized. (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the "Early Life" section add: "Quinn was assigned female at birth but after many years of questioning themselves, realised their own gender identity did not match their sex. In September 2020 Quinn publicly came out as transgender [ref BBC article]"
This is not to change, but rather to add. Bondonk (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: This seems to be adequately covered already in the Personal life section. Xan747 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First 'out' trans or non-binary footballer[edit]

Under Personal life, please can someone change it from this:

In 2023, Quinn became the first trans or non-binary footballer at the FIFA World Cup.

to this:

In 2023, Quinn became the first out transgender or non-binary footballer at the FIFA World Cup.

Rationale: There's no way in the wide butch history of sport that Quinn is the first trans or non-binary footballer. Not to undermine their courgeous achievement, but they are only the first one to come out publicly and ask to be recognised for who they truly are. Gender diversity is not new. Even the citation to which this sentence links has the headline "Quinn: The 'ground-breaking' first out transgender player at a Fifa World Cup", and it does not make the claim that Quinn is the first trans player period. (emphasis added) CreekMagic (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023[edit]

Remove Quinn’s deadname. Murphyklh (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See the earlier edit request for this change. RudolfRed (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quinn_(soccer)&oldid=1204200799"