Talk:Peppermint (entertainer)

TV credits

Peppermint has appeared on The A-List: New York and America’s Next Top Model. Episode titles and references need to be found for these. Peppermint has also appeared in music videos for Debbie Harry and the Scissor Sisters, but I can't find which. Burnberrytree (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Update legal name?

I've seen multiple times on social media that Peppermint is a trans woman and does not identify herself as "Kevin", but I'm having trouble finding a good source to provide that update somewhere on the article ~Helicopter Llama~ 23:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. One's birth name is a fact and belongs here. She doesn't perform at the Tunnel anymore but that doesn't mean we don't mention the Tunnel (and, yes, everybody called it "the Tunnel" when we went there back in the day...!) --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Related to this, anon IPs have been vandalizing the article to remove Peppermint's birth name, which is from The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware, the largest paper in the state, with an article written by one of her old classmates who is now a writer for the paper. Trying to censor it from Wikipedia when it is out there in a Gannett-owned, significant and WP:RS newspaper is both misguided and ineffective. The name is public record. Trying to censor a TV celebrity's public-record birth name in Wikipedia is against policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ATWV and WP:ASG; it's not constructive to accuse these IP addresses of "vandalizing" or "censoring", simply because they believe one shouldn't deadname. Per MOS:BIRTHNAME:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly":

• (from Laverne Cox, not notable prior to coming out) Laverne Cox (born May 29) ...
• (from Chelsea Manning, notable prior to coming out) Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...

How notable was she (Moore, not her drag persona) before her Meet the Queens video for RPDR? Umimmak (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Umimmak. If Peppermint was not notable prior to transitioning then her previous name does not belong in the lead, per MOS:BIRTHNAME. (I would argue that the prior name doesn't belong in the article at all, but the current policy only specifies the lead sentence.) It doesn't matter if another publication has listed her previous name, even if that publication is a reliable source. Funcrunch (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If necessary (I don't see how a birthname unrelated to the person's notability is particularly important), the birthname can be mentioned in the personal life section. MOS:BIRTHNAME is quite clear that it doesn't belong in the lead.--Trystan (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that update at MOS:BIRTHNAME and you are correct. I'll move to Personal life. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that it's salient enough to even provide there, it seems so rarely mentioned by RS. Rab V (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peppermint (drag queen). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That discussion ended with no consensus to remove the RS-cited content. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

BLP, name, edit warring

Please discuss proposed changes here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image

The image I added today was taken by myself and is freely licensed under Creative Commons. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Career - RuPaul's Drag Race

THere is a mistake: "She finished in second place after winner Sasha Velour, after they both lipsynced to Whitney Houston's "It's Not Right but It's Okay".[9]"

The song of the lipsync was Whitney Houston's "So Emotional".

Rick 195.220.100.11 (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Birthday & Peppermint getting honored by the NYC City councel for her LGBT activism

Can Peppermint's birthday (January 31st 1980) be added, she confirms the January 31st date on her instagram here (the year is missing, but it's spread throughout the internet and shows up in her short google bio): https://www.instagram.com/p/Beno7O3nVGc/?taken-by=peppermint247

Also Peppermint recently got honored by the New York City councel for her activism, I'd love to provide sources but all newsoutlets that reported about it are owned by Viacom, who have recently regio-blocked all of their websites, so that they can't be accessible in Europe anymore. I don't know if the article is fit for wikipedia's criteria of credibility. It's from NewNowNext and shows up first on Google when you search "Peppermint New York City Councel" 2A02:810C:200:70C0:3C77:3720:452D:BBFB (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Deadname

Peppermint was never notable by her birth name, so why is it included in this article? Many trans people do not wish for their former names to be mentioned (hence the term "deadname"), and it adds nothing of value to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

One's birth name is a basic, pertinent biographical fact, just like birthplace and birthdate. Wikipedia specifically asks it not be in the lead of a trans person's biography, but certainly allows it elsewhere. In this case, the subject is a public figure who appeared on a high-profile TV series and is a highly public performer. Her birth name has been published in multiple RS outlets — including one that interviewed both Peppermint and her mother. Neither raised objections, and there is no record that Peppermint has raised objections to Wikipedia, which BLP subjects absolutely can do, if they wish to. I'm not sure we should be presuming something that may be important to one or another editor, but not to the majority of editors or to the subject herself. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No. It does zero to add to the article, and deadnaming (See Transphobia) is a well-understood concept used to misgender and cause real world harm to trans people. The only pertinent fact here is that she was born male at birth, which is included. Her Deadname is insulting to include unless absolutely unavoidable, which in this case is not, on the world’s fact site, that is seen by everyone forever. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There has been ample discussion about this before, see BLPN archive.

According to IMDb, she was credited as Kevin Moore for several of the works that we currently list under "Filmography", e.g. Fur (film). So the above claim "was never notable by her birth name" is questionable.

The venerable Bay Area Reporter used the birth name as recently as 2018, and I would trust them to navigate trans rights correctly. While transphobia certainly causes real world physical harm in general, the accusation that mere mention of the birth name is doing so in this particular case is entirely unsubstantiated. Sure, per WP:DEADNAME, we should carefully evaluate whether the birth name is notable enough to be included in the lede. But mentioning it in the article body seems justified.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

At best I think this lands it as an editorial decision. I hardly accept IMDB as a reliable source. All things considered then still puts this as doing real world harm with zero net benefit to the reader. I don’t see any gain to listing her Deadname whatsoever.

At best it lends a case to be made for simply stating she had credit(s) under her birth name, no need to use when BLP cautions is to edit conservatively in private areas. wp:TRANSNAME discusses this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Where is the documentation that this birth name is a deadname? Are there WP:RS which call it a deadname, or do they explain that she no longer wishes to use it, or that her new name supplants her birth name in every way? It seems to me presumptuous and insensitive to simply assume, just because she is a trans woman, that her birth name is a deadname. Not all trans people are alike, and not all of them are stigmatized by having a birth name given to them. Elizium23 (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Agnes Moore, is her name, the vast majority of trans women in particular completely abandon their Deadname lives, often because they’ve also been disowned by their birth families. *Any* reminder or misgendering is assumed to be transphobic. Trans women routinely are shaded for not being real enough and violence against trans women of color in particular is off the charts. The trans women I know are extremely aware and sensitive to this, once they get treated like that they never walk in that store again assuming next time it could be violent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, so you have assumptions and anecdotes? Good start! Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm like this is not helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither is it helpful for Gleeanon409 to make assumptions based on his or her own personal biases and pretending as if they can read Peppermint's mind. The concrete fact is that despite Gleeanon409's assumptions, Peppermint has never demonstrated an issue with this — not a letter-to-the-editor, not a complaint filed with Wikipedia. Why don't we respect her decision to take pride in her journey? --65.78.8.103 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are not "assumptions" based on "personal biases"—trauma caused by deadnaming is a documented phenomenon ([1], [2], etc.). Furthermore we don't know that Peppermint has decided she would like to be public about her birth name, as you are implying. I also don't think it's kind to imply that trans people who do not wish their former names to be known are somehow ashamed of their journeys. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is in doubt that she prefers to be referred to as "Agnes Moore". But that's not what this debate is about - as far as I can see, nobody has proposed that the article call her by her birth name. Rather it's about mentioning the birth name. See Use–mention distinction. Regard, HaeB (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The ample discussion at BLPN did not result in consensus, hence why I have restarted the discussion. The onus on us is not to assume that something known to be hurtful to many transgender people is by default not hurtful; it's the other way around. If Peppermint has stated explicitly and recently that she is comfortable with her birth name being public information, then I have no objections to its inclusion. If she hasn't, we should err on the side of minimizing potential harm by not including it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the opposite of how Wikipedia is set up. Wikipedia has a process for a subject to request something not be mentioned. And the notion that anybody would say, in an interview or anyone else, "Here's what's OK to say about me" is completely unrealistic. The fact she and her mother were OK with her old friend and classmate who interviewed them putting it in that Wilmington News Journal / USA Today newspaper story is by any reasonable measure consent ... as is the fact it's been here for years without issue from her. Whitewashing pertinent facts that we would include for anyone else is paternalistic, saying that we know better than she what's good for her. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly how Wikipedia is set up. The entire BLP policy is about ensuring that articles about living people are written with respect to the subject: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and there's an enormous section titled Presumption in favor of privacy. Peppermint does not have to explicitly say "It's okay to use my birth name"—if she herself mentions the name I think that would be fine. But I don't think we should assume she was given pre-publication access to the article you're referring to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s fairly disingenuous to put the onus on the subject of an article to bring even more attention to an aspect of her past life she wish didn’t exist. She used her birth name as legally required until she no longer had to; then was Agnes Moore, better known as Peppermint. There is zero need to use her Deadname, and it offers zero benefit to the reader in this case. Coupled with that we have ample evidence that Deadnaming causes real world harm to trans people who often go to great lengths to disassociate from their deadnaming past. This is an editorial decision and the balance goes to privacy on a BLP. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on whether to include Peppermint's birth name

Should Peppermint's birth name be included in the "Personal life" section of the article, or omitted from the article completely? (To clarify, it seems to be agreed that the name should not be included in the lead, and that is not the topic of this RfC). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Formalizing this discussion in order to solicit wider input. There was a discussion about this two years ago at BLPN that never reached consensus, and so I think it ought to be revisited. There's also a brief discussion above at #Deadname. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Omit. To summarize my comments above, the onus on us is not to assume publicizing her deadname, which is something known to be hurtful to many transgender people, is by default not hurtful; it's the other way around. If Peppermint has stated explicitly and recently that she is comfortable with her birth name being public information, then I have no objections to its inclusion. If she hasn't, we should err on the side of minimizing potential harm by not including it. This falls in line with the guidance at WP:BLP, particularly on presumption in favor of privacy. Peppermint has said she does not wish for her birth name to be used ([3]) and she is not notable by that name, so it should be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

RE: "If Peppermint has stated explicitly and recently that she is comfortable with her birth name being public information": That's not how it works. Alan Alda does not have to state explicitly that he is comfortable with his birth name Alphonso Joseph D'Abruzzo being made public. Secondly, Peppermint and her mother clearly gave approval for the Wilmington News Journal / USA Today article to include it, since no major news outlet ever would have done so otherwise. Major news outlets do not out people. And LGBT outlets themselves report her birth name. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Alan Alda didn’t change gender, a controversial act, and one that many religious people see as sinful. And one that will make you a target for violence.

And no, that a paper published her birth name is not proof they consented; it’s proof that they felt it was true and that they could publish. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I will reiterate my comment below: Just as no responsible journalist would publish the name of a rape victim unless consent were given, no media outlet the likes of the Wilmington News Journal or USA Today would ever out someone or reveal a trans person's birth name without consent.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re fooling yourself if you believe that. A reporter asks questions of many people and the editors assess the risk of publishing. Nowhere is a code they won’t print without consent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If only that were true. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Don’t include. There is real world harm to trans people in Deadnaming them, the vast majority go to great lengths to distance themselves from their birth name and life before transitioning. In this case she used her legal name until getting it changed to Agnes Moore, all while building the Peppermint brand. As soon as possible the birth name disappears. Added to this is Wp:BLP Privacy and similar which cautions to presume a conservative approach on BLPs, to not include unless unavoidable; that is not true here, there is zero gain in publishing her birth name verses just stating she was born male. We have every reason to believe, like most trans people, that deadnaming would distress her. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Include. The birth name is supported by multiple reliable sources. And according to IMDb, she was credited as Kevin Moore for several of the works that we currently list as notable under "Filmography", e.g. Fur (film). So, contrary to what was said above, there is clear encyclopedic value in mentioning the birth name, and it is actually an open question whether this may be one of the cases for which WP:DEADNAME suggests it can be appropriate to not just mention the birth name, but also include it in the lede as well.

I appreciate the general concerns about transphobia, and it's certainly true that inappropriate deadnaming has been an issue in case of various other Wikipedia articles in the past, so vigilance is justified. But in the end every case has to be judged on its merit. If we follow Gleeanon409 and GorillaWarfare above, we must condemn the venerable Bay Area Reporter (quote from our article: "one of the largest-circulation LGBT newspapers in the United States, and the country's oldest continuously published newspaper of its kind") as a transphobic and harm-causing publication for mentioning the birth name as recently as 2018. And honestly I trust the BAR more to navigate this balance correctly.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Do not omit until evidence of potential/actual harm is produced, or evidence of the subject's displeasure with its usage. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources and reports encyclopedic information found therein. Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Elizium23: I wanted to make sure you see [4], since that would seem to qualify as "evidence of the subject's displeasure with its usage". GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, yes, I agree, so I would support omission based on this evidence of the subject's preference. Elizium23 (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Include Birth names are standard, pertinent, basic biographical information in any encyclopedia. The subject has never objected to this information, and certainly gave approval by revealing it in an article in which she and her mother both were interviwed. If Peppermint, who is a public figure and not a private individual, had any objection, there is a easy process for a subject to contact Wikipedia to register concern. Two editors appear to have a sweeping notion that all trans people are alike and cannot make decisions for themselves, and that we need to be paternalistic and "protect" them since they're not capable of protecting themselves. No: Peppermint is a strong individual who can speak for herself. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• False. That a publication printed her birth name is not proof she consented. Media publish whatever they want and can. Often knowing it will cause harm. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Unless you're talking tabloids and not mainstream newspapers like USA Today, no, media do not "publish whatever they want and can. Often knowing it will cause harm." If that is the false and inaccurate premise from which you are operating, then your position can only be described as fringe and extremist. There are libel laws, There are media watchdogs on both ends of the political spectrum. There are standard journalistic ethics such as those espoused by the Society of Professional Journalists. Just as no responsible journalist would publish the name of a rape victim unless consent were given, no media outlet the likes of the Wilington News Journal or USA Today would ever out someone or reveal a trans person's birth name without consent.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• A reporter asks questions of many people and the editors assess the risk of publishing. Nowhere is a code they won’t print without consent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is, by the Society of Professional Journalists and standard, basic journalistic ethics. According to you, mainstream papers go around publishing the names of rape victims without consent. They do not. This is why.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're talking about rape victims suddenly. But newspapers (including mainstream ones) have absolutely published trans peoples' deadnames without consent: [5]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece in HuffPost reprinted from some website. It's not a neutral, objective news report about any purported systematic ethical breakdown of journalism. We're making the rape-victim name comparison since the only other editor here with an issue was making outrageous claims that journalists can publish anything they want without any legal or ethical restraint. That's false, and I was using one example to demonstrate this is false. If someone is starting out with a false premise, then his subsequent argument is unsupportable.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And the examples that HuffPost opinion piece uses are about two tragically deceased individuals. Once someone is murdered, it becomes a homicide issue with public-record police reports of the murder victim. There is no indication any mainstream press released the names while the individuals were alive.

As for the Daily Mail example, it's a notorious tabloid and not a responsible mainstream outlet; I believe Wikipedia doesn't even allow Daily Mail to be used as a citation. I specifically said tabloids, which are the dregs of mass communication, are not responsible journalistic sources. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And yet those tabloids are professional journalists and so real world harm. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

But we're not talking about tabloids here, are we? We're talking about The News Journal and USA Today. We're talking about Newsday. We're talking about the venerable LGBT paper the Bay Area Reporter. All responsible newspapers.

I have the impression you are not here to improve Wikipedia but rather to pursue an agenda.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Your bad faith accusations are equally unhelpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I wrong? All the arguments you've made so far can apply to every single trans person with a Wikipedia profile — no matter how famous, no matter how big a public figure, no matter how RS the sources, no matter that the subject themselves has not requested anything of Wikipedia — even though we have birth names for everyone else and birth names are a biographical standard in any biography, in Wikipedia or elsewhere. That sounds like an agenda. In fact, it sounds like a crusade.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. Many articles don’t have birth names including of trans people. Some trans people aren’t openly so and their article mentions nothing of their Deadname life. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The main article outing her, Bay Area Reporter and Newsday, btw have the briefest possible mentions, was not The News Journal *and* USA Today, it was part of their network, and it was written by one of her old classmates who is now a writer for the paper. Chances are more likely he reported what he knew to be true and the newspaper knew it couldn’t be refuted. That’s how reporters work, within grey areas. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that these accusations of bad faith are not useful. There's no evidence of Gleeanon409 being some sort of SPA. I get that you do not agree with their stance, but that does not make their comments in bad faith. Let the RfC run its course, and stop questioning the motives of those who disagree with you when they are doing nothing wrong. We all want this article to be improved, in the end. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I never said they were an SPA, so please don't accuse me of something I never did. I said their arguments amount to never including a trans person's birth name in Wikipedia ever. I also did not say "The News Journal *and* USA Today" ... I said the Wilmington News Journal *or* USA Today" ... which is accurate: It's the News Journal syndicated online through the 'USA Today network, giving it a national reach.

RE: their "Chances are" speculation: That's all it is, Gleeanon409's personal speculation. And it's inaccurate: No journalist for a mainstream newspaper would ever' out a living trans person and give their birth name without permission. That would be a fireable breach of journalistic ethics. RE: "That’s how reporters work, within grey areas": I'm a journalist. Gleeanon409's statement is blatantly false. Our whole mission to to find and report black-and-white fact, as objectively as humanly possible. We absolutely do not "work within grey areas."

Having a difference of opinion is fine, even necessary, for Wikipedia to continually improve. But making demonstrably false statements, as two editors have done here, goes beyond that.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Peppermint herself wrote on deadnaming “This all the way. My Name is what I tell you it is. That's it. stop digging. If you use a Name OTHER than the one I tell you, you dont appear " clever" you appear out of touch.” Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Good find! That seems to make her preferences pretty clear, and also appears to be the most recent statement from her on the subject. I also found an older comment from her in an interview: "She doesn’t use (or share) her birth name, she says, because that identity is behind her." [6] GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That was clear all along and is not the issue here - nobody has proposed that the article should use her birth name to refer to her, and the current version calls her "Peppermint" throughout. Rather, it about mentioning the birth name (see use-mention distinction). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on the tweet and the Metrosource article it's clear that Peppermint does not like her birth name to be used or mentioned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That alone is not determinative — lots of celebrities don't want their birthdates mentioned, or they give a false birthdate. Unless she contacts Wikipedia with a formal request, her comment is no different than that of a celebrity fudging their age. Subjects may contact Wikipedia, but they do not have veto power over everything this encyclopedia includes about them.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, clearly we disagree on that point. It doesn't change my opinion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - per the subject's preference, I also saw that article yesterday in Metrosource, when researching for this RfC. And also, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I don't see her birth name being mentioned as an improvement to the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you see birth names being mentioned in other biographies as an improvement, or would you remove them from all other articles? Birth names are a de facto important biographical fact. Removing it weakens an article. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the article and the circumstances. Not every WP:BLP is the same. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - It doesn't add anything of substance to the article to include that name. We know she is transgender and that is written about extensively in her article already. Wikipedia's policy is always to err on the side of respecting BLP's privacy in the case of contentious information. Peppermint has expressed herself that she views that name as contentious, as most people in the trans community do as well. cave (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - If this was an important fact it wouldn't be so rarely found in RS. Wikipedia is based primarily on RS and not editors personal assumptions of what should be relevant. There also seems to be evidence from Gleeanon409 that such inclusion could lead to WP:BIO issues. Rab V (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but she was never notable under her deadname, it's not already widely known, and she's expressed a desire that it not be used. Thats good enough for me to exclude it. Yilloslime (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad RfCs aren't decided by vote but on the nature and persuasiveness of the arguments pro and con. Here's what I see:

1. Celebrities don't have veto power over pertinent, factual information in Wikipedia. Celebrities want to control their branding. Wikipedia isn't here to help celebrities burnish their brand.
2. Birth names are pertinent for every other bio in Wikipedia. They're a basic part of any biography. If we're going to question why include a birth name, then that's an argument affecting all of Wikipedia.
3. Any celebrity can tweet anything, depending on how they're feeling that day. Like a Trump tweet, it doesn't replace the process Wikipedia has for dealing with subjects' concerns. The celebrity or her management or assistant can avail themselves of this simple process. I disagree with those who want to circumvent that process. Why, then, have a process at all?
4. There is no indication of harm whatsoever. Peppermint is as big and as popular as ever — a public figure, a television celebrity. This is not some private individual with a bio here because, for example, they're the CEO of a company and has fear of being outed.
5. There has been no harm (and her popularity is high) though the name has been in wide RS sources like USA Today, IMDb (which is not useable on Wikipedia but in this case factually correct), and Newsday — as well as on Wikipedia for years and on LGBT sites and newspapers. No harm. That means we'd be removing pertinent, factual, information in order to help a celebrity's branding. That's not a good reason.
6. MOS:MULTIPLENAMES allows birth names of trans individuals who have changed their names. They only must be notable under that name for it to appear in the lead. Otherwise, Wikipedia allows the name to be in the article body. If we're excluding the birth name of a high-profile, public individual with no harm issues and highly RS citing, then where would we not exclude it? If, as at least one editor appears to argue, we should never include it, then that's not a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS debate to be held at any one bio. This is something that affects Wikipedia overall: "We don't include it for Peppermint, so we can't include it for any other celebrity either."

Wikipedia's purpose is to help provide pertinent, factual information — for students writing theses, journalists checking the footnoted sources in order to be accurate and not "fake news", ordinary people wanting background on people influencing culture. Its purpose is not to write press releases where the celebrity tells us what to say. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I've moved this comment up to adjoin your original comments; with it placed at the end of the conversation it appeared like a separate !vote in the RfC. Okay, I see your placing it at the end of the conversation is (bafflingly) intentional. But please AGF—I'm not editwarring or "tampering" with your edits, just trying to make it clear that you have already !voted and commented in this RfC (at length) above, and that this is not a separate argument.

To move the rest of my comment down: Peppermint is a celebrity, but she is still a human, and harm can be done to her beyond just to her brand. She does not wish her deadname to be mentioned, a common wish among trans people who find mentions of their birth names painful, and given that she is not notable under the name we should respect her wish for privacy. Your argument on this subject started out by saying that she did not care if her birth name was used, and now that it has become clear that she does, shifted to saying that she hasn't contacted Wikipedia directly, or now claiming baselessly that her opinions on the subject are inconsistent and based on "how she's feeling that day". Furthermore your attempts to make this about all biographies appears to be an attempt to delay the decision here. It's already been established in policy and precedent that birth names of trans people are a unique issue (see the Manning arbitration case and associated discussions)—that does not need to be relitigated. It's absurd to claim that removing the birth name of a trans woman from her article when she does not wish it to be used would require all birth names to be removed from all biographical articles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe someone who has commented as much as you have in his thread should castigate another editor for "comment[ing] in this RfC (at length)." I'm also disappointed in your bad-faith language, calling one of my points "baseless", another "absurd", or, especially, that another is "an attempt to delay the decision." That's false and I'm surprised at that accusation given your general civility up to then and the fact RfCs are generally up for 30 days to give enough editors time to comment. I am not delaying anything, and your suggestion of a decision's inevitability in your favor is neither fair nor accurate.

This is a legitimate point, coming from a journalist: Celebrities wish for lots of things not to be said, whether it's a name or their age. It is widely disseminated public information about a public figure. If we exclude pertinent content just because a celebrity tweets something (in this case an allusion and not even a direct statement), then why not do it for other celebrities? There's no harm here — yet an actor can argue that their real age being known can do them harm. So do we remove every actor's birthdate if they indicate they don't like it here? --65.78.8.103 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with the length of your comments—the parenthetical was intended to refer to the fact that you have commented at length above, and so it would make sense for this comment to go up there. I do take issue with the misleading placement of this comment, though. I don't think it's appropriate to claim on Peppermint's behalf that no harm is being done here—we should err on the side of doing no harm, especially when deadnaming people is known to be harmful. As for birthdates, yes, we do sometimes remove birthdates from BLPs when people do not wish their DOBs to be public information. On the topic of long comments, though, I think I have responded to your primary arguments sufficiently and we are beginning to repeat them—I do not wish to make this RfC longer than it needs to be by going in circles. Hopefully others will continue to weigh in on this RfC in the coming weeks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything on anyone's behalf: I'm stating concrete facts. As I have been careful to say, there has been "no demonstrated harm" — this celebrity's career and popularity are as high as ever. And she has never claimed any harm by the mention in this Wikipedia article.

I don't know of any case where we've removed a celebrity's birthdate at their request. If you know of any example, please give it. Otherwise, you're making an unsupported claim.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's explicitly stated in WP:BLPPRIVACY, which I've repeatedly linked on this page. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. If you need a specific example, a quick search at WP:BLPN turns up plenty; Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) is the first example I came across. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

All due respect, that actually supports my point: Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) made an OTRS request. Peppermint has not "complain[ed] about our inclusion" — she has neither filed an OTRS request nor ever even mentioned Wikipedia is any public forum that I can find. She certainly isn't "borderline notable" — she's a television and Broadway celebrity.

And this brings up a very serious point. The (straight) radio personality Elvis Duran doesn't like his birth name known, though it appears in broadcasting trade magazines. He doesn't even mention it in his memoirs. But he, too, has not made an OTRS request. Here's why this is serious: Is Wikipedia now going to start proactively deleting pertinent, accurate things from celebrities' articles that are allowed under policy/guidelines, even though the subject has never formally asked.

If that's your position, then this is a much broader issue than that of any one article. We're talking about a WP:BLP policy change, and this discussion would need to be move there.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This thread is long so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. There is the suggestion that we leave information deemed inappropriate in a BLP until the subject contacts Wikipedia to have it removed. In no way is that accurate, even for borderline information, the default is to remove it until it’s clear it should stay. As editors we are trusted to do no harm in decisions wether or not a BLP subject contacts the project. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a straw-man argument. In this instance, for this individual, there is no demonstrated harm here, and the subject is in no way claiming harm. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

False again. The clue that harm is being done is in the voluminous media reports on Deadnaming in general, and the trans women of color, in particular, face exponentially more transphobic violence including deadnaming. A further clue is Peppermint’s own comments on the subject. Now if you can prove there couldn’t be any damage I’d certainly be interested in that logic. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You're asking someone to prove a negative? That's a bad-faith, discredited argument.

And you took exception to my suggestion you have an agenda. Yet in saying that "harm is being done ... [by] deadnaming in general", you're ineed pursuing the agenda I suggested you were pursuing, which is: Wikipedia should never give a trans person's birth name since it's harmful to everyone ... even when, as in this case, there's no demonstrable harm to one of the most popular and successful celebrities in her field. As I said, that's a Wikipedia-wide argument and not something for local consensus.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Finally, a "clue" is open to interpretation. The fact is, that tweet was commenting on someone else's case, and as far as I can see she has never stated, "No one can use my birth name" — which she could have said if she had wanted to. Nothing's stopping her. Perhaps she has more respect for facts than some may think.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

She does not talk about her former identity or use her deadname as “that identity is behind her”. I think she has spoken clear enough on the issue you seem to be litigating. I consider the issue resolved until and unless contradicting information from Peppermint arises. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You're free to consider this any way you wish, for yourself. This RfC, however, is not decided until an admin closes it. RfCs are generally open for 30 day to allow enough editors time to comment.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• INCLUDE - include all names in proportion to the WEIGHT of coverage - drag name, real name, birth name. I see them in IMDB, Pinterest, hyperleap, newsday, delawareonline. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Include because she was credited with her birth name in film, and the birth name was connected to her career in several reliable sources including gay-friendly Bay Area Reporter in 2018. A birth name is standard encyclopedic information, to be included in every case where it's reliable sourced unless a strong reason is shown to remove it. I don't see any strong reason. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't notice this, but the editor above is correct: She was credited onscreen as Kevin Moore in at least two TV programs: The Queens of Drag: NYC (Peppermint, credited as Kevin Moore) and CSI: NY episode "The Lying Game" (2007), playing Female Impersonator (credited as Kevin Moore).--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Include per the current WP:BLPNAME policy: the article's subject is not "discussed primarily in terms of a single event", the birth name has "been widely disseminated" in published sources, and the name has not "been intentionally concealed". That the individual has disassociated from the name and considers it to be a former identity is not the same as requesting it be concealed, and in any case I am not convinced that, as a matter of policy, we would or should default to removing the published birth name of a public figure at his or her request. Regarding the claim that the information is not meaningful, I strenuously disagree. A person's birth name is basic biographical information, even in cases where a person no longer identifies with that name, legally changed his or her name, assumed an alias, etc. Finally, the assertion that including the name leads to "harm" has not been established, in my view. What harm, specifically, will result from including within the article information that is already publicly available? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  I already voted, but I just wanted to add a reply to your good faith questions about harm. The argument that it causes harm stems from the fact that the name is of the incorrect gender, it has been demonstrated that publicizing these names has an emboldening effect on real world transphobic violence. Even though Peppermint has had a couple of (very minor) acting roles under that deadname, she didn't really break out into notoriety (Worthy of a Wikipedia article) until she was already out as trans woman, as Agnes. For this reason I think the deadname does not have very much relevance at all, and according to Wikipedia's policy on gender can indeed be a candidate for removal on basis of privacy, since respecting the integrity of a BLP takes precedence to discussing every minute detail about their life. I am adding to this comment some further reading material to substantiate the claim that including deadnames is harmful. cave (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC vio

A redlink editor here violated WP:RfC by unilaterally inserting his own preferred version as if the RfC had already been ruled in his favor! That blatantly violates WP:RfC:

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved.

If this recurs, it is grounds to initiate a WP:ANI.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I was removing contested info due to BLP concerns.

You should definitely start an ANI complaint, I think they love Wikilawyering. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible solution amenable to both sides?

Peppermint is reachable through social media and probably her management. Perhaps an editor might want to contact her and send her a link to the Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard)?

This way, there's no speculation and no wider Wikipedia policy issues. She can make her exact wishes known. Or she may choose not to. This way, we're not being paternalistic and the choice will be hers and hers alone.

What do my fellow editors think? --65.78.8.103 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good idea. I can see if I can find a way to contact her. Though this RfC should continue—if we can add Peppermint's explicit preference as a data point then that's great, but if she doesn't contact OTRS we should still find some consensus here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and sent an email to the email address in her Twitter bio, asking she please cc any reply to the OTRS queue. I also tweeted to her: [7]. If I hear back from either I will post here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have heard back from Peppermint's management! I have asked them to forward the email to OTRS so any OTRS agent can verify it. In the meantime, they have clarified that Peppermint would like her deadname removed from this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)