Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Nationality

Out of no where this format à la "Austrian and American" comes to counter the long established tradition of the hyphen! Goodness gracious ;)

Where and when has this format been decided all of a sudden? Synotia (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example. There is no nation of Austria-America, so Austrian and American or Austrian, American would be the correct way to show dual nationality. A hyphen is often used to describe ethnicity. Is that what you mean? MB 15:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We write African-American culture for example, yet there is no nation of Africa-America either?

And has this been decided by a community consensus, or by just one single egghead? Synotia (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MB… if we are indicating someone’s ethnic heritage (not encouraged, per MOS:ETHNICITY) then the hyphen would be appropriate, but if we are trying to indicate dual citizenship we would need to link the two nationalities with “and” (and if we are indicating sequential citizenship - ie the person renounced one citizenship for another - I would suggest not trying to do so in one single sentence). Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No one seems willing to denounce themselves ;) Synotia (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that for ethnicity, MOS:HYPHEN says not to hyphenate:

Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors, regardless of whether or not they are used attributively (Aboriginal Australians, Asian American studies, Black British people).

—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I have no clue who came up with this, it goes against the established consensus on this encyclopedia. For ages people used hyphens and nobody had an issue with it. Only a very very small handful of articles use that weird format. Moreover, outside of Wikipedia I have never encountered it, making it feel made up as hell. --Synotia (moan) 12:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sex in CONTEXTBIO?

MOS:CONTEXTBIO doesn’t make mention of sex (or gender), but it seems like there would be no reason not to treat it the same. We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”, except in cases like “first woman to win a Nobel Prize” (and so on). Am I missing something, or is this sort of consideration so obvious to be CREEPy? — HTGS (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist” — but we do categorise them (Category:Women's association football players, Category:Women scientists) and thus we should define them as such. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames I am not talking about categorization, but about the text (and specifically the lead sentence) of a biography, per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. And specifically, I am wondering out loud whether CONTEXTBIO should explicitly advise against including gender in the lead sentence. Whether or not people are put into gendered categories is of no concern to me. — HTGS (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Would this idea also apply to trans people? Would we no longer state “X is a trans-female soccer player” or “Y is a trans-male actor”? Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would assume that in most cases of trans athletes, their gender would be central or pertinent to their notability. This may also be true of trans people generally, but it would still align with people like Rachel Levine, who is notable (largely) independent of her gender, and whose lead paragraph currently does not mention that she is a trans woman.

  FWIW I didn’t pose the question with trans people in mind (I had just made this edit … is a New Zealand female rugby union player) so a carveout for trans bios would be fine by me. Eg, a footnote like “for trans individuals this guideline may not always apply”. But I do feel that CONTEXTBIO's current wording (gender … should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability) would cover it well enough for the good judgment of good editors. — HTGS (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  And, to be especially clear, I was (and am) posing an open question. The addition of gender seems to logically follow for me, but reasonable minds may differ. — HTGS (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

please explain (GENDERID examples)

(I noticed this on the MOS:GIDINFO page, but the content is transcluded from here)

As of this writing we offer two examples of "don't include the former name if not notable", both written in green (indicating this is how to write things):

• From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine, not notable under prior name: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...

First off, the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say: The first article begins "Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) is an American actress and..." Green text should IMO be reserved for the actual words we want to teach readers to use. Plus, wouldn't it be better if the example actually contrasted what to write with what to not write (which is why we'd use a made-up example)

Why not use a made-up example, and why not write (in green) the exact phrasing we want readers to adopt:

• Jane Doe (born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
• Jane Doe (formerly John Doe, born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."

Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.

My question is: why did the community decide to not use this style of examples? CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, but perhaps because it's redundant. The examples are of what names to use, not pronouns. We therefore do use the exact phrasing that users should adopt. (Your examples are also contradictory: the first recommends "they" and the second, for the same person, indicates that "they" is incorrect.) I'd argue that we don't need examples of pronoun use, because it's clear from the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID (in your example, "Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all" is required to explain which name is which, but it's merely repeating that first paragraph). EddieHugh (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody is discussing pronouns. Both I and the GENDERID is discussing whether to mention the former name. My example clearly shows how to write and how to not write it.

I'm saying that this...

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

• Jane Doe (born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
• Jane Doe (formerly John Doe, born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."

Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.

(obviously switching to a made-up example so we can show the incorrect way of doing it; illustrating what we're telling users NOT to do) ...is much more easily understood than whatever the current text's examples is trying to say. Unlike the current text it avoids text you're not supposed to write (in other words, no they don't contain "the exact phrasing that users should adopt"), doesn't begin with a "From" (that I don't understand the purpose of), and extremely clearly illustrates both the green do and the red don't.

That I chose Jane Doe as my example name, and my choice of example nationality, "job", and pronoun, is entirely irrelevant and beside the point. CapnZapp (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought you might be referring to pronouns because you wrote "the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say", and then included pronouns, which aren't in the examples, while the green text is exactly what's in the articles. Anyway, I think that the current text is adequately clear, if long-winded (one example for not notable and one for notable would be enough). EddieHugh (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would point out that one reason to include two examples for each case is to show that there is not "one correct template" to use to follow in each case. The notable examples, for instance, give one case where the pretransition name is a "birth name" and one where it is not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• The "From" part, intended to explain from which articles the examples have been lifted, is completely unnecessary. But if you must link to real articles, don't mess up the example to do so.
• The contrast between green and non-green text is not great enough. Better is to offer examples consisting of green (or red) text only, with no explanatory nonsense inserted mid-example.
• Sorry, but just providing examples isn't enough. The purpose of a demonstration is to be clear. I don't mind keeping the two real-life examples, but overt clarity would then be needed. In the spirit of overt clarity: if you provide an example to show how to phrase it when pretransition name is a "birth name", say so. Don't expect the reader to "just understand". These guidelines aren't written primarily for people that already know what to say and what to avoid. For many readers, this article will be the first time they even hear about terms such as "pretransition name"!

For example (feel free to write better explanatory text; copying bits from reply above just to illustrate):

When pretransition name is a "birth name" (example from Laverne Cox):

• Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...

When it is not (example from Rachel Leland Levine):

• Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...

When pretransition name is not notable (fictional example):

• Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980)..."

(do not include non-notable pretransition name at all)

CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume I have answered y'all to your satisfaction, and that we are now in agreement. CapnZapp (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for "preserving the presumed intention", Newimpartial. However, wouldn't you agree your edits lost the explanation of why we have two green examples? That is (with your own words) "one case where the pretransition name is a 'birth name' and one where it is not"...? At least I don't know either of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine, and wouldn't be able to discern any functional difference between the two examples (other than "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not") CapnZapp (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by Elliot Page's prior name not being a birth name? Wasn't Page christened "Ellen"? (And weren't we discussing these in the context of Cox/Laverne, not Manning/Page?) CapnZapp (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Prior to acting, Page's last name was a hyphenated form of his mother and father's surnames (Philpotts–Page), which was shortened for his stage name. It's a bit confusing since the hyphenated name is not in the linked article and it's not an obvious change (like from Norma Jeane Mortenson to Marilyn Monroe, for example). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the hyphenated name does not meet notability requirements (to my knowledge, the only sourcing for it that satisfies WP:IND is a local newspaper in South America). This has been discussed at length at Talk:Elliot Page. The consensus has therefore been consistent that "Ell*n Page" is a notable professional name, not a birth name, and this consensus was reflected in the choice of example for the MOS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The purpose of giving examples is illustrating a point. In order to explain the point (why otherwise make it?) we need to explain an obscure detail that we have agreed to not divulge! The obvious conclusion is to use another example, where we can actually tell our readers what our example is meant to illustrate. CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying Page is a bad example. If we clearly (in our article) explain that Page is an example of a subject whose name is not a birth name, and avoid raising further questions by explaining why this is so, then it is a great example. If, however, we use Page as an example with zero elaboration as to why we use that example, it loses all instructive value. CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Where are you suggesting that this elaboration ought to be provided. Surely not in the article text of Elliot Page? Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where the elaboration should be provided (or it if is even appropriate), but it's not clear to anyone unfamiliar with the lengthy discussions at Talk:Elliot Page why he would be used as an example for "not a birth name." It's about picking an example that makes clear the point being made, not further confusing the reader. Perhaps replacing "not a birth name" with "professional name" or "stage name" would be less confusing. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to reflect your suggestion in this tweak. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the exclusion of pre-transition names, the difference is precisely that "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not". The value in those particular examples, as I suggested above, is simply to underline the fact that there is no single formula mandated in this branch of the decision tree, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. But... this explanation needs to be provided to the reader of the article, because the point of the example is to convey a point. I certainly didn't understand this given only the examples - after all you needed to explain it to me! Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Does that make things clearer for the reader? The assumption I would work with is that a bio lede would follow MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:CHANGEDNAME, but with the stipulation that deadnames/prior names should only be used in very limited circumstances when the person was notable under that name. Do the multiple examples help understand this better? (And there really needs to be a pointer to MOS:GENDERID at MOS:CHANGEDNAME to make clear that pre-transition names are handled differently.) — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the carveout for pre-transition names of trans people deserves an effective pointer at CHANGEDNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Do the multiple examples help understand this better? As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the "no notable pretransition name" case, the two examples only illustrate "no single formula", since the difference between the cases doesn’t illustrate anything specific to pretransition names.

For the "notable pretransition name" case, the examples illustrate subtly different treatment for a birth name vs. a professional name, so they do illustrate a point that is relevant to pretransition names in particular IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point and see the same thing mirrored at MOS:FULLNAME. I edited how the GENDERID examples are presented to parallel how similar examples are presented at FULLNAME and other sections of the article. This makes it clearer to me what is being described and required (and how it aligns/differs from the guidance elsewhere). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people (see § Gender identity, below).

Late in the previous discussion, a point was raised: shouldn't CHANGEDNAME point to GENDERID?

And so it does (very last line). However, note the word "living" in the current text. Does GENDERID apply to living subjects only or equally to deceased subjects? We afford greater protections to living bio article subjects, is GENDERID one of these?

If the answer is "yes only to living" then GENDERID needs to make this distinction. If the answer is "no; to all" the above line at CHANGEDNAME needs to be edited. (To be clear: I have no opinion either way, I just want to point out this possible discrepancy)

CapnZapp (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID applies to living people ("If a living transgender or non-binary person..."). A large RFC about a year and a half ago found no consensus for changes relating to dead people.--Trystan (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably the existing pointer at CHANGEDNAME should be higher up in the section, perhaps after the red de Blasio example, since it creates a pretty big exception to what's stated upfront and currently falls after a section on changed surnames. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed GENDERID text revision redux

Per EddieHugh's request, below is proposed revised text based off what consensus here was showing, but edited to address their concerns.

When a living transgender or non-binary person's former name is not notable, that name should not be included in the article. For example:
When a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under their pretransistion pretransition name, that name should not be included in the article.
For example:

• From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
• Avoid: Not notable, do not use: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their prior former name, that name may should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior former name with "born" if they were notable under their birth name or "formerly" if notable under a prior former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym. For example:
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, that name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

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

Thoughts, objections, concerns? CapnZapp, Newimpartial —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think using the old language for the first case, like "when a living ... person was not notable under a pretransition name, that name..." is more precise (and therefore better) than your proposal. The test is the notability of the person while using the name, not the "notability of the name itself" (whatever that would mean). Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, adjusted above... Does using "pretransistion name" instead of "prior name" create any gray areas around gender change without a medical transition? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, since the relevant transition here is social, rather than legal or medical for example. But I would like others to weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• "pretransition" is misspelled "pretransistion"
• I would have thought that the usage of green/red text is standard and that the reader can be assumed to understand its meaning ^{(actually, is green/red text color-blind-friendly?)}, but okay - if MOS generally explains examples in red as "don't actually write this, this is an example of how to do it wrong" then we should definitely repeat that here as well. If this would be an isolated case, however, I think the explanation "do not use" from "Not notable, do not use:" should be removed.
• I like how the new text avoids claiming Page's prior name is not a birth name, since we appear unwilling to actually explain that.
• I like how the new text explicitly tells us when to use "born" and when to use "formerly". (Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before. Previously there wasn't an actual rule against using other words than "born" for the notable under their birth name case - we just stated editors should use "born" or "formerly". The examples hinted at which word to use where, but examples aren't rules. And to be ultra clear: I have no objections, I just want to raise awareness in case anyone missed the fact the suggested edit doesn't just change the presentation of the MOS rules, it actually changes them)
• I concur with Newimpartial's objection.

CapnZapp (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the spelling. Looking at other examples on the page, some red text is introduced in the sentence preceding it with "do not use" or similar language. Others (particularly when paired with a green text example) it's introduced with Avoid on the same line, so changed to that. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion back here. Comments:

• Is "When a living transgender ... For example:" needed? Most of that is in the existing "If a living transgender ... the person's current name" paragraph. Would adding "For example:" to the existing paragraph be enough?
• The current "...former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it" isn't very clear in its use of "should", but it differs significantly from the proposed "that name may be included in the lead sentence" ('should' versus 'may').
• I'm not sure about adding "pretransition name" to the list of terms used: what counts as "transition"? But then there's already "transition" in the same section. EddieHugh (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence of the proposed text is not needed, as it just repeats the existing "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable..." sentence. I also think that shifting from "should" to "may" reduces clarity and is likely to lead to unnecessary disputes about when to include the former name. The section as written establishes that by "former name" we mean a deadname. The proposed text would result in switching between "former name", "pretransition name" and "prior name", which reduces clarity. Finally, I oppose mandating that birth names be introduced with "born", as opposed to the current guidance which says both "born" and "formerly" are appropriate, leaving the choice up to the editors of a particular article.--Trystan (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, with Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before. above I hope to have helped made sure this change didn't fly under the radar. (Unlike you Trystan I don't mind the change, but then again, I don't have a strong opinion either way). CapnZapp (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, tried to address the seemingly repetitive first sentence, use former name throughout, and replace may with should when talking about someone notable under a former name.

Regarding formerly vs. born. The examples as MOS:CHANGEDNAME all use born for birth names, as does MOS:NEE. The discussion of "also known as" names at CHANGEDNAME and MOS:PSEUDONYM puts a different emphasis on the professional or stage name (e.g., Timothy Alan Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen) than I think is what's intended in GENDERID. To my mind, presenting "born" as the proper word for a birth name aligns with the rest of MOS:BIO and "formerly" covers well the instances when the notable name is something other than a birth name. Can you provide an example of a case where it makes more sense to use "formerly" for a birth name or "born" for a stage name? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out that examples can't make rules (or at least, shouldn't). That is, just because all examples use X doesn't mean there is a rule saying "you must use X"... unless there actually is rules text to that effect. We can't (shouldn't) expect readers to infer rules from examples. (I have no opinion either way; just want to keep the level of clarification high throughout this discussion, which I'm mostly monitoring so my proposed changes aren't lost half way) CapnZapp (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better way to phrase things then? The existing text at GENDERID says introduce the name with "born" or "formerly":. MOS:BIRTHDATE says Birth and death labels are included only when needed for clarity. When given, use full words, whether immediately preceding a date or not: (which is referring to writing out "born" instead of using "b."). Examples may not be "rules", but they demonstrate the proper application of the rules to help aid in understanding them and almost every time a birth name is used in the examples when the person is known by a different name, "born" is used to mark the birth name. The only exception is MOS:NEE says specifically, when a birth name is given for someone who's changed their surname, Editors may denote this [the birth name] with "born" ... or, if the surname change is due to marriage, né or née may be used instead of born. (The conditional may is used here because of the exception for when né/née might be used instead.)

CapnZapp, as I see it, it's not a new rule, just a clarification that aligns with the rest of the MOS. The current GENDERID text specifies to use either born or formerly. The only difference is the revision specifies "born" for use with (notable) birth names (which is in alignment with the rule at MOS:NEE and the examples that illustrate the rules at BIRTHDATE, CHANGEDNAME, etc.), leaving "formerly" for use with other sorts of former (notable) names. Are there any cases where this would be problematic or where an editor would reasonably choose to use the words differently? Or should "may" be being used here instead of "should" (to mirror the verbs in MOS:NEE)?— Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Trystan, can you elaborate on your last point (let editors choose when to use born or when to use formerly)? Is there an instance where born would be used for a stage name? Or where formerly would be more appropriate for a birth name? How do you see this deviating from the rest of MOS:BIO, such as the statement at MOS:NEE to use born, unless you're dealing with a surname change due to marriage where né/née may be used instead? I'm seeing this not as a rule change but a clarification that aligns with the rest of MOS:BIO, but if there are cases where it doesn't work I'd appreciate being educated about them. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The current guidance to use either born or formerly came from a compromise solution achieved in this RFC, which discussed the different connotations born can have for trans individuals. I have no objection to testing if that consensus has changed (in either direction), but I suggest it be done through an RFC.--Trystan (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't located that discussion. I've revised again to reflect that RFC; however, I also went back to "prior name" in one instance here so as not to have a soft implication that "former name" was connected to use of "formerly" (which was the assumption I was working under). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so that we have everything on the table at once: yes, the 2015 RfC mandated "born" or "formerly", but it didn't mandate specific guidance about when to use one or the other, nor did it come to any particilar conclusion about the possible connotations of "born".

Also, the most recent prior discussion of this guidance, which resulted in the status quo text and determined the current selection of examples, was this one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Newimpartial, I think with the revisions above there's nothing in conflict with either of those RfCs, but the changes still add some clarity, including the Avoid example, in response to the concerns CapnZapp raised in the "please explain (GENDERID examples)" discussion. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well.--Trystan (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just slow today, but I'm struggling to understand what the strikeouts at the start are meant to communicate. What would come before "For example?" Both suggestions are struck out. What would that be an example of? - Astrophobe (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, those were parts of the initial draft struck in response to comments and questions. The striking of everything but "For Example:" was because others felt the proposed line was too repetitive of an existing paragraph that wasn't being considered for change. So, now "For example:" would follow the existing "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Any further thoughts/concerns/edits, or does this look good to deploy? Clean (hopefully) final version (with the existing, unchanged preceding) below ... CapnZapp, EddieHugh —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

• From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
• Avoid: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

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

Comment - I don't blame you for not knowing the tedious background, but many editors would regard your change to the final intro paragraph, from should only be included if to In the case of .... should be included as substantive and, given the background, even as requiring its own RfC. (The former only sets limits on inclusion, while the latter positively mandates inclusion when the condition is met - at least, that is how many of us read that policy language.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. Both the existing text and the revision use "should" with the same limitation on inclusion (when the person was notable under the former name). That said, does this improve it for you? "If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, only then should that name be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's marginally better, but I'd be much more comfortable with, "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name." Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that works for me (and has been inserted above). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Can that be changed to "in the lead" rather than specifically saying the lead sentence? For example, if someone was somewhat notable under their former name and if their lead sentence is already stuffed with more notable aspects of their life post transition then we might not want to put the former name in the very first sentence. I think it would be best to make this a "best but not mandatory" MOS practice. Springee (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID currently specifies "in the lead sentence." MOS:FULLNAME says "should usually be given in the lead sentence," so there is wiggle room elsewhere in MOS:BIO... What do others think? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Tcr25, I have concerns about Rachel Levine being used as an example above. She was an academic researcher into eating disorders pre-transition, and published a number of articles in medical journals under her birth name. Obviously pre-transition she was a lot less notable than now, but I'm not sure she was entirely non-notable – and I think that's a rather different situation from someone like Laverne Cox, who as far as I am aware was a complete nobody pre-transition. A person might be interested in Levine's academic career/research/publications, and a person who wants to pursue that interest would need to know what name she published much of her work in that area under. By contrast, a person's reasons for knowing Cox's birth name couldn't be anything other than interest in celebrity trivia. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Notable in the guideline links to WP:GNG, which is a specific and well-defined threshold to meet. The consensus at the subject's article seems quite stable that she was not notable under her former name, so I think the example stands.--Trystan (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling either way. If there's an alternate person you can suggest who is relatively high profile and would serve equally well to illustrate things, please suggest them. That said, and as Tyrstan noted, the consensus seems to be that Levine fits the case of not notable under her prior name. (She's also one of the existing examples on the article, so she's not a new example here.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think examples in the MOS should be really clearcut cases. I agree Laverne Cox is such a case but not convinced that Rachel Levine is one. I don't think the consensus on Levine's article is necessarily dispositive as to whether it is a "clearcut case". If we can't find another example to replace it with, I think just having the Laverne Cox example is enough. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You can see the discussion above why it is desirable to have more than example to show there isn't a single set format. I'm not opposed to changing the example, but would need some suggestions about who to use instead. In the meantime, since the Levine example doesn't change what's already in the MOS, I wouldn't hold up the rest of the changes over this example. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the repeatedly-estsblished consensus at Talk:Rachel Levine that her pretransition name is not notable, and its consistent exclusion from the article, I think the example is a good one. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that discussion seems to have died out on this, I've moved the stable version of the examples and intro text to the MOS page. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable" would be less ambiguous as "should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable". That would also match the previous wording. EddieHugh (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I find the present text less ambiguous than the prior language, for what it's worth. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The first makes the inclusion conditional; the second highlights the condition to be met for inclusion. I think the effect are the same either way (the only reason to include a deadname is because the person was previously notable under it), just maybe a difference in which you stress. Neither feels more or less ambiguous to me. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The ambiguity: is inclusion to be in the lead sentence and nowhere else if the person was notable under that name ("only... in the lead sentence"), or does inclusion in the lead sentence require the person to be notable under that name ("only if... notable")? We mean the latter, I think. EddieHugh (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I restored this phrase to how it was ordered before the recent changes. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Should MOS:GENDERID apply to a person whose sole notability is due to a heinous crime such as murder or rape?

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.

---

Consider an individual such as Amber McLaughlin (born Scott A. McLaughlin). McLaughlin was executed for the murder and rape of a woman, committed while living as male, only transitioning to female while on death row. You will find a number of other cases of individuals who have transitioned post-incarceration for heinous crimes, although this is the only case (thus far) which has ended in execution. McLaughlin's notability is due to committing heinous crimes; although the primary source of notability is only for being executed for them, being executed for a crime can't really be separated from the crime itself (especially in a case such as this, in which nobody–to my knowledge–is suggesting this was the execution of an innocent person). (Technically MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to McLaughlin, since it only applies to living persons–but I'm trying to raise a broader point here than just that one individual case.)

Here are some arguments why MOS:GENDERID should not apply in such cases:

1. In very many cases, the victim or their family will be offended by extending recognition to the murderer/rapist's newly claimed identity
2. Many victims of similar crimes will be offended – many female victims of male sexual violence (and their supporters) have expressed opposition to the recognition of such identity claims by perpetrators
3. The intention behind the policy is to extend respect to transgender people; I don't think making an exception in these narrow cases exhibits any disrespect to transgender people in general. On the contrary, unequivocally accepting these individuals' claimed transgender identities may actually promote transphobia

Note, I am only suggesting we should carve out an exception for heinous crimes such as murder, rape, child abuse, etc, not for less inherently abhorrent offences. Such an exception would not apply to e.g. Chelsea Manning, since whatever your view on her criminal convictions, few would seriously suggest they are on the same level as rape or murder. I was thinking about filing an RFC on this topic, but thought it would be better to raise it informally for discussion first. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Misgendering someone – for any reason – disrespects all transgender people. Deciding it is alright to misgender someone based on crimes they did implies having your identity recognized is a privilege that can be taken away, which should not be the case.

Furthermore (and maybe more important for Wikipedia) deadnaming and misgendering someone is factually wrong. Amber McLaughlin isn't not a woman because she is notable for committing horrible crimes. We don't misgender cis people who do horrible crimes, there is no reason this should change for trans people, unless Wikipedia decides transgender individuals are not really the gender they identify as, which is obviously incorrect. Catgirl-su (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree We at Wikipedia don't offer extrajudicial punishment by imposing a different set of standards to convicted criminals than to other people. This should be SNOWBALL closed. CapnZapp (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think, as with most things, it comes down to what reliable sources say, and ultimately WP:Consensus is the foundation. If the preponderance of reliable sources cease to recognise the transition as 'genuine' for some reason, then we could clearly discuss reflecting that in the article. But what you're discussing is a fringe case among fringe cases (fringe²), the MOS will never cover every single eventuality. JeffUK 21:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:Ignore all rules. I agree with JeffUK that we should follow how the topic is described in the preponderance of reliable sources. If the MOS guide attempting to be respectful to people with gender dysphoria means that we're helping a criminal obfuscate their crimes for posterity, then ignore the MOS. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

How would you demonstrate that we're helping a criminal obfuscate their crimes for posterity as opposed to the possibility that their gender dysphoria was one of many issues they were struggling to cope with? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It certainly should not be solely Wikipedians making that call. Reliable sources. BTW I disagree with the proposal to change the MOS, I was trying to point out that it doesn't need to be followed in every case. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a person who committed a heinous crime under their former name is de facto notable under that former name (provided of course that the crime is attested by reliable sources), and thus the mention of that former name is covered by the existing wording of GENDERID. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rosbif73… no need to change existing language. Which names to mention depends on which names the subject used when they became notable. There is no “one-size-fits-all” rule here. Specifics matter. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Also disagree for the same reasons everyone else does. There's no problems with the existing policy. Loki (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2023 (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.

Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies

To bring WP:POSTNOM in better agreement with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I propose that this policy be altered to specifically omit post-nominal letters from lead sentences.

Per our guideline on biographical opening paragraphs, "the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." Post-nominal letters, many of which are unknown to laypeople, do not do any of those things. If anything, they actually delay a reader from getting to the part of the opening sentence that describes a person's notability.

Instead, the guideline should advise that post-nominals be placed in an infobox (if one is present) or in the body of the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing should ever be in an infobox unless it is also in the real text of the article. Infoboxes are a summary, not a replacement. So "move to infobox" is a non-starter. Whether postnominals are lead-worthy is another question, but I think they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove that part of the proposal then. What makes them lead-worthy, in your view? What information do they impart to a reader that is critical to their understanding of the subject? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)