Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

RfC: To broaden MOS:Deadname

The following discussion 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.

---

Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).]

Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize deadnaming as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Q: Why is this needed?

A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”.

!votes

• (Summoned by bot)Support if the second paragraph is, either, removed, or greatly clarified (see below). Llew Mawr (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't realise the first para remained unchanged. In light of that, in addition to my comments below, I somewhat support the proposer's avowed intent of reducing policy ambiguity and indirectly protecting less notable people from deadnaming via limited obscure sources, but fully oppose the proposed amendment which would only increase the ambiguity of our guidance. Llew Mawr (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  The first paragraph isn't unchanged. As explained in the Q&A above, the current MOS:DEADNAME only applies to mentioning non-notable birth names in the lead. The proposed text would expand that principle to all article space.--Trystan (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support the first paragraph. Our current practice allows inclusion of non-notable birth names based on a few relatively obscure sources, making Wikipedia the primary means by which the name is "out there". Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we can recognize that personal information not closely tied to notability shouldn't be included in an article unless already widely published, which will generally coincide with whether the person was notable under that name.--Trystan (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the first paragraph. If additional clarification is needed, maybe something like: "The birth name of a non-cisgender subject not notable under that name may only be included if the subject has stated in RS that they do not mind the name being known. In the absence of such evidence, assume that mention of the name can cause real-world harm, and do not include it." Armadillopteryx 15:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support as written, but open to rewriting if the spirit of protecting trans people’s dignity is kept intact.
  We need to end the energy-draining squabbling across these articles. On Peppermint (entertainer), a massive amount of energy was spent when the two(!) names we had were both shown to be wrong. And Wikipedia was publishing these names worldwide. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed to expansion. The current guidance is a sensible compromise between two extremes. It acknowledges that, when someone becomes notable under a specific name, prior names are little more than trivial background information and can be omitted. However, when someone was notable under a prior name, that information is more than trivia, and should be included.

The desires of the bio subject are irrelevant to this determination. We include all sorts of information that a bio subject might not want included (from criminal records, to embarrassing public statements) ... as long as that information is not trivial. We determine triviality by seeing whether it is covered by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason we don't include non-notable names isn't merely because they are trivial but because including private information in an article can cause real-world harm. See WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. Loki (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support the (already existing) first paragraph, and the following rewording of the second paragraph: If the subject was not notable under their former name, it should usually not be included in the article even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. In the case of living persons, please bear in mind WP:BLPPRIVACY and treat the non-notable name as a separate (and usually much greater) privacy interest from the person's current name. Loki (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that this is simply re-stating existing policy in a convenient place. Loki (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar. We include all sorts of information that the subject might not like. Other examples include dates of birth and prior political or religious affiliations. We also include the prior names (or other names) of people like Tom Cruise, Katy Perry, Kirk Douglas, Sting, Shirley MacLaine, Michael Caine, Yul Brynner etc. It's not relevant whether the subject wants this information to be public. It's also not particularly relevant if this other name is "notable" or if it is "trivial". It was at some point that person's legal name.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This an obvious extension of BLP of "do no harm". In contrast to celebs that have changed named, or immigrants that came over and changed names, and which are usually well documented to that point because these are people that have drawn attention to their overall biography, most transgender people tend to become famous after the transition. Not all want to hide their past but it is well-documented that many consider their former identity "dead" after transition (in contrast to the celeb/immigrants), and thus this can become a touchy issue. We should assume by default that transgender persons want to keep their past names in the past, and thus this is a completely fair policy and in line with BLP in general. We are not the equivalent of a "411" for any notable person, which is what some of those opposing seem to suggest. --Masem (t) 19:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely. We do not exist to unfairly out folks or call attention to their identity, that would be undue weight. I think it perfectly in line with our BLP policies too, I quite like Masem's "do no harm" sentiment in this context. I also think this will reduce acrimony, as subject's dead names are often a point of contention. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the intention but reword the second paragraph for optimum clarity. When rewording bear in mind that we not only need to avoid genuine good faith misunderstandings but also deliberate bad faith wikilawyering masquerading as misunderstanding. Clarity is vital. Some people will kvetch whatever the wording but we need to leave as little room for argument as possible. I like Loki's suggested text. I think that would be a good addition to the first paragraph. I also think that we do need an improved version of the second paragraph because it sets out why we have this policy, thus foreclosing any kvetching about it being "arbitrary" or "special treatment" or some such nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Blueboar. If a former name is sourced then it should be included. If it isn't sourced then it shouldn't be. We do this with everybody; I see no good reason to make an exception for certain categories of people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As I've been pointing out under other such comments, we do not in fact "do this with everybody". There is no Wikipedia policy to indiscriminately include information even if that information is reliably sourced. There is a specific Wikipedia policy to NOT include private information about living individuals even if that information is reliably sourced. Loki (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support applying "only include if notable under that name" guideline for transgender people to entire article space, and stating that the default should be to exclude it until a consensus is reached. Okay with proposed phrasing except for "assume that the name is of concern", which seems like it should read "assume that the name is not of concern" based on context. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, preferably Loki’s suggestion applying "only include if notable under that name" guideline for transgender people to entire article space. Is this not the default position already? I see no reason to go beyond this.Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• The existing policy only says to leave the birth name out of the lead, which is the primary motivation for this RfC to expand that rule to the whole article. Armadillopteryx 14:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - including the deadname of individuals is potentially physically dangerous and can cause emotional harm. If there's no strong reason to include it (ie. notability under the deadname), it shouldn't be used. Gbear605 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Loki's suggestion I think it is clearer and captures the right balance. --Enos733 (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Loki's suggestion as more clear and balanced, as well as explaninig why we have such a guideline. (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support either as proposed or with Loki's amendment. This is an area where clearer guidance would be useful, and this is the kind of thing the guidance needs to be. Ralbegen (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Loki's amendment as being clearer to potential readers on why the guidance exists, particularly vis-a-vis BLPs. It's about time. Raymie (t • c) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the first paragraph especially, and also (preferably) Loki's suggested second paragraph/part (although I am also OK with the OP's). As others have said, this is an area where clear guidance is needed (the current MOS:DEADNAME is, as Bilorv put it, "almost uniquely non-comprehensive out of everything in the MOS", and this is a good guideline and decent explanation of the rationale for it. -sche (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per points made by Blueboar, Jack Upland and Necrothesp. Birth names should not be completely banned from inclusion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The first paragraph is very clear, but, in the second, I don't understand what "of concern" means in context? Is it meant to just imply: if notability is in doubt, err toward avoiding deadnaming.

Also the referent of "not doing so" is unclear but I think it refers to the idea of not adding the name in the previous paragraph. In other words, it means "not not doing so" or "doing so". So, it would be better to be more explicit in a guideline.

Llew Mawr (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s been argued that unless you can prove deadnaming causes distress in an individual case then it doesn’t matter. In fact IMO trans people don’t want to give the issue any energy so tend to not say anything about their dead names.

I trust the grammar can be cleaned up to still honor the spirit of respecting trans people. The second paragraph is largely to end edit-warring of finding ways to deadname. I see this happen often, from anons, drive-by edits, and even experienced editors. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean "not of concern", maybe? Or "should not be included"? Or maybe "is personal information under WP:BLPPRIVACY"? Since it's the point of this RfC I feel like cleaning it up so it means the thing you meant (currently it definitely doesn't) is pretty important. Loki (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t be included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: I think what people are trying to point out is that the phrasing in the proposal reads "assume that the name is of concern", which suggests that former names should be included by default, while your position seems to be that they shouldn't, so it should state "assume that the name is not of concern". ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We should likely switch to something quite clear like “assume prior names are to be kept private unless the subject has indicated otherwise in reliable sources”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this language is a strong improvement. This is also what I was getting at in my !vote. I would phrase it like: Assume that all former names should be omitted unless the subject has stated otherwise in reliable sources. Armadillopteryx 21:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• As I stated above in my !Vote, I think this entire issue has been poorly framed. We routinely include other bits of information in BLPs that might cause the subject distress... so “it might cause distress” is to me not a valid reason to omit a former name.

Instead, I resolve the question of what names to mention by focusing on triviality. Former names are trivial background information unless the person is notable under that former name. Trivial background information may be interesting, but it isn’t necessary ... and so can freely be omitted. That is all that needs to be said. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, triviality is not the only reason we don't include people's names. Divulging personal information about someone can cause real world harm. I have personally asked Oversight multiple times to strike non-notable deadnames from articles and they've done it promptly every time. Loki (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

For transfolk they aren’t just trivial, they’re deadly. In a world that still preaches their existence is evil, immoral, etc., they are under continued threat of anguish and physical harm. Deadnaming is a main component in the cycle of abuse they face on a daily basis. Wikipedia shouldn’t contribute to it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly WP:BLPPRIVACY already exists, as does the Oversight team. I don't see an argument that we need to expand existing guidelines.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• With regard to Masem's comment above — "In contrast to celebs that have changed named, or immigrants that came over and changed names, and which are usually well documented to that point because these are people that have drawn attention to their overall biography, most transgender people tend to become famous after the transition" — I don't think this is true. Take Kirk Douglas. According to our article he was born "Issur Danielovitch" (in the USA), grew up as "Izzy Demsky", and took the name "Kirk Douglas" at about age 25. He was only famous as Kirk Douglas. His earlier names are trivial, you could say. Are we going to end up saying that people's Jewish identity needs to be suppressed because they could be targeted by anti-Semites??? I think you have to look at genuine invasion of privacy and genuine harm.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Am I the only person who didn't know Kirk Douglas was transgender? EEng 03:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • My comment there is that at least up until recently, the lives of celebrities have been usually been put until microscopes by nature of being celebrities, and so past names/etc. are well documented. Same with famous researchers and other creatives (eg Ralph H. Baer). Most of the time, these people have offered up their own old names in their autobios (as with Douglas) or interviews or long-form articles about the person (implying that the person provided that information freely to a RS at somepoint). What we want to avoid is people going to court reports, news briefs, and far less reliable sources to connect old to new names in the absolute definite case when the user has made efforts to make that disconnect (ur example in practice here until recently was the Star Wars Kid who we could have named via news sources but we knew wanted to keep out of the public, until a few years ago where he publicly stated he was ready to connect his name to that as to take steps to address bullying he got).
  • That leaves the situation when we have no indication to what the BLP/BIO wants with their old name, and that's where BLP's "do no harm" says we should use caution and avoid inclusion if we can, if we have no idea of the person's intent. We should assume such name connections are harmful (heck we assume this for editors per OUTING) regardless if they are trans or not.
  • It thus becomes a matter of common sense of evaluating sources. Notability is the factor here, but also, even if the person wasn't notable, in looking at long-form , in-depth articles about the person, how is their old name being thrown around? (and this is the in general question, should apply across the board, even though we're asking for transgender persons). If the person is clearly offering their old name up in response to questions in multiple sources and goes on about their past in conjunction with, its probably ok to include. But if its like something it looks like a reporter had to speed weeks looking to find and only to use to add that as the old name before moving on, and its only in one or two sources, its probably a reason to skip inclusion quickly. It's just the attitude of "it's just data, we should include it regardless" is not good, because BLP does say otherwise and to think a bit smarter here. --Masem (t) 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Further refinement of wording

Per the close of this RfC, I've changed "in the lead sentence" to "article space" at MOS:DEADNAME. I did not add the new paragraph, since it's not clear to me what version of its wording has consensus. How should that part be done? Armadillopteryx 01:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I'm coming across this discussion after the close, but something that I see in the discussion above that hasn't yet been translated into the guideline is that this applies to BLPs, not BDPs, where the harm rationale and WP:BLPPRIVACY do not apply.

I recently made a few fixes to Virginia Prince, a pioneer who came out all the way back in the 1940s (and who I would love to see become a GA or FA eventually), and I did not hesitate much before adding her deadname—she's no longer alive, so it won't harm her, and it's a valid part of the encyclopedic historical record of her life. That decision seems aligned with consensus based on the sentiments above, but it's going against the letter of the guideline as currently written, so the guideline needs to be revised. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I see what you're saying. To be honest, it's not clear to me whether all who supported the change meant it only for BLPs or for biographies in general. Some explicitly referenced WP:BLPPRIVACY, but others presented a rationale that could be reasonably interpreted to cover dead subjects as well. The additional text proposed at the start of the RfC never gained consensus on its wording. In the original RfC text, that part refers to BLPs, but variations were presented in the comments (and here). If others want to chime in and clarify whether they were talking about only BLPs (and indicate their preferred wording), that would be helpful. Armadillopteryx 08:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, seeing no further comments, I'm going to adjust the guidance at MOS:DEADNAME to specify that it applies to BLPs, since it is not clear that there is consensus for it to apply to BDPs, and we should be cautious about adding anything to that effect until it is clear otherwise. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So the change by Armadillopteryx is why mentioning the name in the lead even became an issue at the Joey Soloway article. I don't think that change is best, given that the section in question is entirely about leads. It should at least state "in the lead or other article space." But, really, "article space" is vague. And while I get that it was meant to be vague, we don't typically drop the name anywhere in the article, such as in the "Career" section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

To whoever, please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That change was prescribed by the outcome of the RfC above. If your main concern is with the wording rather than with the change happening at all, there are other options. "In the article text or infobox", for example, would also work IMO. Armadillopteryx 05:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That RfC is not focused on removing "in the lead." And there is no consensus against "in the lead" being there. Again, since the section is focused on the lead, "in the lead" should be there, like it was for years. The new wording was used to try to keep a notable name that belongs in the lead out of the lead. And if it's going to be used in that way, the current wording needs to be remedied. It's not like we are going to remove Chelsea Manning's birth name from the lead of that article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The RfC text says: Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the RfC, which was formulated specifically to expand MOS:DEADNAME to apply to the whole article and not just the lead. Armadillopteryx 07:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It was meant to keep non-notable deadnames out of the whole article, yes, but now it looks that it could be reversed and misapplied to argue that notable deadnames just have to be somewhere in the article, so we should bury it somewhere lower down. Meanwhile readers are wondering if the article they've arrived at is the person they are thinking of or not. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to further clarification, but I note that saying a notable deadname is permissible in "article space" or "in the article text" includes the lead, since the lead is part of both "article space" and "the article text" (i.e. I find this redundant). Neither of those options states anything about what part of the article the name must (or must not) be in. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue based on this policy that the name must be located outside the lead, as that's not what it says. I also think that the current wording ("the lead or article text") is not preferable to "article space", because the latter also includes the infobox and title, whereas the former does not. Armadillopteryx 21:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Stating "in the lead or in article text" at least shows that in the lead is acceptable, rather than allowing people to argue that we can put the old name anywhere (and some editors will misguidedly try to put it somewhere inconspicuous). Above was mentioned where confusion was developing on this point (only two weeks after the "article space" wording was implemented), specifically at this and this edit. At that latter comment we see the flawed argument, the policy MOS:MULTIPLENAMES only states name should be in the article space; I'm taking it at it's literal word. The policy is clear and able to distinguish between lead and article space when it necessary. As for "article text" vs. "article space", that was SMcCandlish who made that change, but I understand why because "article space" is jargony and confusing to new editors. (I can imagine them thinking "Article... space? Huh?")

Here's a possible way to re-write the sentence, taking the above into consideration, as well as the above RfC which forbade non-notable deadnames anywhere in the article: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should only be included in the lead if the person was notable under that name; otherwise the birth name should not appear anywhere in the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That almost sounds good to me, though drop "only" which serves no useful purpose here and makes it unclear whether inclusion of the name when it does qualify for inclusion is actually recommended (it is). More problematically, the lengthy sentence structure is ambiguous, because the "otherwise" has no certain referent, and can be read as excluding mention of former name that does qualify for the lead, anywhere else in the article, such as the early life section. That's clearly not the intent, and it's better to use multiple sentence. We have three goals here: say that names from the period of notability are usable appropriately, say that they should be in the lead, and say that old names that pre-date notability should not be used at all. So, try this: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should only be included if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate. A birth name that was not used when the subject was notable should not appear anywhere in the article. We might also consider trimming "used elsewhere in the article" down to "used elsewhere" because, as one example, Caitlyn Jenner should be referred to as "Bruce (now Caitlyn) Jenner" in articles on past Olympic games; we already have language saying it's appropriate to use "now [name]" or "later [name]" clarifications (because I added it during my cleanup, detailed below). PS: Yes, I changed it to "article text" (or just "article" above) because "article space" is jargony and confusing to new editors, but also because it was a loophole: templates that render text in articles are in the template namespace not the article namespace, but their output is part of the article and is meant to be covered. Just one of those WP:Writing policy is hard things; you have to game out in your mind every way someone may try to wikilawyer or system-game around something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I haven't misunderstood anything. Like I Crossroads stated, that RfC was not about making it so that the notable name can alternatively go lower in the article. It was about keeping non-notable deadnames out of the whole article. The wording you implemented isn't about keeping non-notable deadnames out of the whole article and is being used to argue that the notable name need not go in the article's lead, which means that a lot of people, especially those who do not read beyond the lead (which has been reported to be most people in the past), will be confused when they land on the article. It's not about editors stating "must be located outside the lead." It's about editors personally not wanting it in the lead and making it seem like "lower in the article" is better. In the case of a notable name, a significantly notable name for a trans person, how is "lower in the article" better better for readers? There is already guidance in the section telling editors (to uusally) not to include non-notable deadnames in the article. So the "in article space" change earlier on isn't needed. Per the importance of having that notable name in the lead and what WP:Alternative name states, I changed the text to this.

Crossroads and SMcCandlish, I made that change before reading your latest above posts. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I like your proposed wording, SMcCandlish. We can wait and see what Armadillopteryx thinks of it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to clarify: the change I made was the exact wording presented in the RfC; that wasn't something I personally came up with. Your argument above appears to say there was no consensus to eliminate "in the lead", but that's exactly what the text discussed in the RfC did. I'm not personally married to that wording and welcome changes that may make it clearer, but there certainly was consensus for the wording of the first paragraph.

With respect to the edit you just made, I think it's a semantic improvement, but now the sentence reads as emphatic about including a notable deadname, while the RfC's point of not including it otherwise is a small afterthought at the end of a long sentence. Above, Crossroads gave examples of people blatantly misrepresenting the guideline as written, but that's a flaw of those arguments, not the guideline: those editors tried to claim the guideline said something it blatantly did not say.

I support the wording that SMcCandlish proposed here. Armadillopteryx 04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you implemented a piece of wording that was not the focus. That RfC was not about loosening our guidance on including the notable name in the lead. And yet that is what your edit did. You speak of "emphatic", but the section was already like that before your edit. It stated "should." And SMcCandlish's proposed wording also states "should." And, yes, per my and Crossroads's arguments above, that new "in article space" wording was a flaw. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to "blame" Armadillopteryx for doing what closers usally do. :-) The fact that the RfC inadvertently produced a line-editing change that introduces a problem doesn't mean we can't fix it, though defaulting to the RfC's wording was a reasonable starting point. Any time material like this is edited in isolation, there's a good chance that such a problem will be introduced. We already have long-standing guidelines about alternative names going in the lead, and this RfC wouldn't undo those; it did not address them at all, so it's not possible that it's a consensus to change them. Flyer22 is correct that removing any mention of the lead was an error, though pinning this on the closer isn't useful. Now, it's just a matter of copyeding the language in this section to be compatible with other guidelines again. No biggie.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RfC's wording is all I inserted into the guideline, and it was very much the focus: the point of the RfC was to expand MOS:DEADNAME to apply to the whole article and not just the lead. There had been a longstanding problem with people inserting non-notable deadnames in articles and gaming the system by showing that the guideline only prohibited them in the lead (see the discussion that prefaced this RfC, which I linked above). I think your (Flyer's) wording made the sentence more emphatic, as I said. The issue wasn't with the word "should".

Anyway, the important thing is that we all like SMcCandlish's wording, so I've added that text to the page. Armadillopteryx 04:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I'm not blaming Armadillopteryx for simply implementing RfC wording. Armadillopteryx implemented a tiny piece of text that was not the focus of the RfC. And by "not the focus", Armadillopteryx, I mean that the text you altered is about notable previous names. Therefore, it had no effect on the "must keep non-notable deadnames out of the whole article" aspect. This is what Armadillopteryx should have focused on adding, but Armadillopteryx declined to add it. Crossroads already addressed what the point of the RfC was, and he is correct. A longstanding problem with people inserting non-notable deadnames in articles was not going to be solved by having the guideline allow for the notable name to be placed somewhere else other than the lead. And "in article space" allowed for that because it did not specify "in the lead." That is what happened at the Soloway article.

Armadillopteryx, at this point, I'm repeating myself. We disagree, including on the more emphatic thing since the wording without "especially" allowed for the notable name to be placed anywhere and all "especially" did was tell editors that it should be in the lead. This meant "it can go anywhere, but it should certainly go in the lead," which is no different than what the current wording is relaying. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, it was not me who selected "the text I altered"—that was the RfC itself. The wording of the first paragraph (i.e. the change I made) gained consensus in the RfC and was therefore a straightforward change; the wording of the second paragraph (which you commented I "should have focused on") did not gain consensus in the RfC, so I started this subsection to acquire that consensus instead of making a unilateral edit.

You've been very persistent in personalizing this matter, and I have tried to be patient with that. I would like to request that you stop now. Let's just keep our focus on the primary discussion topic, which is what the wording should ultimately be. As far as I can tell, we are all in agreement with SMcCandlish's proposal, which is now in the guideline. Armadillopteryx 07:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, per what I stated above, we disagree. I have not "been very persistent in personalizing this matter." I have noted that you added the piece, but I've clearly focused on what you added. I do not understand why you do not get what Crossroads and I have stated on the matter. So I appreciate that you removed this from your latest response. I apologize for making you feel that I was attacking you. I was not. My issue was with the text you added. Other than my reply to Izno below, I see nothing left to state on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

undent: I reverted the second sentence from SMC's suggestion; the way it's phrased, even in the context it is in, would be wikilawyered by someone into meaning all people with non-notable former names. I'm fairly certain everyone here understands that wasn't the intent, nor that that case is an issue for cis-gendered (in general). I see a careful wording below the bullets like "such a subject", with which I wouldn't have an issue with the sentence being inserted, but I didn't see an elegant way to do so in this sentence's context. Moreover, it seems unnecessary with the 'only if' language in the primary sentence. We don't need to assert both positive 'do this' and negative 'not this' if we already exclude the 'not this' case with the 'only if' clause. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno, you removing this is fine since it's covered by this. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That entire section has been getting more and more palimpsestuous over the last two years or so, making less and less sense to those not steeped in debating about it – a "Well, I know what I meant it to mean" problem. It's important to remember that guideline (and policy) pages are written primarily for new editors and as dispute-resolution reference works among more experienced ones. For both reasons, the material needs to be crystal-clear. So I did a cleanup pass on it, fixing all kinds of grammar errors, poor sentence structure, subtly contradictory instructions across different parts of it (and between it and other WP:P&G material), pointless rambling and linking of everyday words like "marriage", missing cross-references to relevant material, clumsy "just stick a shortcut in here" cross-refs., confusing material order, mis-placed shortcuts, shortcuts without anchors, etc., etc. I've endeavored to not change the meaning/implementation in any way, other than the addition of clarifications that are in the same spirit as the revision process above (i.e., make it say what consensus actually is and how various existing policies and guidelines apply to these matters). PS: I think all the relevant shortcut redirects have been updated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

First off, thank you to everyone for working to get this meaningfully updated!

One aspect that I think needs to be looked at again is that the deadname, if not notable, shouldn’t be used anywhere in WP:MAINSPACE (mistakenly focused on as Article Space, but explained). This is to specifically end such deadnaming in lists, disambiguation pages, redirects, other articles, etc. I feel this needs to get addressed even if fully explained in an extended footnote. Any ideas? Glee^anon 18:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I added a footnote [1], and clarified the sentence ("in this or any other article" instead of "in the article"). It also accounts for templates and categories. However, I did not specifically list redirects, because I think we've not had a discussion about that, and regulars at WP:RFD are apt to have strong views on the matter. E.g., that if someone comes here already knowing that name and they search for it, they should find the person's bio, perhaps because they might not even know about the name change, or they've read one of the few sources that did disclose it despite that disclosure maybe not having been a good idea. I'm not sure that reader-utility argument is a good argument, but utility arguments are the most common ones at RfD. And I wouldn't want to just assume, as if infallible, that my skepticism of that rationale equates to a consensus against it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and edits! Glee^anon 01:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, just noting here that -sche removed this this part of your wording. It seems that -sche thinks it goes against the RfC. I don't see that. As for consensus, discussion obviously continued after the RfC and that part of your wording was added to make it clear that the notable name can be included beyond the lead. Also, once it's mentioned in the lead (and likely the infobox), what issue would there be with mentioning it in the Early life or Personal life section? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I set it back to this: "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate." That is an accurate summary of actual practice (i.e., extant consensus).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The RFC found "a very clear majority against gratuitous deadnaming", so per WP:ONUS, you will need to demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS to add such an affirmative endorsement of it. (If it is actual consensus, as you say, this should not be difficult to do.) I'll notify the Wikiproject(s) where the RFC was first proposed that discussion is continuing. From my perspective, the affirmative endorsement will be misunderstood or misconstrued by editors overly broadly; I think the passive absence of prohibition which existed was sufficient, but I guess your own perspective is that that would be misunderstood by editors as allowing only overly narrow use? -sche (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I read In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead. as stating that it can only be used in the lead, but I can definitely seen it as being read either way. Gbear605 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Sche that the wording proposed seems like it can be read in a way that is too broad and counter to the RFC. The RFC did not state that the deadname had to appear in the lead and may appear in the article space. For example, the RFC includes the note to avoid using the name in the infobox but the current writing of DEADNAME implies doing so would be fine. The RFC and BLP would require instead that the deadname may be used in the lead but should be avoided in the rest of the article space. Rab V (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the purpose of the RfC was to expand the ban on non-notable deadnames from the lead sentence to the whole article. It was never to ban notable deadnames from everywhere except the lead. If a deadname is notable and can be in the lead there is no basis for a blanket rule that it cannot be included anywhere else. That needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not dictating every situation from on high. (For example, note how Caitlyn Jenner is handled at Athletics at the 1975 Pan American Games.) And regardless of one's opinion on this matter, the RfC did not find a consensus for any strict rule about notable deadnames. "No gratuitous deadnaming" is not the same as "banned outside the lead". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK we're not discussing banning notable deadnames outside the lead. The wording someone boldly added was to actively, affirmatively encourage deadnames outside the lead. I think that wording will be interpreted too broadly (besides, procedurally, not being supported by previous discussion AFAICT). Unless there is consensus to add that wording, the next step (strictly speaking, the previous step which should already have happened) is to revert the addition. -sche (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It does not encourage that. It says (emphasis added) it may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate, not "should" be so used. If it says the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and stops there, it does look like it is permitted only in the lead, which was not discussed at the RfC. Right above we can see that Gbear605 interpreted it in that way, as did Rab V, who outright claimed that The RFC and BLP would require instead that the deadname may be used in the lead but should be avoided in the rest of the article space. We need to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps then we need to have the extra sentence of and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate but change it to emphasize that it is should not be emphasized broadly, perhaps adding if necessary, only, and bolding to create and, if necessary, may be used elsewhere in the article only where contextually appropriate. Gbear605 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that will lead to unanswerable disputes over what "necessary" means. I think "only" is covered by "may" - since "may" is saying when it can be done, the "only" is superfluous. A possibility is to change "when" to "if": may be used elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the wording of the RFC for this case: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”." Why are we not using this wording? Multiple editors have complained that the wording that was used instead is confusing and could mean something different than the RFC intended. Rab V (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The part of the RFC telling editors to minimize use of the former name is also nowhere in the current version. Rab V (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The RFC also did not include the statement that was added that former names of transgender people are required to be in the lead and that was not in the prior version. Will remove that as it makes conflicts with statements in MOS:GENDERID that the manual of style does not state where in the article former names need to be mentioned. Rab V (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This was all discussed earlier in this subsection starting on 17 October. Before the RfC it said that birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when...; so it required inclusion in the lead sentence, not just the lead: [2] The RfC was not about changing this so that the birth name could be stuffed away anywhere in the article; it was about extending the ban on non-notable birth names to the entire article. Otherwise, we get editors, such as yourself, arguing that the notable birth name can be put somewhere else: [3][4] Quoting the original proposal verbatim smuggles in a change that was never discussed or intended; as I said above, having the notable birth name in the lead makes the most sense for reader navigation. Note too that the RfC closure explicitly finds support for further refinement of the wording going forward, as has been done; it never mandates Gleeanon409's exact wording. As for MOS:GENDERID, I guess that has to be updated to read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person in the lead if they were notable under that name. (The underlining is only to indicate the new words.) Again, the requirement to have it in the lead was always here; really, if the person was notable under the name, putting it anywhere else is nonsensical per WP:LEADALT, and if they were not notable, then everyone is agreed it should never have been there in the first place. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, kindly revert to the WP:STATUSQUO. Consensus for it was reached in the earlier parts of this subsection. I will repeat, the RfC was (1) not for smuggling in permission to shunt notable birth names into lower parts of the article, (2) was not for saying that if in the lead it can never appear anywhere else, and (3) explicitly said that continuing discussion to refine the wording would occur. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not; my edit was a revert to the STATUSQUO, as modified by the successful RFC above. "Only when" is prohibitive; it did not require it. Policy has never required it, while the "may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate" seems entirely new. SMcCandlish's proposed new addition plainly does not have consensus above, does not reflect any sort of policy or practice that we have ever had, and would therefore require unequivocal consensus for his proposed wording before it could be included. And I would strenuously disagree with this proposed addition - I think it is a very poorly-considered proposal indeed, one that fundamentally reverses the intent of the RFC (which, to my reading, was specifically about broadening WP:DEADNAME to cover the entire article, something that this proposal would essentially undermine, since anyone making any addition to any article will obviously feel it is "contextually appropriate") by simultaneously removing the leeway we have always had on including such names in the lead while encouraging editors to bicker over the vague meaning of "contextually appropriate." This is obviously a highly-contentious proposal and I'm honestly a bit shocked you reverted it back in once already after opposition was clear, let alone that you would try to argue that this new proposed rule represents any sort of status quo. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm "honestly a bit shocked" a few editors are trying to make significant changes to the MOS that were not discussed at the RfC. Replying to most of this would just be repeating myself. The RfC expanded the ban on non-notable birth names from the lead sentence to the full article; it never changed or discussed anything about notable birth names, which have always been required in the lead (lead sentence, actually): [5] I'm more than happy to discuss refinements or changes to the wording, as the RfC closure specifically asked for, but if editors are going to WP:TAGTEAM to smuggle in changes that were never discussed, that is inappropriate. Guess we'll see what onlookers think of this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillon the edits that have been done only seem to undermine the RFC and the section should be reverted to either the statement accepted in the RFC or a version before the current set of edits. The October 1 version of the article did not include a requirement deadnames be in the lead: once again this fact is even mentioned in MOS:GENDERID with the reminder that the policy does not state where to include the former name.Rab V (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Pinging the editor who closed the RFC for help on whether SMCCandlish's edits to DEADNAME go with the intent of the RFC and whether the RFC stated that deadnames need to be included in the lead. Thank you for any help. Rab V (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of overdoing it, in case JzG may not read all the above, I have to emphasize here that your framing is wrong. JzG said in his closure that Consensus cautiously supports the proposal, with support for further refinement of the wording going forward. That is what happened right after the closure, and then yesterday a couple editors tried reversing that refinement. Sockpuppet Gleeanon409's exact wording was not mandated anywhere. The pre-RfC version did state that birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name [6], and removing this requirement for notable birth names was never even mentioned at the RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The RFC states that deadnames should be used in the ARTICLE SPACE (not the lead necessarily.) On October 1 DEADNAME reflected this but SMC and you seem to be reverting this change without evidence for a new consensus and after editors have objected. The RFC also includes the portion about minimizing use of deadnames that is nowhere in your changes. Rab V (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That change regarding notable names being in the lead was never discussed or hinted at in the RfC or its closure, so there could not possibly have been a consensus for it. I'm more than open to discussing how to reflect the "gratuitous deadnaming" aspect of the closure, but we need to establish the facts on this "in the lead" matter first. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But where did the idea that deadnames, if notable should then appear in the lead come from? It wasn't in the RfC close, it wasn't in the status quo ante, so why was it added? The status quo ante simply stated that the only deadnames in the lede should be notable ones, and the RfC certainly didn't change this aspect - it is quiite different from the should appear language that was recently proposed and reverted. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Some editors appear to believe that the "should only appear" language in the status quo ante was equivalent to "should appear, but only", whereas I (and many others, it seems) understood it to mean "should not appear, unless". Perhaps this is a specific issue that should be discussed more calmly, under a new heading? Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, and this? Since we have a certain group trying to make it so that the notable birth name doesn't go in the led and tag teaming to do so, another RfC should be started and it should focus on whether or not the notable name should be in the lead. It should also be well-advertised. I'll start the RfC if no one else does. I'll advertise it well if that's not done. Like I stated in that last edit summary of mine I just pointed to, "WP:Status quo is not a policy or guideline. And the RfC was not about moving the notable name out of the lead. That we include the notable name in the lead has been done for years and it will continue to be done. That is WP:Consensus." I've already made my arguments above in this section; so I won't be repeating any of that in this section. Arguing with Aquillon, Rab V, and Newimpartial on this will get editors nowhere. Best to start an RfC and see just how many uninvolved editors weigh in and how the strength of arguments like Crossroads's hold up against activist arguments. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the supposed "tag-team" status quo version contains the same should be included in the lede only if language that has been in this section for years. This language does not at all suggest that the deadname should not be included in the lede; it simply does not add additional encouragement to do so, which the tag-team Bold version did.

Also, activist arguments does not apply to me - though it seems to be directed at me - and also appears to be intended as a personal attack; please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh-huh. And go study WP:No personal attacks. We are allowed to focus on the arguments. We are allowed to attack arguments. When I see any kind of activist arguments, like I'm seeing now, I will state so. And that's that. The "birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name" wording is not the status quo version. The status quo version that editors have used for years mentions the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the tag-team version currently out there states the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name - nothing about the lead. Also, criticizing someone's arguments, whether calling them activist or otherwise, is not a PA. Wikipedia will never be an echo chamber and everyone's arguments will be criticized. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It is in the section entitled Lead. It is about the lede.

And if you think I am being "activist" in my arguments, Crossroads, you should provide some evidence/diffs for that. Otherwise it is like using political labels for other editors, which is recognized as UNCIVIL behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It's under "Names", not "Lead". Crossroads ^-talk- 20:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You are right. However, your Bold proposal goes far beyond adding back "in the lead" in that sentence, so I don't think it answers the question posed here. We would probably benefit from a fresh RfC to determine whether: (1) there is an expectation to include or not to include notable deadnames in articles (or they are permitted but other considerations apply); and (2) when they are included, should this necessarily be in the lede? I don't see how the previous RfC answered either of those questions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You're still pushing the false narrative that me, SMcCandlish, etc. are the ones trying to put through a bold proposal. Your side's "notable birth names don't have to be in the lead" idea is the bold proposal here. It's reversing the burden of getting consensus, and what holds in a case of no consensus, by obfuscating what the status quo was. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I in particular am saying, so you see a "narrative" that doesn't exist. I am not saying that "notable birth names don't have to be in the lede"; I am saying that the status quo ante language, that they should only be included in the lede if, was permissive rather than obligatory - that it was equivalent to "do not include them unless" rather than necessarily to "include them if". I think this is the real problem: we haven't agreed about what the old consensus actually was. It may be easier to find a new consensus than to figure that one out. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I echo this comment. The pre-RfC wording was apparently interpreted differently by two groups of people: one group thinks its primary purpose was to require notable deadnames to be in the lead, while the other thinks its primary purpose was to ban non-notable deadnames from the lead (but not the rest of the article). The recent RfC expanded the ban on non-notable deadnames to the entire article but did not address notable deadnames at all. It does not appear that either "side" of this discussion opposes having the guideline do both. Newimpartial's observation here is important: the pre-RfC wording sounded permissive rather than obligatory to many people, which is why no participant of the RfC opposed simply changing the lead to article space in the sentence in question. The different interpretations of the pre-RfC wording appear to be the root of much of the disagreement in this section (and of the comments some users have made about others' intentions).

Above, I expressed dissatisfaction with how attempts to clarify treatment of notable deadnames ended up obscuring the point of the RfC to the point of making it an easily missed afterthought. I don't personally care whether or not we require notable deadnames to be in the lead, but that, like the non-notable deadname ban, should be determined via community consensus. And if consensus is to require notable deadnames in the lead, that point should be presented with equal weight to banning non-notable deadnames from the article so that anyone referring to the policy will clearly understand both points.

Personally, I would propose separating guidance on notable deadnames and on non-notable deadnames into two separate paragraphs so that there is no ambiguity about what to do in each case. The current structure of the guideline, which has sometimes treated these two cases implicitly in the same sentence (e.g. in this version) is clearly not helping anyone. Armadillopteryx 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've not been following all of the above discussion in detail but I do agree that spliting it up sounds like a good idea. We need to have two readers in mind when we draft the policy. First is the reader who is consulting the policy in good faith in order to find out what they should, and should not, be putting in articles. We want to make it as easy as possible for them to understand and implement the policy correctly. The other is the reader looking to find any loopholes or amibguities that they can exploit to wikilawyer in support for adding bad content to articles in bad faith. We want to make it as difficult as possible for them to disruptively kvetch about the meaning of the policy. Considering both types of reader shows the need for clarity. I'd be inclined to suggest three parts:

1. How to tell if a deadname really is notable.
2. What to do if it isn't. (The default option.)
3. What to do if it is.

We could even have a flowchart, if that helps. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In any case, the fact that there was a (brief) revert-war on a significant policy page suggests that we are going to probably require another RFC, unless someone can come up with a magic compromise that satisfies almost everyone. So it would probably be useful to consider those questions, use them to come up with a set of possible options (stating proposals for the entire wording of the relevant section this time, so there's no surprises in how people interpret it and we can finally settle this); then, unless one is a clear favorite to the point where it's unnecessary, run another RFC between the various options. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a brief edit war because editors did not respect the long-standing wording of "should be included in the lead sentence"...which was clearly there for years before this edit. All one had to do was restore to that -- the actual status quo.

Armadillopteryx's description of both sides does not describe my feelings. And I don't think it accurately describes Crossroads's or SMcCandlish's either. Our point has been that the RfC wasn't at all about notable birth names and that the guideline should continue to make it clear that the notable birth name belongs in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Three-part policy proposal

Per DanielRigal's suggestion above, here is an example of a different way to organize the main points of MOS:DEADNAME that may be clearer and less given to misunderstanding:

If the subject in question is a living transgender or nonbinary person, whether (and how) to include the birth name depends on whether any of the subject's notability is connected to that name. If the reliable, secondary sources that establish notability do so using the birth name (for example, if the person did notable work under that name), the birth name is notable. If the subject's notability has been established only under their current name, the birth name is not notable.

If the birth name is notable, it should be included in the lead and be prefaced with "born" or "formerly". It may also be mentioned elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate, but such mentions should be kept to a minimum.

• From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ...

If the birth name is not notable, it should not be included in the subject's biography, nor anywhere else in the mainspace—even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity and Deadnaming.)

• From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...

This is just a rough idea, not meant to be a final draft. What do participants of this discussion think of an option like this? Armadillopteryx 10:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best way to describe how a name is notable. The principle that Wikipedia users have agreed upon in past discussions is that if they're publicly out as using a new name during the entire time that they are notable, then their birth name is not notable, even if there are multiple reliable, secondary sources that deadname that person. For example, Margot has been using her preferred name for the entire time she has been notable, but conservative Polish news sources exclusively use her deadname (while liberal Polish news sources and all English news sources use her preferred name). The consensus among Wikipedia editors is that under the current definition of the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name, Margot has only been notable under the name of "Margot," while this proposed definition makes it more unclear (do all reliable sources need to use the birth name, or merely some?).

However, I do definitely prefer making it more explicit. I suggest a phrasing along the lines of If the subject's notability has been established only while publicly using their current name, the birth name is not notable.

Gbear605 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gbear605: Fair enough—tbh that was the portion I was least sure of how to write. I'm fine with your suggestion and am open to hearing more. Armadillopteryx 15:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Query - I would like to hear arguments for or against including all notable deadnames in the lede of the subject's article. My knee-jerk reaction is that it is sometimes helpful to include the deadname in the lede - particularly in cases where readers are brought to the BLP by a redirect from the deadname - but I can also imagine cases where borderline-notable deadnames might be relevant only in the context of a specific section. For example, an author who published initially under a deadname without receiving much media attention, then became more famous with their gender-appropriate name - it might be more helpful in that case to include the deadname only in the section on said early writings, so that interested readers could find dead tree books published under the former name.

Anyway, what I would really like to know is where other editors come down on this question. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In the example you give, I would say that since the early writing did not receive much media attention, it does not count toward establishing notability of the subject, let alone of the deadname. This would make the deadname non-notable in principle. But to avert confusion in the section where the early writing is discussed, it would probably be appropriate to say something like: "So-and-so published XYZ early work under the name [deadname]." This sort of thing (critically, the use–mention distinction) is addressed in MOS:IDINFO#Recommendations, a page that appears to have been mostly abandoned despite the fact that it would be a useful addition to our guidelines. Armadillopteryx 15:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, such a name is non-notable. Maybe the early-writing matter can be mentioned in a footnote. But notable birth names should be required in the lead. Regardless of how what was previously said in the guideline is interpreted, the standard practice has always been to include such names in the lead, especially for navigation purposes. Without that requirement, many articles will have to combat people pushing to have that name become as inconspicuous as possible. This started happening only two weeks after the wording was changed from the original RfC above. We shouldn't have to waste time arguing each one on a case-by-case basis. Regarding It may also be mentioned elsewhere in the article if contextually appropriate, but such mentions should be kept to a minimum, I believe "in the article" should be deleted, as there are some cases where the birth name is contextually appropriate in other articles. See how Caitlyn Jenner is handled at Athletics at the 1975 Pan American Games. We don't need people trying to argue that the birth name is never allowed outside of the article on the person. Regarding "such mentions should be kept to a minimum", there could result unanswerable debates about whether the need to minimize its use overrules contextual appropriateness. This could be replaced with wording that more closely matches the RfC closure above, e.g. "but gratuitous mentions should be avoided." Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I like your suggestions to remove "in the article" and to change "but such mentions should be kept to a minimum" to "but gratuitous mentions should be avoided". As for requiring notable deadnames to be in the lead, I see reasonable arguments both for and against it; apparently we're headed for an RfC that will clarify that point. Armadillopteryx 07:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The current and old version do not require prior names in the lead and there are cases where forcing an old name in the lead could conflict with BLP. I'll have to not support this version for that reason. Rab V (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Also will again note forcing old names in the lead will conflict with MOS:GENDERID's note that the MOS does not say where old names must be included. Rab V (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep stating that? As seen before this edit, the guideline stated, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." The word should was already there. For years. As seen with this edit, SMcCandlish's version stated that "it should then appear in the lead." No difference as far as the lead goes. MOS:GENDERID does not conflict in any way. There was no reason for MOS:GENDERID to state "in the lead" since it relays, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." It's pointing people to this guideline for further detail. And that further detail stated, in part, "should be included in the lead sentence." Arguing that because MOS:GENDERID doesn't state "in the lead" when it points to a section that has stated "in the lead" for years and that piece was added to MOS:GENDERED so that people could be taken here and see the appropriate "in the lead" guidance is silly. If I knew you would argue that, I would have added "in the lead" to MOS:GENDERID right after that piece was added there to MOS:GENDERID. And it is a more recent addition to MOS:GENDERID. The "in the lead" aspect at MOS:CHANGEDNAME has been there for much longer. Years. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why some editors in this discussion continue to argue that the status quo ante language was unequivocal. It seems clear that we have good faith editors who interpreted "should only" as "should, but only" and other equally good faith editors who understood "should only" as "should not, unless". I don't see the key to this as uncovering the "originalist" interpretation of the status quo ante, but I see even less point in pretending that "should only" had one and only one meaning, when clearly several editors held each of the interpretations I just described. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand those supposed different interpretations you speak of and have not seen them. And, regardless, reverting back to the long-standing wording in the meantime is easy enough, especially if WP:Status quo is going to be invoked. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This provision says that the deadname "should appear". This longstanding version says that the deadname "should only appear ... if". The two do not mean the same thing, according to posts byhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?[title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=988196388&oldid=988193983 me] and other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=988351676&oldid=988350456 editors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the policy should ever absolutely require a deadname to be in the lead, even if there are some cases where it would seem perverse to omit it, i.e. for people primarily or equally notable under their deadnames. We don't want editors arguing that only slightly notable deadnames are required to be in the lead and we need to foreclose that argument in the policy. I'm not sure how to phrase this in policy terms but my feeling is that the deadname should only be permissible in the lead when it is likely that a significant proportion of the readers interested in the subject might be unaware of the subject's current name and might search for the subject's deadname instead, get redirected to the article under the current name, skim the lead and then wonder whether they have been sent to the wrong article by mistake. In that situation it is helpful to the readers to put it in the lead. In most other cases it is unnecessary and it would seem more natural to mention it when talking about the things that the subject was notable for under that name. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My example above was more to see if people like this structural breakdown of the policy points, and I'm glad to see there have been a lot of suggestions to improve the wording so far. It seems like an RfC will be the way to decide the matter of requiring notable deadnames in the lead, and the outcome of that will go in the guideline. Armadillopteryx 07:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how we can determine "slightly notable deadnames", DanielRigal. It's similar to the Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#The piece about the subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life discussion about trying to determine how relevant sexual orientation is to a person's public life. The "or notability" thing has been easier to go by in that case because all we have to do is go by our WP:Notability guideline. And that guideline is not about slight notability. Either someone or something is notable or not. The "slightly notable deadnames" thing falls significantly into subjective territory and is prone to wikilawyering.

In any case, whether we are talking about a trans person or a non-trans person, I am against any notion that the notable birth name doesn't belong in the lead. That is...unless it can actually be proven to be "just a little notable." In that case, it should at least go in the infobox. The part about not including non-notable names in the lead or elsewhere in the article is already in the guideline. So, really, all that needed to be done was revert this change to the longstanding wording about including notable names in the lead. But it seems we are beyond that now. So, yes, I guess an RfC is next. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

How to address military rank honorifics

The Project:Military History section of the wiki has come across something rather perplexing; how to handle military ranks. A considerable portion of military officers (particularly German) have their military ranks inserted above their name in the infobox, meaning the honorific section. While certain high ranks like the British field marshal, American General of the Army and German Generalfeldmarschall are honorifics, other examples are ambiguous and may not be. Pages like Gottlob Berger present his rank of SS lieutenant general (SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS) above the name as an acceptable use despite the rank not being an honorific. The military talk project has already discussed this at length [[7]].

What are the guidelines on this? I don't see military rank used for other countries and don't see why we should make an exception for Nazi officers. TFD (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not clear on the issue here. Military ranks are not honorifics, they are ranks. Please clarify. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a related question about combining honorifics and ranks, as in the current revision of Erin O'Toole. The infobox currently reads "Captain the Honourable" above a pic of O'Toole, which reads very oddly to me. As ARandomRedditorWikipediist pointed out on the talk, few of the articles on former PMs who served in the military include military ranks in the infobox (see this list). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong... but it seems that the issue is that the template does not have “Military Rank” field ... so editors are USING the “honorifics” field for that purpose. That’s a problem with templates - the pre-set fields don’t always match the info we want to include, so we force the info into fields that are “close enough”. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. On a second look, {{Infobox officeholder}} has some params for military service such as rank, branch, etc., so it looks as if his military title is already handled elsewhere in the infobox. If I'm reading this right, I think deleting "captain" from the top line is reasonable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the captain here would be the captain of a ship, not necessary as a rank, but, well, as a honorific. Lectonar (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the lack of clarity, but due to the depth of the discussion we were undertaking, I was uncertain if I could summarize to a suitable level. To wit, the problem at hand involves the use of military ranks as honorifics. The highest military rank of esteemed officers (particularly with regard to those of five-star or six-star rank) are prominently displayed above the article image in the honorific-prefix section. This commonality is not exclusive to Third Reich or Nazi officers but the trend was first noticed in those sort of pages. Users Kierzek and Peacemaker67 (among others) have spoken about the necessity of these in length since a rank field already exists in the military-type infobox. Officers such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas Macarthur, and Gottlob Berger see this fashion of use. User Peacemaker67 in particular has noted that no attention has been raised on this matter leading to at least a local consensus on inserting military ranks in the honorific-prefix field. To quote from Kierzek in the forum: "While it is true a person can receive an honorary rank, that is often times granted to a civilian for something specific or upon retirement. So there are occasions where is it appropriate for use, however, that does not apply to the men of articles I reverted. An "honorific" as stated in the Wikipedia article, for example, "is to convey esteem, courtesy or respect for position", often in the academic world."" Hence, what we are looking for is:

• The criteria needed for a rank to count as a honorific. While individual ranks have theur own criteria, users on the project concur that guidelines on the matter are hazy.
• If rank honorifics bloat the honorific-prefix section (if a holder already has a sizeable number of honours to their name) and should be treated accordingly.
• If rank honorifics (such as in the aforementioned articles) should be removed, and what should be the extent of the changes made.

The project community agrees that a general consensus should be made for the purposes of clarity. Someone here asked what the guidelines on this are, and it seems that specific rules on this are virtually non-existent. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I asked that this be brought here for a community consensus after it was raised at Milhist talk, as some editors continue to claim "local consensus" on it, and guidance one way or another would be useful. The current guidelines for the usage of the honorifics field in Template:Infobox military person actually suggest putting the rank here, as explained above. However, there are several factors which have not been reflected above as yet. In many militaries, rank is used as an honorific even for retired officers, the Commonwealth standard being that it is used for officers of the rank of Major (equivalent) and above. This means that even though they have retired, they are addressed as "Major" etc, invitations are addressed to "Major Billy Bloggs" etc. On top of that, tertiary references in the field of military history such as the Oxford Companion to Military History include the rank of officers along with honorifics such as "Sir" in the title of the entry. For example, "Browne, Gen Sir Samuel" and "Gneisenau, FM Graf August Wilhelm Neihardt von" (FM meaning Field Marshal). I'll add that in Commonwealth countries, people are addressed as "General Sir Samuel Browne", or Colonel Doctor Billy Bloggs", meaning that the military rank is given priority over the knighthood. This is reflected in protocols in Debrett's A–Z of Modern Manners. So, why would we single out military ranks for exclusion as an honorific, but continue to include "Sir" per MOS:SIR? Perhaps we should adopt a guideline that specifies using the honorific field for ranks of Major and above, and the rank field for lower ranks? Finally, I have half-a-dozen military biography FAs of Australians and Germans that have included rank as an honorific, and it has never been raised in a review, which reflects a weak consensus that it is actually fine. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Order of appearance in a name string does not equate to a ranking of the titles/honors/etc. It has to be "General Sir Samuel Brown", because after a knightood, "Sir" is fused indivisibly the the forename; it becomes normal formal address to call the person "Sir David", where "Mr. Brown" or (for military person) "General Brown" would have been used pre-knighthood. "Sir General David Brown" is not possible in this system of address because of the nature of "Sir [Forename]", not because the knighthood is lower importance/priority/status than the military rank. That becomes really obvious when you consider low ranks, the lowest of which is assigned automatically simply by being in the military at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Another Comment I noticed the problem when some edits adding honorifics popped up on my watchlist (some SS-officers, and more are still listed with their SS-rank as a honorific now). I read through the manual of style (didn't find anything helpful for the question here), had a look at the German Wikipedia (same), reverted some additions of the rank as a honorific, and subsequently (together with Kierzek) pointed the OP to Milhist. While what has been said above may be true for the Commonwealth, you can be sure that at least in Germany no SS-rank would have been used as a honorific (even for a retired officer) after the end of WWII. As for consensus or not, the little discussion at Milhist at least seems to point to not using them as honorifics, but list them as ranks in the pertaining infobox. The whole topic hasn't been given much tought imho. Lectonar (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, while it is true a person can receive an honorary title/rank, that is often times granted to a civilian for something specific or upon retirement. I agree with Lectonar above, in relation to the SS bio articles I reverted on my watchlist. A rank is not the same as an honorific title by definition. And the info-box already has a section/box to add in a person's rank. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ranks are not honorifics, and infoboxes already have a field for rank. Kierzek, above, nailed this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

On pathological interpretations of a nickname and a generational suffix presented together

• From Magic Johnson: Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is ...

So I guarantee some knucklehead will, from this formulation, conclude that Earvin Johnson Sr. was also nicknamed "Magic" (which is demonstrably false). Can that be helped, or should we care? ―cobaltcigs 13:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• We should not care. WP cannot account for every form of dain bramage. However, in Johnson's case, the lead should probably be presenting his entire birth name including middle name, followed by "better known as...". We could do with a cleaner example of nickname in mid-name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on MOS:DEADNAME

The deadname section states birth names should be included in article space only when the person was notable under that name. When we say, "in article space", does this apply to infoboxes? Or are they exempt from this rule? As an example, see Nyla Rose. Her name is removed from the main article proper, but it's still in the infobox. I'm unsure whether to remove it. The source in the infobox with her birth name shows acting roles she had when she was male, but I'm not sure she would have been considered notable back then. If she wasn't notable at this point, should her birth name also be removed from the infobox? Thanks. — Czello 07:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are part of article space. More strongly, the infobox is supposed to be a supplement to an article, not a replacement for it, so there should be nothing in an infobox that is not also included as part of the main text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. — Czello 08:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

People who are not the subject of the article

This at the end of MOS:NEE:

A person named in an article in which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy, so a depiction of the time before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani. See also MOS:IDENTITY.

I have seen multiple instances where the names of The Wachowskis have been changed retroactively. But the quoted rule seems to say that the director of The Matrix should have remained the Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry. I then looked at MOS:IDENTITY but couldn't immediately find anything to countersay this.

To me, it seems our MOS guideline needs to be rephrased to distinguish between

"After the cardinal electors assembled in Rome, they elected Cardinal Albino Luciani, Patriarch of Venice, as the new pope on the fourth ballot." (August 1978 papal conclave)

and

"She was created by The Wachowskis, and portrayed by Gloria Foster[4] in the first[1] and second film[5] and Mary Alice in the third film.[2]" (The Oracle (The Matrix))

The first sentence adheres to the guideline (it isn't changed); the second does not (it is changed despite being an article in which The Wachowskis are not the subject).

What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE?

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This comes up a lot with various sorts of people, from women who later marry to British politicians etc who later become lords. At the very least editors should be encouraged to put both forms in the text - it is often confusing or unhelpful to the reader not to, even where the "final" name is visible if you hover over a link. But what is appropriate will vary, & we should not be too prescriptive - which we seem to be at present. However, I agree that "the name they used at the time being described in the article" should normally be included. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course, in the case of the second sentence, it if is possible to avoid a complex naming issue (eg instead of using the "Wachowski brothers" but the "Wachowskis") that seems to be fair. It would be wrong to use "Wachowskis siblings" (that's far too generic and seems degrading). But this appears to be a rather special case, as normally we are talking individuals and we need a first and last name at minimum to be specific, eg if we're talking Caitlyn Jenner prior to her transition (eg you have to refer to Jenner as Bruce Jenner over at CHiPs). --Masem (t) 16:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In response to Capn Zapp, I don't see how using "the Wachowskis" represents a violation of "the name they used at the time" principle. They have always been "the Wachowskis", whatever else they have individually or collectively been called at various times. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What Newimpartial said. Find a better example where this is an issue. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A more common problem might be exemplified by Pamela Digby/Churchill/Hayward/Harriman who was a fairly well-known figure over many decades under each of her four successive names (birth & 3 husbands). Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Still seems to me to use the name at the time when associated with the topic. I would only add that if we're talking someone who became only famous under one of their latter names and their earlier names are more obscure when used in these other articles, this is where one might one use something like "Mr. Smith married Jane Doe in 19xx (who later was better known as "Famous Name") and divorced her in 19xx." (where "Famous Name" is where the wikilink would be) Hard to show without a good example but I think that idea may be clear). --Masem (t) 20:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Any article on 19th-century British politics will give plenty of examples. Usually, and I think correctly, the solution is to link the first, contemporary name, even if the title at the linked article is the later name, though there is much inconsistency. Examples of other ways:

• From William Wellesley-Pole, 3rd Earl of Mornington: "He was the younger brother of Richard Wesley, later Marquess Wellesley, and the elder brother of Arthur, who became Duke of Wellington, and of Henry, who became Lord Cowley." - I wouldn't do that myself.
• From Charles Meryon: "... she became the mistress of Viscount Lowther, the future William Lowther, 2nd Earl of Lonsdale, then an unmarried Tory MP, junior minister, and ..."

Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I first ask editors such as Newimpartial to respond to the actual subject matter at hand rather than getting caught up on technicalities? Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Now then, seeing general agreement, the question remains: What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE?

CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the wording is, it should only apply to an appropriate set of cases. Any wording that empowers editors to revert the Wachowskis references is not ok with me. -Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's my point exactly! I brought this up precisely because I detected the guideline might not be in line with our intentions! CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, but the principle is by no means restricted to biographies. For example the Wachowskis will come up in many other types of articles. I think it would be better to discuss this at the main MOS, & add something there, plus of course here too. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, no need to self-link :-) With respect, I am bringing up a highly specific case. Do feel free to start a general discussion elsewhere, just don't forget about the originating question please: What would you suggest as an improved phrasing of MOS:NEE? CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You called the section "People who are not the subject of the article" so taking it beyond the scope of MOS:NEE, which is all about how to start (etc) biographical articles. I think any changes to MOS:NEE on this should follow changes to the wider MOS. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2020 (ITC)

• If my memory is correct, this provision was added to deal with disputes over how to refer to Bruce/Caitlin Jenner in articles about the 1976 Olympics. It was determined that since Jenner competed (and entered the record books) under the name “Bruce”, that “Bruce” was the appropriate “historical record” name to use in those articles. The concept would apply in similar “historical record” situations.

That said, the case of the Wachowskis is a bit different... because we have a third option: Since they usually worked as a duo, it would be appropriate to refer to the pair AS “the Wachowskis”, omitting first names completely. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In terms of changing the wording, I would simply consider the case of the Wachowskis as an exceptional case, but an example that can be referenced, in that if it is possible to refer to them by a name that may not have been used at the time for the article in question but for all purposes is clear and obvious of the identity of the people involved, and avoids other naming issues like deadnaming, that should be used instead. But it seems such an IAR-type case that it may not need to be added for the one specific example. Unless there's several dozen other types of cases, we shouldn't worry about carving out MOS for just one problem situation. --Masem (t) 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So... doing nothing is the outcome in practice here? CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up this entire section, though I'm not sure the cleanup will address the concern raised here. I have to agree with Newimpartial, et al., that "the Wachowskis" was what the subjects were all along, regardless if some other word like "brothers" or "sisters" was appended after it, so that example isn't illustrative of any problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Muslim names

A change by an IP editor to the Khalik Allah article left this edit summary: "It's very offensive to All Muslims in the world to call someone Allah his name is Khalik Allah not Allah his name means Allah Creation don't call him Allah that's very offensive it like calling someone named Abdul Allah (God servant) Allah that's not how it goes." MOS:SURNAME and MOS:GIVENNAME appear to offer no guidance on this matter. How should I proceed? Thanks. Lopifalko (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Wakeel Allah refers to the subject as "Wakeel Allah" throughout, and Ikhlef Ahmed Hadj Allah, Abdel Hadj Khallaf Allah and Zahra Rahmat Allah are such short stubs that they don't mention the subject again. All have defaultsort of "Allah" - that's how I found them, at Category:Living_people. There may well be other biographies of (dead) people with the surname "Allah": it's not easy to find them, as there is no Allah (surname), and no mention of any of them at Allah (disambiguation). A rough scan through the first 500 hits for "Allah" shows a few people with it as a given name but nothing else which looks like a surname (except perhaps "Thérèse Allah, better known as Allah Thérèse". PamD 10:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My inclination would be to simply use the first name (Khalik) for subsequent mentions. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Some early Puritans used compound religious phrases as names, like "Nicholas If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon". It's a middle name in this case, but we certainly wouldn't shorten it to "If" or "Damned". Similarly, for someone named "Pam" we wouldn't shorten the name to "Pa" or "am". It seems like this is likely something of the same thing, where the whole phrase is a single name rather than something separable into first and last names, and we should keep it intact rather than making up shortenings of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we steer this into being enshrined in MOS? -Lopifalko (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:MOSBLOAT. Even after PamD's digging around, this appears to apply to a single case, so we have no reason to write a rule about it. It would also be easy for someone to extrapolate from it about other similar names (Muhammad/Mohammed, Jesús, etc.) Whether such names are accepted as appropriate by someone will vary by language, religious denomination, and other cultural differences. Even the opening claim by the OP is false, since many Muslims do not consider anything from the Q'ran, including the name of God, to be other than a weak approximation if not written in Arabic (i.e. "Allah" is not the name of God, but a Western attempt at ١ّللَه‎, like "Jehovah" is of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, יהוה‎).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Some minor changes

I would like to propose these two changes to the page:

A. That this:

Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details are not included after a name except in a case of special contextual relevance.

Be changed to this:

Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details can be included after a name, but only if there is special contextual relevance.

To remove unnecessary (rather unsightly) bolding, and to shorten and make the prose more direct and readable.

B. And this:

Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable.

Be changed to this:

Generally speaking, notability is not inherited; e.g. a person being the spouse or child of another notable person does not make that person notable.

To clarify that the rule "notability is not inherited" applies to more than just the spousal relationship, which the current sentence implies.

LK (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

With A, the formatting and wording is there for a reason, and saying "not included ... except" is clearer than "can be included ... but only if". With B, I suggest the wording is changed to "Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse or relative of another notable person does not make that person notable". GiantSnowman 14:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

In A, I do not see how a statement stated in the negative can be "clearer". As for your suggestion for B, (apart from being ungrammatical) the sentence still implies that the rule "notability is not inherited" is only for spousal or blood relationships. Using the phrase "for example" or "e.g", would signal that the rule applies for other types of relationships as well. LK (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your proposed wording for B is 'spouse or child', mine is 'spouse or relative' - so yours is actually narrower! So why are you complaining that my suggested wording "still implies that the rule "notability is not inherited" is only for spousal or blood relationships"? GiantSnowman 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You are not reading correctly. I am suggesting to use the phrase "for example" or "e.g", which means that there are other cases unmentioned. Your wording implies that the list is complete. Also, do you not see that the sentence "..., notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable" is grammatically awkward? At the least, the sentence should be made more readable.  LK (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am reading correctly. You suggested "spouse or child", did you not? Please ask yourself - why has nobody else suggested these changes before? Is it because the wording is fine as it is? GiantSnowman 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You are the one not addressing the correct issue. Throw in spouse or child or blood relationship or whatever, that's totally fine with me. My issue is that the current phrasing implies an complete listing. My suggested phrasing, using "for example" or "e.g.", implies that there are other situations as well. And you still have not addressed the issue that the original sentence is ungrammatical. LK (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to Proposal A. Can we agree that a sentence stated in the positive is clearer than a sentence stated in the negative? Also, do we have consensus about the current bolded and italicized formatting of the current sentence. Or do people feel that this doubled emphasis is unnecessary for a relatively straightforward issue. LK (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support both. The excessive emphasis is not helpful, it is generally better to use a positive construction, and "which means the fact that a person is" is just poor writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing the bolding etc. is fine, but the wording should remain as it is. GiantSnowman 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the Joey Soloway article include Soloway's birth name in the lead?

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Joey Soloway#MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tense if we don't know whether someone's dead

A general question regarding WP:BLPTENSE stemming from discussions about the actor Talk:Reuben Greene: What do we do about the tense ("Reuben Greene is a former actor" versus "Reuben Greene was an actor") if (a) we don't know whether the subject is still alive or (b) indications that the actor is dead come only from unreliable sources, even a Wikipedia editor (WP:OR!)?

Perhaps one could posit a cutoff age A, maybe 120 or 150, beyond which we could establish a rebuttable presumption that a subject is dead. Then it would always be correct to write "X was a Y" if X was born more than A years ago. But even in that case, what assumption should be made, for example, for someone whose heyday was in their 20s and who would now, if they're alive, be less than A—80, 90, 100?

As long as I've raised this here, is it OK also to discuss here the related question of whether the person belongs in Category:Living people? Largoplazo (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

First see WP:BDP - Basically if we don't have RSes but the person would be otherwise younger than 115, we presume them living, and would use present tense. Otherwise we would presume them dead and use past tense. --Masem (t) 16:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks. Should that be mentioned here, at WP:BLPTENSE, as well? After all, it occurred to me to look for the answer to this under this general page about biographies rather than one specifically about people already understood to be alive. Largoplazo (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could add the sentence: "If a person is younger than 115, and no reliable sources have reported that the person has died, then they should be presumed living." LK (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If that is added (which seems fine) just make sure you mention that this is in-line with the BLP policy on presuming living/dead when that's otherwise unknown. --Masem (t) 15:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Former name of married person

I haven't found answer in the Manual of Style, but in first reference to a married person (e.g., female wife of a male) shouldn't we use prior name? e.g., say Mary Jones marries John Smith and thereafter goes by Mary Smith: Shouldn't we write John Smith married Mary Jones in 1988 rather than John Smith married Mary Smith in 1988? Subsequent mentions should use whatever the person is known by publicly, which might be Mary Jones Smith, although professionally she may continue to use a former name.

If they later divorce but she keeps former name, and then remarries, is she now referred to in Wikipedia as Mary Jones Smith Brown (as often seen in newspaper obituary headings)?

Same comment for the spouse's name in the right-sidebar infobox: How should spouse's name be listed? (I realize that the maiden name isn't always known.)

All this might be handled socially &/or legally in other means in various cultures (e.g., hyphenated Latin American surnames). Also, some same-gender couples combine the 2 prior surnames into one hyphenated name used by both partners. Casey (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would use the same logic we apply to transgender names. If the person wasn't notable at all under their pre-married name, and that pre-married name is not something well documented, I simply wouldn't include it. On the other hand, the person may not have been notable under the pre-married name but because of the attention to their career after marriage we know of that name, readily repeated in bios and the like, so we can include it. Obviously if the person was notable under their pre-marriage name as well as after, both should be included. --Masem (t) 15:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if the spouse (of any gender) isn't themself notable, the only mention here should be encyclopedic as the spouse of somebody who was notable enough to merit a Wiki page. However, no reason not to give the spouse's prior name (including maiden name) if known. But rather than write John Smith married Mary Smith in 1982 we should say something like John Smith married his wife, Mary, in 1982. Casey (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And if John Smith's wife happens to have had maiden name Mary Smith, we should say John Smith married his wife, the former Mary Smith, in 1982.--Casey (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No, better is John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Smith), in 1982. "The former Mary Smith" suggests she is no longer in existence as a separate person! It's a very odd form of words and should be discouraged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that it suggests that at all, and that it's commonly understood and used to mean that that was a person's former name can be seen by searching for "the former hillary rodham" or "the former jacqueline bouvier" or "the former margaret roberts" (the last of these yielding results for Thatcher as well as for others). However "former Margaret Smith" implies that she used to be Margaret Smith and no longer is. So, if her name is still Smith (either because she kept her birth name or because her husband is also Smith), it's erroneous. The situation is unusual enough that I'd be inclined to write "John Smith married Mary, also Smith, in 1982." ("John Smith married his wife, Mary Thomas, ..." is redundant. "John Smith married Mary Thomas ..." suffices.) Largoplazo (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that this may well be an ENGVAR issue. It's almost never seen in the UK and I think most here would see it as a very odd form of words. What's wrong with "née" though? That's the standard word in all forms of English and on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably is an ENGVAR issue, as "the former" is absolutely normal American usage and "née" is often seen as pointlessly pretentious and may not be understood.--Khajidha (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Jones), in 1982." Well-written articles (on Wikipedia and more broadly) already do this. When we write "John Smith married his wife, Mary Smith" we are strongly implying that both of them were surnamed Smith before marriage (and that happens often enough with common surnames; consider for example that about half of the Korean and Korean-diaspora population have family name of Kim, Lee, or Park). If the pre-marriage names really were the same, use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (also née Smith), in 1982." When we write "John Smith married his wife, Mary Jones, in 1982", we are fairly strongly implying both that this was her birth surname and that she still uses it despite the marriage. For subjects who use both names, we can probably do: "John Smith married his wife, Mary Jones-Smith" (or "Mary Smith Jones" or whatever she uses), without much confusion potential, but if you wanted to be really really clear about it: "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Smith, now Jones-Smith), in 1982."

I cannot agree with Masem to "use the same logic we apply to transgender names". MOS:DEADNAME is a special exception we are making (largely because the real world is increasingly making it, after considerable research into things like mental health repercussions of deadnaming of TG/NB people, which do not apply to things like cis-gendered people's birthnames). Another way of putting this: MOS:DEADNAME is an application of the "do no harm" material in WP:BLP policy to a narrow style question, and that policy does not tell us, or even faintly hint, that we should suppress all pre-notability information about all biographical subjects or about non-notable persons mentioned. In essence, this is not a style question but a policy one. This is an "exception chain": BLP policy is making narrow exceptions to WP:V and WP:EDITING policies, and imposing a narrow matching exception on MoS. MoS, a guideline, cannot on its own carve out new exceptions to the policies. PS: In a case where the marriage situation actually overlaps with the TG/NB one, so that DEADNAMES applies (i.e. Mary is a notable transwoman but was not notable before the marriage, or is a transwoman and is simply not notable), use "John Smith married his wife, Mary, in 1982", same as we would do with a spouse whose birth surname is unknown.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be: 1) When a not-notable spouse's former name is known use "John Smith married his wife, Mary (née Jones), in 1982." 2) For a notable spouse, just spell out the name, of course Wikilinking it if possible, with no née. 3) If former name isn't known, say "John Smith married his wife Mary in 1982." (Commas optional?). 4) Whenever the spouse keeps former name, say "John Smith married Mary Thomas" or "John Smith married Robert Jones". 5) In a same-gender union (or an opposite-gender one) if the surnames are combined after the union and indeed elsewhere in the article, use the former names in the sentence describing the union. Somebody with authority to edit a Manual of Style please incorporate all this (perhaps in the "Changed Name" section). - Casey (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?
While framed in terms of article title policy, this is also a MOS:BIO and MOS:WTW matter, since the article text will have to agree with the title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of formal titles

The MoS says not to capitalize job titles except in three cases, one of which is "a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier ...".

So, "As Archbishop of Canterbury, he is the primate of all England ...", but "... by Justin Welby, the current archbishop of Canterbury", where it is preceded by the modifier "current", if I am reading the MoS right. Also by the book, but perhaps a step further, is "the official London residence of the archbishop of Canterbury", because "the" is considered a modifier by the MoS. I'm good with what the MoS says, but a couple of editors are not, saying that "Archbishop of Canterbury" must always, always, always be capitalized. Do we need to improve the MoS, its examples, or some of its editors? Chris the speller ^yack 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If the existing MoS language, which explicitly calls out situations where "archbishop" isn't capitalized in "archbishop of Canterbury", leaves some people still thinking that the "a" must "always, always, always" be capitalized in "archbishop of Canterbury", then it isn't because the language isn't already clear, and no amount of editing will change their minds. Either your statement of their position on the matter isn't spot on, or else they're failing to accept or failing to understand that the MoS is the prevailing style guide that, for Wikipedia articles, supersedes whatever they were taught elsewhere or have inferred from their own reading.

For our context, where are these discussions taking place? Largoplazo (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussions have been on my talk page and that of Koavf so far. Thanks for your post, which really reinforces what I thought and clarifies what should be done with such cases. I will return to those discussions now that I am certain that this is the right treatment. Chris the speller ^yack 19:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Now it's down to just my talk page. Chris the speller ^yack 20:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I was just drafting a post on the same question, but with the opposite preference.

It's always been my understanding that specific, unique titles of individuals get capitalised - "an archbishop" but "the Archbishop of Canterbury"; and that's what the Overview at Biography#Titles of people seems to me say: Titles should be capitalized ... where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording)

But this text in the overview does currently seem to be contradicted by the bullet points and examples at MOS:JOBTITLES.

I'm really unconvinced by the argument that, while if I say "Justin Welby is Archbishop of Canterbury" I'm using his title, if I say "Justin Welby is the Archbishop of Canterbury" or "Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales" I'm using a description that just happens to have the same words.

As far as I'm aware, when I say either, I am using their title - I'd certainly never substitute "Justin Welby is Canterbury's archbishop" or "Justin Welby is the archbishop of the Diocese of Canterbury"; or "Prince Charles is the Welsh prince". Is this a WP:ENGVAR thing? (Perhaps worth noting that "Welby is the Archbishop of Canterbury" gets 10 times as many Google hits as "Welby is Archbishop of Canterbury", suggesting the latter is a niche usage.)

The lede of Archbishop of Canterbury has, as far as I can see, been stable for almost 20 years as "The Archbishop of Canterbury is..." before being changed two days ago to "The archbishop of Canterbury is...."; every other Church of England bishop article I've checked is the same. I really think this change is counter to established Wikipedia practice, and if MOS currently requires it MOS should probably be changed.

I'd suggest the far simpler rule implied by the overview: actual titles of individuals are capitalised, with or without the definite article. TSP (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thinking on this a bit further, "Prince of Wales" is a good illustration of why the proposed approach must be wrong.

According to that reading of the MOS, you could say Charles is Prince of Wales; but would have to say Charles is the current prince of Wales.

But that's wrong: Charles isn't the prince of Wales - the last Welsh prince died in 1282, Charles has almost nothing to do with Wales. He is the Prince of Wales, that is simply a dynastic title he holds. It can't be decapitalized and turned into a description, it is only a title.

So the argument that adding 'the' or 'the current' changes a title into a description, which therefore should not be capitalized, cannot be right; because 'prince of Wales' as a description does not apply to Charles; only 'Prince of Wales' as a title. I'd suggest the argument makes little more sense applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and would be best removed from the MOS. TSP (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)