Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus in support of moving post-nominals outside of lead sentences. While the proposal divided the community, consensus is not vote-based. After a review of the discussion, I believe that supporters of the proposal had a stronger argument for why the post-nominals should not, by default, be included in the lead sentence. In particular, opposers did not successfully challenge the claim that most post-nominals do not significantly define the subject in question such that they provide the reader with an essential understanding of who the subject is. In light of this, the clutter issues raised by some supporters mean that this information, when relevant, should instead be spread elsewhere in the lead and body of the article. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, this should not be exclusively in the infobox.

A number of editors sought to argue that the proposal should be opposed based on English cultural traditions and/or our guideline on English national variations. I do not believe that editors citing WP:ENGVAR successfully argued how this guideline alters who a person is (WP:LEADSENTENCE). Furthermore, I gave no weight to arguments based solely on a cultural divide between English and Americans.

Editors are welcome to contact me through my talk page if they wish to discuss my closure.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

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, WP:POSTNOM would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article. If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited/turned into RfC 00:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Moving post-nominals)

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)

They are part of the thing we do in leads of giving the person's name in as full a version as possible. They are a part of the name. Maybe not a very important part, but more important than most middle names, which we also give in full when we know them in the lead. There is usually nowhere else in the article that the full name can naturally get spelled out; as I said above, the infobox is definitely not the place, because it is wrong and bad to put anything in the infobox that is not in the article text. In some cases articles have a section for honors or recognition or awards where some of these can go, but not naturally in a form that would explain the postnominal lettering. So by process of elimination the lead is where it should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

They are a part of the name. — No. By definition post-nominal letters "are letters placed after a person's name", so the are not part of the name. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You can argue semantics all you want, but they are part of the string that you write when you address someone in a formal-enough context. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

they are part of the string that you write when you address someone in a formal-enough context — That may be the case, but the lead sentence of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a "formal-enough context". There are many formal forms of address, but Wikipedia is not obliged to use them. For example, in a formal context, one would probably refer to His Majesty King Charles III, President Joe Biden, or The Honourable Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, but none or our articles use those forms in the lead sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The question is not whether the lead is a formal-enough context. The point is that the lead is where we standardly provide the most-complete form of address of the subject, and this is an important part of that most-complete form of address. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That reasoning doesn't seem to be supported by anything in MOS:INTRO, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Albo doesn't have them in the lead because he doesn't have them at all. Consider the Governor General instead: David Hurley. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Albanese's infobox includes honorific-prefix = The Honourable. Prime Minister of Australia's infobox includes style = ... The Honourable (formal). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. There was a similar discussion a while back at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2022_archive#Fellowships_by_subscription,_e.g._FRSA regarding post-nominals. As I said at the linked discussion, I've always thought post-nominals in lead sentences were ridiculous and clunky looking (e.g. (and emphasis mine) "Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman"[8]...)[1] and would support the removal of post-nominals from the lead sentences of biographies altogether. No opinion on whether they are listed in the infoboxes, although if they are, the post-nominals need to be verifiable (sourced) and discussed in the body of the articles first. Some1 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support and probably more, and long past due. Postnominals should never be in running text, let alone in the lead sentence. I'm perfectly fine with them being in an infobox. Yes, ideally they should be in the article proper too, but only in prose, not as inscrutable acronyms. Having an occasional bit of statistics in an infobox but not the article is fine when done sparingly, and as long as it's sourced. Presumably, these letters are all linked to some sort of award or honor that the subject has received, and the article can talk about, though. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support If any of the postnominals are critical to their notability, that can be spelled out in the lede prose. --Masem (t) 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the lead should explain notability, but I suggest that a person is not notable because they have postnominals, but rather they have postnominals because they have done something notable (and it's the "something notable" that we should mention in the lead, not postnominals). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support These postnominals clog up lead sentences and devote undue weight to royal and aristocratic privilege. Describe the person's actual accomplishments in the lead and reserve the confusing alphabet baloney soup for the prose in the body of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • You do know that most people with postnominal letters are neither royal nor aristocratic? Comments like this just show the fundamental misunderstanding of the subject, particularly by people from countries that do not commonly use postnominals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support As above, and also brings wikipedia into line with the practice and style of other encyclopedias. I think most readers do not expect, or want, this kind of clutter, which is often applied retrospectively and anachronistically to people in the past who did not actually use post-nominals. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - particularly per Cullen. Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - while POSTNOM, as currently written, allows only for significant honors and appointments, it is IMO frequently abused to justify post-nominals associated with fellowships, degrees, and memberships in certain groups, and not only in the lede. Such misapplication is often redundant within the same sentence where the membership is stated in prose. We don't allow religious honorifics like PBUH and given the misuse of the current policy, it might be worth not allowing any at all and spelling out the significant honors in prose as others have noted above. I am not against their usage in infoboxes as summaries of info within the article body. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely not. Commonwealth postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style and are very commonly listed. I appreciate that people from countries that do not use them may not understand this and may not like them, but that's beside the point. Postnominals should be restricted to genuine (as opposed to made-up) postnominals for honours, fellowships and state-awarded appointments (like KC or JP) and only for countries that actually use them (that's mostly the Commonwealth). Infoboxes should never be a substitute for the lede and many articles do not even have infoboxes. And if the postnoms are bluelinked, as they should be, I see no confusion as some editors above have described. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: I respect the difference in opinion and only want to respond to your last point, as WP:EGG exists for a reason. Bluelinks alone aren't enough to ensure a reader's understanding. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    • How does WP:EGG possibly apply to the expansion of abbreviations? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
      • "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible", WP:EGG says, and something like FRSA is not intuitive to most readers. Hence, a link alone is not enough for a reader's understanding. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

        "FRSA" is the correct form of the postnominal and links to an article explaining what it stands for. This is completely unrelated to eggs or submarines, where an abbreviation, word, or phrase that means one thing is wikilinked to a different thing. Here, the link goes to the right place, not the wrong place. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Coming to this from the perspective of someone who neither speaks English as a native language, nor was raised in an English culture context, I've always found things like Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA an incomprehensible jumble of letters, distracting from the actually important bits at the start of the lede. Where post nominals are actually crucial for the notability of the person (for example, someone notable primary for a Victoria Cross), I'd expect them to be written out as prose. Where they are not, they can be left for the body and discussed there where relevant. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Those are the important bits at the start of the lead, and a VC winner will be introduced with the abbreviation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The suggestion to write out "Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter" in place of "KG" in the lead is ridiculous and would contribute much more to WP:LEADCLUTTER than this proposal. Writing it "KG" in the lead, and expanding much later in the text that he was knighted in whatever year, is exactly the summarizing of later content that leads are supposed to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bad read of my point, so let me write it out in more detail. My premise is that the lede, and especially the first sentence of the lede, has a single goal: to establish, as understandably as possible, the absolutely most vital biographic information about the article subject (name, when did they live, where were they geographically important) and their claim to fame, i.e. what is the very most important thing or two they are known for.

  For example, we write Sauli Väinämö Niinistö (born 24 August 1948) is a Finnish politician who has served as president of Finland since March 2012... or George Smith Patton Jr. (November 11, 1885 – December 21, 1945) was a general in the United States Army... or Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman, soldier, and writer who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twice.. (I'd go as far as arguing that Churchill's lede should move the prime ministership closer to the name, as soldier is so vague).

  For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notability. We don't talk, at the start of the lede, about Niinistö's Grand Master and Commander Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of the White Rose of Finland, or about how Patton has the Grand Cross of the Military Order of the White Lion or, indeed, about how Churchill was a Knight of the Order of the Garter: those awards and honours are not those people's (main) claim to fame, and they are very high awards indeed.

  It is even more clear cut for lesser (in this context) awards, such as Churchill having the Territorial Decoration, Patton having the Legion of Merit or Niinistö having nine honorary doctorates. For all these things, appending them — as an incomprehensible soup of acronyms, none the less — to the subjects name in the very first sentence of the article highlights the less important, confuses the reader, and pushes the actual main claim to fame further and further down the article. They are, in my view, given WP:UNDUE weight in the first sentence of the lede.

  With that out of the way, there certainly are some cases where the honour/award, or rather the action that led to it, is the main claim to fame. These probably include those awarded with e.g. Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor or Mannerheim Cross. But even here, too, the actual post nominal is redundant for the first sentence of the article: we can simply write Robert Vaughan Gorle (6 May 1896 – 9 January 1937) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross... without any need for the postnominal.

  And there will be some cases where the honours/awards are sufficiently important, in the context of the person's other accomplishments in life, that they warrant writing out in a subsequent sentence of the lede, but not in the first sentence. The practice of always writing out the post nominals immediately following the name ignores all nuance and considerations of dueness in preference for a notation that is horribly reader-unfriendly and more often than not highlights the (comparatively) unimportant, distracting from the crucial. Ljleppan (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Your claim For almost any person-honor/award pair, that award itself is not the source of their fame/notability turns out to be incorrect and false. For many people in academia in post-nominal-producing countries, in particular, and many of the post-nominals commonly used by those people in those countries, the post-nominal indicates being "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (e.g. FRS) for which membership is an automatic pass of our academic notability criteria. So putting it into the lead has the purpose, for those competent to read it, of clearly asserting the subject's notability. For those not already familiar with these abbreviations, the expanded form of the same recognition should be included later in the article text, of course, just like the expansion of other claims in the lead should be in the article text. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how this is any different from my example of Victoria Cross. Ljleppan (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) There's several further bad examples in the post-

  The Finish Award has postnominals but they are only used when writing in Finish., not in English.

  The Czech award has no postnominals, and even if it did, Patton being American wouldn't use such.

  The American awards mentioned have common abbreviations, not postnominals. They are NEVER used as postnominals.

  Honorary doctorates should never be worth mentioning in the lead unless it is somehow relevant to the persons notability and justification for having an article in the first place (ie Guiness World record holder for most honorary doctorates might be an exception).

  Gecko G (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  This misses my point so wildly I don't even know how to start addressing your comment, so I'll just leave it at saying... well, that. Ljleppan (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Our point is that your post has so many not relevant points that we don't see what point you are trying to make. So either A) you got sidetracked in making your point (happens to me all the time on wikipedia), or B) you misunderstand postnominals, or C) you have no point. I'm assuming good faith and that it is one of the first 2, but I don't know which (A or B). Care to attempt to make your argument again? Gecko G (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  My main argument flows as follows:

  1. The goal of the lede, and especially the start of the lede is to convey the most important biographical information
  2. Postnominals are primarily associated with honours/awards, while granted for notable things, are rather rarely the source of notability themselves. Yes, there are notable exceptions such as the Victoria Cross.
  3. Postnominal-awarding honours that are not the underlying source of notability are undue especially in the first sentence of the lede.
  4. Postnominal-awarding honours that are the underlying source of notability should in any case be written out in the first sentence of the lede, thus making the postnominal itself redundant.
  5. In both cases, postnominals are a poor method of conveying information in a general, global, encyclopedia.

  Regarding your A, B, and C, I'll just note that there's a certain set of further options you apparently didn't consider. But perhaps we'll just agree that a side conversation of increasingly snappy retorts is probably not useful here. Ljleppan (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  ok, thank you.

  I agree with #1.

  Number 2 is wrong.

  Numbers 3 through 5 don't take into account WP:ENGVAR nor various Wikipedia MoS's (and I further also personally disagree with #5, but that's not relevant).

  Postnominals are not primarily associated only with honours/awards. They are also connected with Fellowships (some relevant and important, some not, as discussed elsewhere), Academic Degrees, Professional Qualifications, and various religious things, and likely others that I'm unaware of due to my own ENGVAR.

  Different ENGVAR's put different importance's on those or use some, or none, or just different mixtures of them. For a global English language encyclopedia, Is the best practice not to use the ENGVAR that the individual whom the article is about would use, rather than forcing one particular ENGVAR onto everyone even when the subject themself would never use such? Gecko G (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I fail to see why you are making the distinction about academic fellowships etc. or how it somehow undermines my point. Either those postnominal-awarding fellowships/degrees/whatever are the primary underlying source of notability for the article subject, in which case they ought to the spelled out, or they are not and they are most likely undue at the start of the lede. Perhaps you, in turn, could spell the argument out more clearly. W/r/t ENGVAR, we already discourage other notational variations (see e.g. MOS:CRORE) that make articles more difficult to understand than necessary for a global audience. Ljleppan (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see why you think that being sources of notability means that they need to be present in an expanded form in the lead. Leads are for summarizing briefly, not for expanding. If your argument is that they should be in an expanded form elsewhere than the lead, then yes, of course, but they should still be summarized in the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  See MOS:INTRO, especially the second paragraph. Ljleppan (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I'm out of time right now, I will reply later. Gecko G (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, back for a moment (not sure how long before I have to leave again).

  You asked me to spell out why I mentioned the various examples (ie Fellowships, professions, etc.)- I did it to specifically refute your point #2, they are examples showing that they are not only nor primarily associated solely with Honors.

  MOS:CRORE is about number formats just like the American vs European number format of 1,234.56 vs 1.234,56 or vs. the Indic numerals so I fail to see the relevance (and really I'd argue that "Crore" is more of a translation issue, like using the archaic but correct "score", though admittedly that can be a blurry line distinction - but expounding upon that could result in a not-relevant side discussion, so I won't go into that unless you feel it's particularly relevant).

  In your above reply to David Eppstein about the second paragraph under MOS:INTRO you may have the germination of an argument, but it's a weak one (One vague broad sentence of an MOS may be interpreted to partially conflict with much more topic specific MOS's elsewhere - I would always go with the more specific instructions over the broad, general ones).

  If you think that only something 100% relevant to establishing notability guidelines should be in the lead - and I'm not sure if that's where you are in fact going with this, but if you are, then this conversation is merging into that which I have discussed elsewhere in this section, so rather than repeating myself and risking fracturing the discussion thread I would instead refer you to some of the various arguments below. (If that is not the point you are building to, then ignore this last part).

  Gecko G (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, you are free to mentally append fellowships, professions, etc. into my argument and explain how the underlying argument regarding dueness and redundancy is affected. Second, fellowships are, in my view closer to honours/awards than professions, and e.g. the first sentence of Fellow of the Royal Society seems to agree. Third, WP:POSTNOM already limits the use of postnominals, excluding [a]cademic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications, which should be omitted from the lead, so I don't see the point of going on about professions. W/r/t the MOS and more specific instructions over the broad, general ones, the MOS is absolutely filled with language highlighting how important it is that the lede is easily understandable. See both paras of MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADSENTENCE regarding clarity; MOS:REDUNDANCY regarding redundancy and MOS:LEADREL regarding due weight. Yes, these are high-level principles, which is precisely the point of this discussion: many members of the community appear to believe the "more specific instructions" clash with the fundamentals, and it is the "more specific instructions" that should be adjusted so as to be in sync with the fundamentals rather than the other way around. PS, reading WP:ENGVAR with fresh eyes, I don't see what part of that this would fall under, as it talks about vocabulary, spelling and grammar rather than dueness of information. Ljleppan (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I said..." Where did you say that? That may perhaps significantly change and clarify my understanding of the argument you are attempting to make.

  I went and read all 4 of your linked MOS's, and other than perhaps an extreme technicality with MOS:BOLDAVOID, I don't see any reason in any of them to omit postnominals unless one is a die hard republican ("republican" in the anti-monarchist sense, not the American political sense) and even then that would itself be WP:UNDO and based on the false connection that all postnominals are monarchical honours (as myself and others have pointed out, but every time we do you just question why we are mentioning non-monarchical examples).

  Favoring overly broad Wikipedia wide guidelines (which have to be vague enough to be used for all kinds of things, Articles about historical events, about physics concepts, about work of art, inventions, places, political movements, etc., etc., not just Biographies) over that of more specifically narrow guidelines (i.e. just WP:Biographies, let alone very specific subsections of the later) is illogical to me, especially when the later were developed within the context and under the overview of the former.

  Regarding your ENGVAR comments, I am once again surprised that is being brought up (as mentioned elsewhere it seems obvious to me), but I'll refer you to the exchange further down between Mitch Ames & Tcr25, rather than repeating my own comments from there. Gecko G (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose They will not appear in the article body; the article body will list them as they are earned, but usually they will not all come together until the end. The whole purpose of the lead is to summarise the contents of the body, and the post-nominals do that. Putting them in prose in the lead is absurd. Commonwealth postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style and often appear on monuments and documents. Infoboxes are not a substitute for the lead and many articles do not, nor are they required to, have them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  postnominals are a fundamental part of a person's style — no more so than prefixes such as The Most Honourable, ... Her Majesty, His Holiness, etc, which MOS:PREFIX explicitly says should not be included. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  A more accurate comparison would be to pre-nominal titles like sir and dame, which per MOS:SIR are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose They contribute to providing a concise overview and summary of the person. I would hope (expect?) the awards will be discussed in the body with context, although that could be just a sentence. I would not oppose a limit on the # of post-noms to include in the lead (and maybe even the infobox) to address the cases where someone's got an arm's length of 'em like the Churchill example above.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 01:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose particularly per Tcr25 & Archer1234's reasonings. If this was the Simple English Wikipedia I would instead support, but here oppose. Though not a thing in American English, my understanding is these are very important in other English's and even some none English languages (ie Portuguese, Swedish, etc.). I could understand placing a limit on what to include or not (like the prior discussion about Fellowships, which never really reached a satisfactory conclusion), or a maximum number to include, or issues like only including certain types (ie should Order of Saint John be included?, etc.). If, conversely everything is going to be excluded then the prenominal stuff like "Sir" should also be dropped and then that would run into issues of how do we name articles about people's who's name includes titles, ie William, Prince of Wales. Further, if there was a reader who doesn't understand postnominals, I would think having it only in the infobox would lead them to the assumption that the string of letters was article vandalism - whereas if it's on both the lead and the infobox that should give such an unaware reader at least reason to wonder if something else was going on, and hover over the links to see, and thus learn as I did the first time encountering such many many many years ago. Gecko G (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  If ... everything is going to be excluded then the prenominal stuff like "Sir" should also be dropped — I would support such a change. I've never been a fan of (MOS:SIR) including "Sir", "Lady" and the like; I don't see that they are any more special than other honorifics.

  issues of how do we name articles about people's who's name includes titles, ie William, Prince of Wales — I think they are fundamentally different, in that "Prince of Wales" here is a disambiguator - there are many Williams, but only one Prince of Wales. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would support dropping the prenominals from lead sentences too. Readers who aren't familiar with such stuff might think "Sir", for example, is a part of the subject's birth/legal name, especially when Sir is bolded and is not wikilinked to anything else. Pre-nominal and post-nominal letters are better left for infoboxes; see Winston Churchill's infobox, for example. Some1 (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  (replying to both): At least removing absolutely everything would be consistent, but now you are talking about modifying several MOS's (not just 1) and violating WP:ENGVAR. On the other extreme, including every single minor fellowship or academic degree would also be consistent but is clearly way too much (WP:LEADCLUTTER, WP:UNDUE, etc.). So there obviously needs to be a middle ground somewhere (a cut off in importance/quality and/or number?). I would argue that removing all postnominals is way too severe to place the middle ground at, especially since I don't find the arguments about confusion relevant when the proposed alternative (as mentioned in posts above, not in either of your two's posts) would be even more confusing. I think our current de-facto placement of the cut-off is good (ie leaving out lesser fellowships and the religious one's when not relevant, leaving out most academic degree achievements, etc., etc.) but could definitely be better clarified in the MOS, but as I'm a native speaker of an ENGVAR that only ever uses a select few postnominals so I would put more faith on the input from native speakers of ENGVARs which use more postnom's than my own to try to succinctly phrase that short enough to be included in an MOS. Basically I understand it, but am bad at explaining it because it's not something in my native dialect. Gecko G (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  now you are talking about modifying several MOS's (not just 1) — Obviously a separate specific RFC would be required, but there's no reason why we could not modify other parts of MOS (given appropriate consensus). It is not unknown for a proposed specific change to be shown to be a specific instance of a more general change that should be considered.

  violating WP:ENGVAR — Several posts have mentioned ENVAR, but I don't think this comes under ENGVAR at all. ENGVAR is about differences in vocabulary, spelling, grammar, date formats, not the importance of honorifics. Can someone quote the specific part of ENGVAR (or Comparison of American and British English) that they think applies here? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not that WP:ENGVAR directly applies to postnominals, but that a similar principal is at play. Articles from some nations may have a different style than otherwise similar articles because of which orthography, date format, measurement system, etc., is used in that nation. A similar strong national tie is at play with the use of post-nominals and some countries (particularly the Commonwealth). The counter argument would be to think of postnominals as similar to MOS:CRORE; there's a strong national tie, but their use requires extra care and explanation because many readers will find them confusing. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you are going to change multiple long established wiki standards that affects thousands of articles (including what I'm assuming are hundreds of articles that have reached high quality reviewed status {GA, Featured, etc.}, thus would need to be all reassessed), there better be some very good arguments, none of which I'm yet hearing.

  If your stance is that a lead should be either 100% all or nothing (as discussed here and elsewhere), while I disagree, I can at least understand such a position IF editors are both upfront about that (I fear some editors are trying to piecemeal introduce it on unrelated issues) and are consistant with the stated all or nothing.

  I notice that several of the editors here have independently made the connection to ENGVAR issues, and once again Tcr25 ssays it far better than I am able to, but I would further note that it seems obvious to me so I'm surprised that would even be questioned. Parts of it might even fall under the MOS:TIES part of ENGVAR since they are country specific (the OLY postnominal being the only international exception I can think of- but even there countries that don't use postnoms at all wouldn't use OLY either). Wikipedia's own articles on both postnominals and list of post-nominal letters even break things down by different english speaking countries. Different countries use differnt types of postnominals, some use more or less than other countries, or different categories, or order them separately. If you look up biography or style guides from different countries, you'll see differences (I even came across one at one point, I think it was an Australian government one, that suggested postnominals should even be used when speaking! that seems like ridicoulous overkill to me, but I'm not Aussie so I don't feel qualified to say otherwise).

  Gecko G (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  To turn it around, you could think of it as leading us down the path towards an expansion of WP:ENGVAR to include how different areas view post-nominals. Gusfriend (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would of thought it was obvious, but given that 2 editors have questioned it, perhaps so. Gecko G (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hesitant support, in favo(u)r of some alternative: I understand this is often important info for some people (subjects and readers alike), so I am not averse to keeping it, but I wouldn't be sad to see it leave the lead sentence. Perhaps we want to allow/recommend a separate section or sentence at the end of a lede? Something like The formal style for him is "Sir John Grey Gorton GCMG, AC, CH" or The formal address for the prime minister is "The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP" (or whatever would be actually correct). Royal folk like Elizabeth II would still have their section like Titles, styles, honours, and arms, since for them, the topic is too extensive for the lede anyway. MOS:POSTNOM should continue to proscribe academic postnoms like "Ph.D" (and MOS:CREDENTIAL things like "Dr."). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think post-nominal letters are generally lede worthy. I'm less sure that they're first-sentence worthy, and I can see the point that they might pile up and create an alphabet soup. An end-of-lede sentence along the lines of "She is formally styled..." may be a decent option in some cases. On the one hand, extra short paragraphs stuck at the end of ledes are, I think, generally frowned upon. On the other, such a line might flow naturally in the prose ("In recognition of these accomplishments, she has received many accolades, and so her formal style is..."). I'm not sure. XOR'easter (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not finding the arguments that postnominals are confusing or vague convincing, which leaves the main argument being either they clutter the lede or WP:IDONTLIKE. To a degree I think this is similar to MOS:ENGVAR or MOS:DATEVAR. In the Commonwealth, postnominals like VC are more frequently seen, understood, and accepted. Elsewhere, they seem superfluous or confusing. It may be that more specific guidance around how many postnominals are too many is needed (currently, MOS:POSTNOM says: When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article.), but I'm not seeing a good reason to get rid of them entirely. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. I find Carter's explanation here pretty much sums up what I wanted to say. Half-a-dozen post-nominal letters are no more intrusive than a middle name and can be quickly skipped by people who aren't interested. The template that hyperlinks the letters to the full names of the honours easily allows people who are interested but unfamiliar to learn what the honours are.

  I would also contrast post-nominal letters with peerages, which are many words long and often obscure the person's more commonly-known pre-peerage name. --Mgp28 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as a matter of WP:DUE weight. The first sentence should communicate the most fundamental, essential aspects of the topic. For a person, that would generally be, when and where did they live, and what sort of activities or accomplishments are they most notable for. The lead of Stephen Hawking (which is used as an example at MOS:POSTNOM) mostly hews to this ideal. If you needed to explain who Stephen Hawking was to someone who had never heard of him in the briefest possible terms, the points you would hit on are more or less what's in the lead sentence. Theoretical physicist. Writer. English. Died recently. Cambridge University. The element of the lead that sticks out as something you would not mention is the "CH CBE FRS FRSA". I can easily name a dozen aspects of Hawking which are not mentioned in the lead sentence and which are far more salient. And I'm not just saying this as a matter of opinion - I think that claim can be supported by RS. RS coverage of Hawking surely gives more weight to, say, his popular science writing, or his work on black holes, or his disability than it does to his formal titles. Colin M (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  The same argument could be made about the appropriateness of including a middle name in the lead sentence when the person and RS coverage do not commonly include it. To use this example, you would say "Stephen Hawking" when talking about him, not "Stephen William Hawking", but per MOS:FULLNAME "William" is included in the first sentence regardless of what weight RS give to his middle name. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I again find myself agreeing with Tcr25. For Stephen Hawking, how is his middle name being William, the fact that he was born on January 8th, or the fact that he was English, relevant by your argument, yet those are included in his lead sentence and all are typically included. Likewise you mentioned that there are several more salient aspects (ie his disability isn't even mentioned until the second paragraph, yet it's very well connected to what people commonly know about him). The lead sentence is never either 100% everything or 100% nothing. And given that we are dealing with different WP:ENGVAR's it can quickly get confusing, but since there aren't separate wikipedia's for each ENGVAR, we use the ENGVAR the individual would use. Gecko G (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with any of that. I don't think exact dates of birth and death should go in the lead most of the time, and would be happy to see them moved to the body (though they can stay in the infobox). The same goes for middle names which are not usually included in RS. I even wrote a mini-essay related to the latter problem. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  ok, then see my above reply to Mitch Ames & Some1, as you are in the same boat. Gecko G (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Noooooo! At my estimate (a pure guess), about half the views of biographies come from people wanting this and only this. You don't think most people actually read them, do you? Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  the appropriateness of including a middle name in the lead sentence when the person and RS coverage do not commonly include it. — As with dates of birth, one primary reason for including it is that is part of unique identity. A common way (in formal/official scenarios in real life) of distinguishing between two otherwise identically named people is by middle name, and/or date of birth. I might distinguish between John Henry Smith and John Joseph Smith, or possibly John Smith born 1970-01-01 and John Smith born 1981-02-03, but rarely if ever (possibly in some very specific cases) would I distinguish between John Smith AO, John Smith MBE, and John Smith (with no post-nominals). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not from a country that uses much postnoms, but don't some of those countries consider postnoms "part of uique identity"? As for middle names, if they are only for distinquishing between two similar things, aren't disambiguators supposed to be used only if necessary? How is that consistent with a 100% (as discussed & defined elsewhere here) stance? Gecko G (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  don't some of those countries consider postnoms "part of uique identity"? — Not the I'm aware of. It's common (in Australia) to request "full legal name" and date of birth, but I've never had anyone (or any form) ask for postnominals. Even the Australian passport does not have a space for postnominals, suggesting that they are not part of identity for other countries. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would caution against trying to link the, possibly fictitious concept of a "legal Name" with "Identity". Different governmental authorities don't even agree what is and is not part of one's "legal name" (as just one example The US Social Security administration omits both middle names and suffixes from "legal name"), and even when you just substitute "legal name" with "birth name" that can cause problems if trying to forcibly link one with the other (ie Cassius Clay vs. Muhammad Ali, or trans issues of identities, to name just 2 examples off the top of my head)

  Given most citizens have no postnominals I wouldn't expect a government form's lack of a separate entry spot as proof (people worthy of having a biography article are more likely to have postnominals than some random citizen). I also don't see how one particular countries lack of such a form spot for postnominals means that other countries that make more usage of postnominals don't use them more. Postnominal usage varies, even just within the Commonwealth (ie compare Tanzania with Belize with Britain with etc., etc.) let alone outside the Commonwealth.

  A quick websearch finds one example, [#26 on this guide from the Canadian Defence Department] saying postnominals should be used in, specifically, Biographies. That's just one quickly found example, I would expect similar could be found for other countries.

  Gecko G (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I also don't see how one particular countries lack of such a form spot for postnominals means that other countries ... don't use them more. — I'm not saying that other countries don't use them; I'm saying that other countries do not require then as part of official identity. (My original point - in response to "the appropriateness of including a middle name [and/or DOB] in the lead" - was that middle names and date of birth can be part of your unique/official/legal identity, but postnominals are not, hence middle names and date of birth (DOB) are fundamentally different to postnominals.) I gave the specific example of the passport application form because the passport is used by countries other than the issuer. If other countries considered postnomimals to be part of unique/legal/official identity then the passport issuing country would probably include them in the passport (as they include middle names and DOB) because the other countries would want to know about them.

  Reiterating: I'm not say that postnominals are not important - just that middle names and DOB are fundamentally different to postnominals because the former are commonly part of unique/legal/official identity, but the latter are not. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  What goes on/into a passport is at the discretion of the issuing country (within certain minimal International norms), so I don't see how that helps your line of reasoning w.r.t. Identity, nor do I see how it in any way undermines any of my points raised above.

  For the sake of argument, If country A uses them as part of "identity" (problematic per above, but for the sake of trying to understand the subpoint you are making let's temporarily go with it), and Country B doesn't, why would the fact that Country B's application form lacks a spot for it somehow be relevant "proof" that they aren't used in Country A? I'm afraid I don't follow (and we may be starting to get very off topic). Gecko G (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  From the Passport article, with my emphasis:

  A passport ... contains a person's identity. ... It is typical for passports to contain the full name, photograph, place and date of birth...

  There's no mention of postnominals. The absence of postnominals isn't intended to be "proof" that another country doesn't use them; it's intended to support my original assertion that middle names and DOB are fundamentally different to postnomimals. Middle names and DOB are commonly and globally used as part of a person's unique identifiers - they are part of the minimal International norms of a "person's identity" and thus included on passports - whereas postnominals are not part of those international norms, and not so commonly used to uniquely identify ("disambiguate", in the real world) people with otherwise identical names. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I think I might now slightly better understand the sub-point you are arguing (though I still disagree) and I still find it unconvincing to the larger issue for the multiple reasons raised previously. Gecko G (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I had an instinctive dislike of the proposal but couldn't think of how to articulate it until I read WP:ENGVAR in the discussions above. I suspect that it comes down to commonwealth countries. It would be interesting to see the numbers of the different countries in Template:Post-nominals. Gusfriend (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the template supports 21 countries — Antigua, Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States — but (in a spot check of Category:Pages using Template:Post-nominals with customized linking) there are instances from other countries where the template is used too. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that usage is concentrated in Commonwealth countries which would give weight to the argument that it is like WP:ENGVAR. Gusfriend (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wanted to say that, at least in Australia, post-nominals are included as part of the name on plaques, statues and the like which means that it is in a certain sort of common usage.

The more that I think about it the more that I think that the topic deserves a more nuanced RfC taking into account national usage and preferences in a wider forum. Gusfriend (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Stong Oppose, but support enforcing the existing policy, with only really important ones in the lead. I think there is an ENGVAR-type issue here. If Americans wanted no post-noms in the first sentence of American bios that might be fine, and not make much difference. America doesn't use post-noms for many things like gallantry decorations, where Commonwealth countries very much do. Plus who is going to do the massive work involved in removing them, & putting them in the right place? Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems like taking a side on a cultural divide. Skyerise (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I have a great deal of respect for the OP and several of the supporters, who I've worked with at MilHist and FAC, but as others have pointed out this does seem to be dividing roughly (I emphasise roughly) along cultural lines. Post-noms are a Commonwealth convention rather than an American one but we don't try and ram one English language style across all articles. Also regarding an earlier comment that they are a feature of aristocracy and privilege, I can say that the vast majority -- probably all -- of the relevant subjects for which I've written WP bios were working- or middle-class people doing deeds above and beyond the call of duty. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Yes, the postnominals are unwieldy in the lead sentences, but the same could be said about the middle names too. They are a fundamental part in understanding who that person is and what they did. The worst inconvenience in inclusion is maybe an extra half-second of scanning the lead text, but the benefits in inclusion outweigh the pros in removal. We provide links to the relevant articles so that "laypeople" can understand them; the point of an encyclopaedia is to teach, not to withhold information for fears it may confuse people. Necrothesp also makes good points. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "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" If you are playing that statement of guidelines post-nominals it equally applies to long names like those who have 4 middles names. You may as well "trim" Akon's full name in the lead since he is not notable for it. Post-nominals and their full name are essentially in defining the subject in a formal tone.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  The problems I have with Post-nominals and their full name are essentially in defining the subject in a formal tone. (beyond not agreeing with it from the first principles) is that I don't understand why the same argument wouldn't apply to all other similar components often attached to names, such as academic titles, other honorifics, etc. Our manual of style takes a very strong, almost categorical, stance that these should not be included. Is your position that these standards should be relaxed to allow for further variation base on where the subject hails from? If not, perhaps you could help me see why these particular attachments to the legal name are distinct.

  As for Akon, I'd actually agree that the first sentence of the lede there is not very informative. In fact, I don't see the name the artist is commonly known with ("Akon") anywhere in the lede, which seems like a rather massive oversight. Ljleppan (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  What academic titles are you referring to specifically? As in professor or something else? We cannot fit everything in to a lead sentence but post nominals are part of someone's name in a full formal context, if that also includes academic titles as well then yes I may well consider it but I would need specfics as to what you mean exactly. Things like professor at X university are typically in the lead sentence anyway.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  (It looks like Akon has been fixed ...) The difference I would see between VC, OBE, etc., and an academic title like Dipl.-Ing. or PhD is that the honor is earned in a way that is different and more notable/less common than the earning of the academic degree/title. Consider John Smith VC as an example: earning the Victoria Cross meets WP:ANYBIO; if he'd earned a PhD in economics instead, that alone would not be enough to support an article on John Smith PhD. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Colin M. Continuing with the illustrative example of Stephen Hawking, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of sources do not introduce him as CH CBE FRS FRSA (e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]), irrespective of whether the sources are British or from some other country – ENGVAR has nothing to do with it. In any case, decisions about the relative prominence of content within an article must be rooted in WP:NPOV and the practice of sources. Typical sources mention him being a fellow of the Royal Society etc. several paragraphs down, at the earliest, and do so without giving blanket greater weight to those honours, awards, etc. that happen to officially have letters than to comparably significant ones which don't. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC one is a timeline not either a biography nor an obituary. Here's a BBC example biography that does include postnominals [Russell T. Davies OBE], and here's another Dr. Who producer's biography who had an OBE listed at another site: [Verity Lambert OBE], or a [John Hurt CBE obituary at Pancreatic Cancer UK Charity] and his CBE was for Drama, nothing to due with Cancer - I need to get away from Doctor Who connections, so [Keira Knightly OBE at Any Biography] a biography website. In other arts beyond TV how about [a ballet dancer with both a CH & a DBE], outside the arts and outside Britain [Here's an Encyclopedia entry with an Australian example that includes a fellowship], Here's even [An American example properly utilizing religious postnominals in an obituary in a secular newspaper] - And America uses very few postnoms! Gecko G (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support postnominal awards are commonly non-defining, it looks clunky, it's not how RS typically refer to the article subject in the vast majority of cases. I don't see how ENGVAR enters into the discussion since regardless of the country postnominals are not commonly listed in RS. This makes it unlike titles such as royalty, popes, Sir/Dame which this proposal does not concern. Buidhe public (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I am loosely supportive of the principle of the proposal - postnominal lines can indeed get a bit cluttered - but I would not want to make it an absolute rule that they are always removed. Encouraging them to be used more carefully and selectively seems worthwhile. In particular, I think for cases where someone has one single specific honour that is virtually defining - we have a lot of articles that were written because someone had recieved the VC or was made FRS - then it seems reasonable to have that one as a single postnominal. I agree that for someone like Hawking or Churchill, FRS among a long line of imposing things is less critical, but for someone where it's the only thing listed I would be much more hesitant to remove it. There may also be an issue of how they were actually used by the subject - if they made a point of using them, having them in the lead seems more defensible. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  On reading the proposal again, I'm also a little unclear what this means - "WP:POSTNOM would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article". I can agree that the award should be listed in the body of the article - it certainly shouldn't be in the lead without it! - but presumably it would actually be spelled out, "Smith became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1986", and not "Smith recieved the postnominals FRS in 1986". The postnominals themselves wouldn't be in the article proper unless we have some very clunky wording or they happen to coincide with the award (eg something like the OBE which is commonly abbreviated that way). Not quite sure I can see how this would work in a straightforward way. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Gray: If someone is primarily notable for an award/appointment/etc. that carries a post-nominal, e.g. winning the Victoria Cross, wouldn't we explictly state that in the lead sentences anyway? :-) To your second comment, that's just clunky wording on my part. I meant that the reason for the post-nominals would be mentioned in the article body, not that they had to specifically kept in post-nominal form. A better wording for this can be worked out if the RfC concludes with support for the proposal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @The ed17 I think for the VC, yes (most of our VC articles still lead off with the same boilerplate sentence, now I think about it...) but explicitly mentioning it in the lead seems much less common for FRS, I think - at least the ones I've sampled. I guess it varies in different contexts. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Necrothesp and Hawkeye7. They're part of a person's formal style and have a similar standing to the titles described at MOS:SIR, which for the avoidance of doubt I also oppose deprecating. For stylistic consistency, editors should be encouraged to display post-nominals using the {{post-nominals}} template. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I personally don't find the post-nominals intuitive, but I also don't see any strong reason to get rid of them. I mostly just skip over them. My question is, if we're going to include these, why don't we also include advanced degrees? Those are also, to use David Eppstein's formulation, "part of the string that you write when you address someone in a formal-enough context". --Trovatore (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  As discussed above, the line can't be to 100% include everything nor to 100% exclude everything, so the line has to be drawn somewhere. But where? Things like advanced academic degrees (PhD, etc.), certain Professional qualifications (MD, EUR ING, etc.), religious postnoms, and various fellowships (seems they fall into 2 categories- one is notable, the other not) all fall, for me, in the "gray area" where there's reasonable arguments both for and against inclusion. Given that competing, reasonable arguments exist on where within the gray zone to draw the line, any such future RFC on that would likely not be fruitful.

  However, this proposal for removing postnominals entirely is well outside any such gray area and I've not heard a single argument here in nearly 6 weeks of discussion that is even slightly convincing. These discussions are supposed to be about working towards compromises and changing minds, and usually after partaking in these long and detailed debates (outside of times when I'm partaking as a diplomat/moderator role) my final stance shifts more towards the middle of the controversy by the end, but in 6 weeks of this particular one I've only become more convinced in my opposition to the proposal. I am rapidly loosing interest in spending any further time on it since neither side seems to be making any progress (ie no one has changed their stance). If this was an actual RFC I would of called for the discussion to be closed well before now (And I'm usually the one complaining that RFC's get closed too soon!). Gecko G (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Avoiding thingies

Do you need to avoid Bill Gates III? ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the question. Do you mean that we should avoid referring to "Bill Gates III" at all, or possibly not use "William Henry Gates III" in that article"?

Relevant MOS guidelines include MOS:NAME, MOS:FULLNAME, MOS:JR, WP:COMMONNAME.

Mitch Ames (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Additions to JOBTITLES

Hi, an extra paragraph was added to WP:JOBTITLES in this edit, likely a response to a dispute I had with the editor over applying JOBTITLES to position leads following the use of "The". There was no discussion over this paragraph so unsure whether it is against consensus or a worthy inclusion. Or simply put, can such addition be checked, it seems to be a rewording of the third point above the examples table but excluding the exceptions, does this paragraph now argue that it should be capped even after using "the" or "a"? Third point above, stated it can be capitalised when it is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article). DankJae 00:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Changes to 'Context'

These need to be discussed. The current wording is STABLE. Changing guidelines whilst involved in a dispute related to those guidelines (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#user:Skyerise) is incredibly poor form. GiantSnowman 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not providing proper nationality context when possible leaves readers confused. I proposed that several uses of "usually" be change to "where possible" to prevent intentional omission of relevant nationality (-ies) by recalcitrant editors who assume every reader is going to know the relevant football nationality rules. The way it is being done is totally unclear. Skyerise (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; we have literally tens of thousands of articles where the lede states 'X is a footballer. Born in X, they represented Y at international level' and as far as I can recall nobody other than you has ever said it is confusing. GiantSnowman 16:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Question: is this dispute about what categories to use or about how to phrase the opening text of the article? Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In a way, both. Having the nationalities clearly stated, rather than assumed from football rules (note that the players on other than national teams are treated differently and typically state the nationality up front), leaves no ambiguity about which nationality categories should be included. The way it is being presented makes it unclear where the subject is playing as a national and where they are playing as an expatriate, making it difficult to select or verify the correct categories. Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so the next question is: does it matter whether a player is playing as a national or as an expatriate (and if so, why does it matter)? Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise is not correct here. A player with unambiguous nationality will be described as e.g. 'English footballer', regardless whether they play at club or international level. A player born in country X but who plays for country Y due to (most often) parentage will be described as above. This is how it has been done for years, covers tens of thousands of articles, and has never caused confusion (as far as I am aware). GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also perhaps worth noting that the expats almost certainly have press documenting their actual citizenship, but the players of "unambiguous nationality" (the ones for whom all documented life activities occur within some particular country) may well not, because it's so obvious that nobody feels the need to say it explicitly. Unless we have a source explicitly stating that they are a citizen of some country, or stating their birthplace in a jus soli country, all we can go on is where they flourished. So leaving it somewhat ambiguous (calling them an "English footballer" rather than a "citizen of the UK who plays football for England", say) can be an accurate reflection of our sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My complaint is that, contrary to what GiantSnowman has stated, is that at least some articles, no nationality is being stated before the profession as indicated by WP:CONTEXTBIO. Saying something like "born in X, plays for Y", where the subject is a citizen of both, requires that the reader know that "plays for Y" implies "is a citizen of Y". There is no logical reason for not being explicit. There is a reason for being explicit - without this even an experienced editor who happens to know nothing about football may misconstrue what categories are appropriate. Obviously, a reader who knows nothing about football will not necessarily come away with the fact that the subject holds dual citizenship. That's the whole point of WP:CONTEXTBIO - to make sure that the context is clear without assuming knowledge on the part of the reader. Reverting the clarification of nationality is edit-warring that verges on vandalism (since the OP called me a vandal for trying to improve the article). The only possible problem I see here is if they were born in a country that requires them to relinquish their citizenship when repatriating, but that can be determined from the relevant nationality law article.It's my understanding that very few countries require this in these modern times. Skyerise (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody besides GiantSnowman have a problem with my revisions to Kenneth Paal and Eduardos Kontogeorgakis. Is there some valid reason not to follow WP:CONTEXTBIO here? Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as has been explained to you here and at WT:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality issues

Hi All, There are numerous discussions going on both on wiki talk pages, via wiki (near) edit wars and within the art-world and in the media regarding reclassifying Ukrainian born persons (artists, chess players etc), current labelled as Russian. This could also impact other persons subject to historic colonial, conquered and other disputed areas. I think we need some clarity and potentially some individual ruling in some cases. So, can someone provide some expert guidance on the MOS.

Example Talk:Kazimir Malevich born in Kyiv, then part of the Russian empire, to Polish parent (does not clarify where they were born), studied in Russia, calls himself Ukrainian, was part of a Russian school (style of art, not educational)

Cheers 2404:4408:638C:5E00:75C2:43D3:364F:F481 (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue, by no means limited to Ukraine. I have ancestors in Europe whose birth places changed names as borders shifted, e.g., Gavrylyak, Polish White Russia. In such cases, should articles use the name at birth? The name at the time of writing? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The article should give historical names and current names - example: “He was born in what was then Oldname, Russia (now Newname, Ukraine…”)” If necessary, explain it in more than one sentence. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is what I would have said, if Blueboar hadn't beaten me to it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY states that the opening sentence should refer to the country of which the person was a citizen when they became notable. It also says "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted."

I looked at Kazimir Malevich and I noticed that the opening sentence says he was a Russian avant-garde artist, with the hyperlink to Russian avant-garde. While his citizenship cannot have been Ukrainian at a time that Ukraine wasn't legally a country, this does not stop him being a member of the artistic Ukrainian avant-garde. He is the first person named on the Ukrainian avant-garde page so was certainly notable for it. So for this specific example I wonder if a formulation such as

Kazimir Severinovich Malevich (23 February [O.S. 11 February] 1879 – 15 May 1935) was an artist in the Ukrainian avant-garde...

would be more informative, less contentious, and remain consistent with guidance. I don't know if a similar formulation would help for the other discussions you mention. --Mgp28 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, reading the whole first paragraph for Kazimir Malevich it seems he is considered an artist of both the Russian avant-garde and the Ukrainian avant-garde, so what I suggested might not help. Either way, given that Russian avant-garde is a single hyperlink, the word Russian already appears to be being used as an adjective for the art movement not the artist, so changing the word order as I suggested might at least make this clearer. --Mgp28 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mgp28 I am not sure at all that your statement "x wasn't legally a country", is the correct approach, forced or coercive citizenship is not necessarily what I would regard as my guide to "real" nationality or the heart is.121.98.30.202 (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In this case, where an artist was clearly contributory to both Russian and Ukranian avant-garde movements, those facts seem more relevant to the context of the artist's life and importance than any direct statement about the artist's citizenship and/or nationality. I think Mgp28 is therefore likely to be on the right track. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Native American

I'm interested in reading the discussion that led to Native American citizenships being added to CONTEXTBIO, but I can't seem to find it. Anybody know of it's location? – ².O.^Boxing 07:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed here: [8]. Looks like there were no objections and even an approval (from me). I've restored it on the page, since it was discussed when it was added, we should have a discussion as to whether to remove it. Pretty sure it comes from a related Wikiproject's existing standards. Skyerise (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We just (last month) had a longer discussion about this on one of our various noticeboards … but I can’t locate which noticeboard it was on. Consensus was mixed. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed it's getting harder and harder to find old stuff. So many changes since the early days... Skyerise (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I found what Skyerise linked above, the proposal to upgrade it from a footnote to an example, but I can't find the discussion that lead to it being added as a footnote in the first place. Seems contradictory to the rest of CONTEXTBIO to me (and at odds with the general understanding of citizenship and nationality). I'm hoping there's some discussions I can read to get a better understanding. – ².O.^Boxing 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On the underlying issue (and this restoration), I would observe the following:

(1) I agree with the argument made in the discussion Skyerise linked that indigenous identities in North America (and probably in many other places) are best understood as nationality/citizenship, not as ethnicity;

(2) for Canada at least, I disagree that citizenship (as opposed to nationality) is always the relevant framing; it seems to fit better for First Nations but less well for other indigenous groups (Métis, Inuit);

(3) while the example presented is fine on its own terms, it doesn't necessarily represent a "best practice" that could be applied to other indigenous biographies (a problem that also confronts several of the other current examples with respect to other BLPs, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't disagree with Native American being viewed as such in North America, but Europe doesn't recognise their nationalities or tribal citizenships. There's also the article on Native Americans in the United States, which first describes them as Indigineous peoples, and that link says, The Indigenous peoples of the Americas are the inhabitants of the Americas before the arrival of the European settlers in the 15th century, and the ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples (bolding mine). That pretty much fits my (and probably many others outside of North America) understanding of Native American; it primarily relates to ethnicity/descent and doesn't relate to nationality or citizenship (that would be American).

That being said, I agree with the format used for Wilma Mankiller as it's directly relevant to her notability (and noting the tribe in parentheses is informative), but certainly not for Donna Nelson, a notable chemist. I think any guidance would be more apprirate as a sentence or two in the ethnicity and religion part. Whether or not people view it as ethnicity or nationality/citizenship, it's clear it isn't on the same level as citizenship to a soverign state, which I believe is the spirit of the guideline. – ².O.^Boxing 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Tribal membership is a complex issue. But where it can be determined that the subject is a member of a a tribe which is considered a sovereign nation, they should certainly be described according to their membership in that nation. Some tribes do not have that status, see List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States. I don't know whether any of this applies to First Nations. It is also my understanding that at least some nations at some times have had an open border policy with respect to indigenous peoples. My recollection is that England was one of the countries which extended this courtesy, though of course everything changed everywhere after 9/11. Skyerise (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I will wait to hear more and probably reply again tomorrow (unless asked a direct question, per my editing restrictions), but I do think the spirit of the guideline is somewhat at issue here. I see two pieces of relevant text that can be used to discern this "spirit":

• In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, and
• Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

I have seen editors pull back and forth over two main points of disagreement about these passages:

• some editors will gloss the first point as though it said, "place the person in the context of their country of citizenship or residence", while others take the language more literally and allow for more variety of outcomes;
• some editors will take the second point as though it established a very high bar for the mention of anything that does not correspond to a nation-state citizenship, while others do not interpret the text this way.

While editors aren't always keen to acknowledge this, much of the resulting disagreement has to do with what editors are or aren't willing to acknowledge as "nationalities". It is clear to some editors that Welsh is a nationality meriting first-sentence mention in most cases, while not acknowledging equivalent status for Catalan or Quebecois nationality. To some New Zealand editors, it may seem evident that Maori identity should be a nearly-universal, required first-sentence mention in relevant biographies, but this might not be obvious to others. And so on.

What I think we nearly all agree is that it is against the spirit and the letter of the MOS for editors to seek sources for family background and to insert hyphenated identities in article lead sections based on such references. But it seems obvious to me, from a Canadian perspective, that when indigenous people carry their indigineity as a highly visible aspect of their identity, that that form of national belonging should be presented in an article lead, and that any wikilawyering along the themes of "only one nationality can be included"/"it should reflect a recognized Westaphalian state" ought to be set aside as un-encyclopaedic, IMO.

Also, I would point out to Skyerise that while First Nations in Canada have a status that is essentially similar to "Federally recognized tribes" in the US, the respective statuses of Métis and Inuit indigenous people - while also constitutionally entrenched - operate along different principles.Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That's where my issue lies, and I see it like a WP:CONLEVEL issue; the US made a local decision that the wider community doesn't agree with or recognise. Consensus is against. Tribal nations do not have absolute authority or external autonomy (as demonstrated in Tribal sovereignty in the United States). By definition, they're not sovereign nations. Now, I understand there's slightly differing definitions of a sovereign nation/state, but the ones I've seen (including the definition under international law) have included having absolute authority and the ability to enter talks with other sovereign nations (foreign powers). That's what I'm basing my stance on; if they're not legally recognised as a soverign nation/state, and nationality/citizenship relates to soverign nations/states, then there is no nationality/citizenship. Internationally, that is literally the case; the EU considers tribal passports "fantasy passports", which means at least in Europe, their US-recognised dual citizenship does not exist. The two instances I could find of international travel--which would imply some kind of legal recognition--were in reference to tribal lacrosse teams; one was refused entry in to the UK in the mid 2000s and the other travelled successfully to Ireland within the last decade, but I don't find that very convincing when looking at the context (publicly invited by a government sporting body for a competition).

I think I'm in agreement with Newimpartial's point about when indigenous people carry their indigineity as a highly visible aspect of their identity, as long as the nationality/citizenship to the relevant sovereign nation is in the first sentence. – ².O.^Boxing 22:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the recognition of North American first nations by the U.S. and Canadian governments is any more of a local decision that the wider community doesn't agree with or recognise than the UK/FIFA decision to recognize Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as we have discussed at my Talk. I also don't think it is up to Wikipedia editors to decide who are or aren't sovereign nations, nor am I aware of any basis in WP policy to assign nationality exclusively by selecting among Westaphalian states. That isn't actually what the policy text in question tells us to do, it isn't what our articles do now, and I haven't seen a formal proposal here to change policy and practice to insist that this is what we should do, either.

Certain editors believe that all, or nearly all, biographical articles should provide a Westaphalian assignment of nationality of their subject, while other editors believe that the relevant country, region or territory is not always a national state, and that it is up to sources not editors primarily to decide which national identities are relevant to a subject's notability. But if there is a strong argument against the inclusion of Indigenous identities in the lead paragraph for biographies where they are strongly emphasized by high-quality sources, I certainly haven't seen such an argument in this section (nor does existing policy provide the basis for one, AFAICT). Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Best not lump Canadian indigenous and American indigenous people together. Sovereignty is not recognized in Canada in the same way. We have guidelines at indigenous Wiki project... but these are antiquated American style views.[9]. Moxy- 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't mean to lump Canadian indigenous and American indigenous people together. I do maintain, though, that in both cases national identities have been documented in RS that may be relevant for the lead paragraph of a biographical article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Having nationality recognized by the country they inhabit is not the same as International recognition ( no passports) same as the Quebec nation simply National recognition with zero International implications. That said the example giving is to link Native American and or First Nation etc... then to link their tribal identity. This seems like we're linking Native American and First Nations all over the place for nothing more than a link that does not explain anything more than the tribal link would about indigenous heritage. Moxy- 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Newimpartial here. As a member of the Indigenous Wikiproject, we deal pretty much daily with editors who don't understand the differences between citizenship and heritage, and who don't know how to accurately write about these things. Having the Wilma Mankiller example in this link has been very helpful. Even if the section needs to have some of the other entries compressed or removed, I am strongly advocating for putting it back. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Tense for the dead

When describing dead people as they relate to achievements, records and currently-living people, what tense should I use? Specifically, for Puti Tipene Watene, we currently have “he is the only person to both represent the New Zealand national rugby league team and become a Member of Parliament” and “He is the great-grandfather of rugby league player Dallin Watene-Zelezniak” (emphasis added). If there’s general agreement on the right way to phrase these, I think it would be worth adding them to the Tense section, even if only to guide confused souls like me. — HTGS (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think 'is' and 'was' respectively for the two specific examples above? GiantSnowman 21:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Right you are, GiantSnowman. Once someone "enters the record books", that part of them leaves the body to seek its fortune as a historical figure. Same name, whole other game. A grandfather is more like a lawyer or acrobat, where the sentience itself must be "in the flesh" to "do the job". Even then, though, it gets tricky. In the context of a family tree, ancestors and descendants still are exactly where they've always been, in pages like record books for relatively unimpressive accomplishments. When we start talking kings, queens and those thought to have perished in submarines, things turn drastically more convoluted and the likelihood of a short and clear way to put it for everyone to understand just ceases to exist. But yeah, think "place in history" vs "person on Earth" for a good "rule of thumb". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The first one could be made less inelegant by using the present perfect: ...he is the only person ever to have both represented...and become.... (Conveniently, become is both the present tense and the past participle.) That puts the overt action in the past but is formally in the present tense, which is appropriate because the possibility of someone else doing the same thing has not closed. If the NZ team and Parliament no longer existed, then "was" would be correct. --Trovatore (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

First ever, only ever, both too wordy. Everything is always ever, by default, it's right there in the name. And "and" conveys the idea of two things just fine, forget "both", I advise. Aside from that, you might be on to something with "become". Good luck, rulemakers! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Most living people will be described with a single nationality...

This edit adding a section on nationality include the referenced phrase. Is there any objection to adjusting that, like the other similar guidelines here, to be explicit about exceptions where the subject still has a strong connection to a previous nation? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Presumably you mean these edits by User:Skyerise. I see that Skyerise has since been using that section as a bludgeon to erase the national origin of people who grew up and were educated in one place but now work in another, making the lead give the false impression that these people were always of the nation they happen to live in, even in cases where we do not have evidence of their current citizenship. For example, Vida Dujmović, from the former Yugoslavia (if I remember correctly Herzegovina, not Croatia?), educated in Croatia, edited by Skyerise to say she is (only) Canadian. She moved to Canada as an adult and still works there. By now she may well be a Canadian citizen. But we do not have evidence of that, nor do we have evidence for what the answer would be if you asked her what nationality she has or what country she is from. If you asked the same question of me, the answer would probably be "it's complicated". A clause saying "most people have one nationality" is obviously true, in the abstract: greater than 50% of the world's population has not changed nationality, I think. But it is ridiculous to apply that clause to the minority of people to whom it is not true, as if we can only accept an oversimplified picture of the world where "most" somehow has morphed into "all".

What I would like to see is a much more explicit policy that, for people for whom the question of nationality is in any way unclear (there is more than one country they have been associated with), we refrain from stating a nationality without explicit sourcing for that citizenship. Otherwise, we can say things like "Yugoslav-born computer scientist who works in Canada". To do anything else is to guess, and guessing is something we should avoid in biographies and especially in BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a much more explicit policy that, for people for whom the question of nationality is in any way unclear...: Guessing on one's nationality is already covered by WP:V and WP:OR. —Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:CONTEXTBIO, back when the shortcut used to be WP:OPENPARA, has always been worded to prefer the use of a single nationality. Back when it was at OPENPARA, it had nearly exactly the same examples as I restored. At some point the material got reorganized and the examples got lost in the reorganization. The examples I added are pretty much what was there before the reorganization. I know Asimov was used at the first example in the original examples. The other examples may use different people than the original examples... The original reason for this - yes, I was around during early discussions that led to the guideline - was that nationalists and revisionists of various stripes want to "claim" the person. Thus there were edit wars between Americans and Russians over Asimov. The short version is: there is no reason to mention a country in which the subject simply resided without becoming notable for anything. The guideline also accounts for people whose citizenship is unknown but who reside in another country at length with obvious employment. They can't do that in the US at least without a green card. And that's why the guideline states "or permanent resident". While I personally don't add nationalities where citizenship is not clear, it is completely within the guidelines to call someone who has taught at Harvard for 20 years an American - even if they were born elsewhere, retain their original citizenship, and are only a permanent resident of the US. In the original discussions, the key was: where did the work for which they are notable mostly occur? If it is predominantly in a single country, that's the context that supported them while they did the things for which they became notable. Only if notable work was done over multiple countries should we even think about adding a second nationality. The guideline only cover the first sentence. There is no bloody reason to say "Yugoslavian-born Canadian" when we can say "is a Canadian blah blah. Born in Yugoslavia, he moved to ..." The "nationality+profession" is used for both short summaries and a quick check on proper categorization, which are two reasons for preferring a single nationality in the lead sentence. Skyerise (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason to say "Yugoslavian-born who works in Canada", in exactly the example I gave. Because we do not have sourcing for any one citizenship. So to state a citizenship we would have to guess. We should not guess and we should not encourage guessing. It is very different from the case of Asimov that you cite: for Asimov, he came to one country (the US) as a child, and we have a source for him becoming a citizen of the US as a child. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it seems footballers are some sort of special international citizen with different rules - or at least so said @GiantSnowman:. However, while GS claimed that there are different guidelines for footballers, they did not link to any such guideline. So I am not sure whether such an alternate guideline even exists. If it does, I'd be happy to follow it if someone would be so kind as to point it out to me. Meanwhile I'm just skipping footballer articles when they come upon 'random article' Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

An alternative is to NOT MENTION nationality in the first sentence - at all: “Joe Blow is a footballer, currently playing for Puddlesby United” … “Jane Doe was an acclaimed actress, best known for her staring role in the silent movie ‘Hamster Capers’.” Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? It's much less informative and much less clear. The second example runs afoul of WP:PEACOCK - which frequently happens when the nationality is not present: then they are "famous", "prominent", or "acclaimed" rather than American or German. Skyerise (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Because usually a subject’s nationality has little (or nothing) to do with what makes the subject notable. The first sentence should focus on what makes the subject note worthy. It should focus on what they do or did… not where they came from. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also because often for people who have flourished in multiple countries (as is very common in academia) we do not have sourcing for their citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

And we don't have to per "or permanent resident". The academic born in Europe who has lived and taught in the US for decades may reasonably be described as American even without a citation for naturalization. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No. Stating a single nationality in the lead is unambiguously a claim that the person has a single nationality. In the cases we are discussing, it is often false and even more often unverifiable, and you are actively pushing for the inclusion of falsehoods and unverifiable claims in our article leads. In the case of someone who has one citizenship but works in another country, or a dual citizen, or someone who has held multiple citizenships while performing notable activities, we should not push the false narrative that they are entirely of one nationality. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Just as a footballer's citizenship can be determined from football rules, permanent residency in many countries can be determined from length of residency and employment, at least in the US; though residents of Commonwealth of Nations countries I think can work in any CoN country, and I don't know how the EU handles such things. If you think we should not do this, then perhaps we should start a discussion about removing "or permanent resident of" from the Context section, though its been there as long as I can remember. Skyerise (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. Do not do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to comment on footballers, I believe the real-world issue is that at any one time, players can belong to one and only one national team - they must have a passport in their national team nationality, but of course they may have passports in other nationalities and their country of residence or of work need not correspond to their national team nationality. In this instance, it would be an unfortunate surprise to readers if the national team nationality were not prominently presented in the arricle; in some cases it may he the greatest claim to significance of the player, according to the RS. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What I am seeing is a misunderstanding between ethnicity and nationality and citizenship. Moxy- 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This is intented as a reply to me, so I will ask what misunderstanding you see. "FIFA nationality" is a strict subset of legal citizenship - it could also be understood as a subset of nationality of occupation. Obviously, nationality of residence and nationality of occupation are distinct concepts. But for people who are notable precisely in relation to a certain form of nationality (e.g., national team membership), should Wikipedia not continue to present this consistently in biographical articles? I don't know what "misunderstanding" you have detected. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Americans are unlikely to differentiate between ‘citizenship’ and nationality’ in everyday language, this is not the case in other countries. Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, and only in cases where it is verifiable and relevant to the article. For most articles, place of birth denotes nationality. When it comes to the United States, U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals. Still, not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. Moxy- 15:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

We should not let footballers drive our guidelines for non-footballers. The fact that international footballers play for a national team, and are required by FIFA to be citizens of that nation, gives these people a definitive nationality that many other expatriates and emigrants do not have. We should not base our guidelines on the false assumption that nationality is as easy to determine for other people as it is for footballers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I commented on footballers above it was only to point out a key characteristic of that case (that they may be notable for an activity that is dependent on exercising a particular nation's citizenship), not as a paradigm applicable to non-footballers. Also, I would point out to Skyerise that footballers are in fact a very specific demographic in that they may exercise another citizenship more frequently in their personal or professional lives than they do their national team citizenship - but the latter may be highly relevant and thetefore feature in the opening paragraph (q.v. Carleigh Frilles).

As I pointed out in my recent contribution to the discussion of Native American nationality, I have seen editors disagree not only about the application of the nationality guideline but about its spirit as well. (Moxy's comment above, Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, is an example of what I referred to in that earlier post as a gloss, simplifying and transforming the guideline into a principle some editors support but which policy text does not actually stipulate.)

I would like to point to four biographical articles about Canadians that handle the issue differently, but each of which makes sense in the specific case: Jonathan David, René Lévesque, Mary Simon, Buffy Sainte-Marie. None of these correspond in detail to any of the examples Skyerise added to the MOS, but each seems to me to reflect the interaction between high-quality sourcing and Wikipedia policy in an appropriate way.

TL;DR - I don't think there is "one right way" to handle the diversity of cases of nationality in biographical articles, and I'm also skeptical that the list of examples added late last year are especially exemplary. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that nationality can be defining for some people, ethnic origin can be defining for some people (probably fewer), and neither can be defining for others. Furthermore, for many article subjects neither of the above are verifiable. While I understand the desire for standardization, I think that neither, either or both should be included only if 1) verifiable and 2) defining for that individual. Buidhe public (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The original issue, as I understand it, was people claiming the subject for their side (ethnicity, nationality, whatever). For a subject that has verifiable connection to their birth country, including BirthCountry-CurrentCountry seems natural. The guideline should focus more on what fits the subject rather than defending against crusading editors - with that defense being covered as a special case "when there is serious contention." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to not use any such descriptions in the intro of BLPs or bios-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality in the lede is important context for a biography. GiantSnowman 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus behind the section Skyerise added in November

I seem to have missed it, so could someone point me to the on-wiki interaction that established the consensus that was then documented in the series of edits under discussion above ([10])? While I see some useful clarification among those edits, I also see a good deal of confusion and an editorial preference to move further away from the sources of BLP articles than any previous consensus or community practice would require. Could someone clarify this, please? Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we move away from reliable sources? That seems like WP:OR and no discussion anywhere on Wikipedia can validate such an approach. Slywriter (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I, for one, am not suggesting that we can move away from reliable sources. I am suggesting, rather, that the added policy text encourages editors to depart from following the reliable sources in many cases. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also interested in finding the discussion that lead to these additions, specifically the Native American example. I found this proposal from November with only one reply from Skyerise before it was added. It's probably worth noting that CorbieVreccan was the one who added the footnote in March 2022. I had a look in the WP:IPNA talk page archives but couldn't find any discussion there. I'm still presuming there's one thats eluding me. – ².O.^Boxing 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I posted on this talk page. There were no objections. [11] Skyerise (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Native American wasn't in the previous examples. Considering there doesn't appear to be consensus for something so contentious, I'm going to remove that one until its been appropriately discussed. I don't really have much comment on the other examples; they're close enough to the previous ones and seem to accurately reflect the guideline. – ².O.^Boxing 08:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Determining 'which' nationality to use in a bio, has at times been a thorny topic. Do we go with "birth country"? The country the person lived in most of their lives? The 'only' determining factor, would be what do reliable sources do, per individual. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be naive of me, but don't we just follow reliable sources? Or is the issue these are all database entries deemed notable that have no RS coverage? Slywriter (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Then there's the United Kingdom situation, which can certainly be thorny. Some individuals prefer to be called British, which they're called as such in reliable sources. While others prefer English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish, which they're called as such, in reliable sources. But, that's another rocky area. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is that different sources have different standards. Many sources are reporting ethnicity instead of nationality, using terms like Italian-American, which is ambiguous. We should not follow such sources, but rather follow our own Manual of Style. Skyerise (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Err no... we follow sources, not our MOS. If our MOS disagrees with sources, the MOS is wrong and must be corrected to conform with WP:V and WP:OR. Slywriter (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The MoS is not wrong. Whether to present nationality alone or combined with ethnicity is an editorial decision. Another publication's MoS may permit such constructions, or even encourage them, which is why they present the material that way. Neither our or their MoS is "wrong", they are simply incompatible. We do not "follow the sources" just to put ethnicity unnecessarily and inexplicably in the lead sentence. Better to take a whole sentence to explain it, usually in the early life section. Otherwise every black American will be described as "African-American", which conveys too little information to be clear. Were they born in America or Africa? If an African-American moves to Africa, are they now an American-African? Wouldn't white people who moved from the US to Africa also be American-Africans? It's best to unpack into ethnicity and nationality, and follow WP:ETHNICITY. Really. 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that I know being hyphenated-American is important to the subjects of two biographies I take an interest in. They are proud of their origin, have been back to inspire those in their country and have even attempted to play for their country-of-origin national team. The current guideline strongly discourages leading with their (well documented) hyphenated status when it is a key part of their identity. The MOS should not do so, IMO. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic pride is specifically why ethnicity is not encouraged in the lead sentence. In such a case I'd suggest detailing why they pride themselves on their ethnic heritage as an Italian-American (or whatever) later in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why discourage it if it is key part of who they are? I can see discouraging it if the editors are using it as an expression of their own view on matters independent of the subject, but if the subject is active in their birth country (it's not necessarily ethnic) it seems a good way to help establish "who they are." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not so much people who are notable for their ethnic pride, but rather people who might possibly be of some ethnicity, maybe, if you guess by surnames, and Wikipedia editors with a lot of ethnic pride who want to highlight that supposed ethnicity everywhere they can find it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Your addition of nationality examples in November had the edit summary: "add examples of presentation of nationality according to the committee-written guidance". For reference, can you provide a link to the old version where these came from, or a link(s) to relevant discussion for the specific wording. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba:, the MoS pages have been moved and reorganized so much that I cannot find them. I remember discussions leading to the examples being added (vaguely as I am elderly), and remember the examples being in the guideline in 2010 - 2012, when I was mostly working on New Mexico topics and Taos art colony biographies, before the whole MoS page and subpage structure got renovated. At some point during that renovation the examples got removed. I am sure they were there as I have been following these examples since about that time. At one time they were at the shortcut WP:OPENPARA, but that's been re-targeted several times and I suspect deleted at least once as I remember it existing before the current redirect was created. I continued to use it to point to the examples for some time, not realizing they weren't there anymore. Though perhaps I am just getting old and forgetful... I've also been unable to find a discussion leading to their removal, so I think the removal was probably inadvertent. I think examples are good to have, though perhaps some of the wording and intent can be improved, since I had to write them anew from memory there may be differences from the original that may need to be addressed? Skyerise (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If I look at WP:OPENPARA's history, the shortcut was created on 19 December 2010‎. The examples at the MOS on that date mostly match the examples currently at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Opening paragraph. I didn't find an explicit set of nationality examples from before.—Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the discussion before the main section was added. But for the Native American bit with Wilma Mankiller: There was a lot of dispersed discussion leading up to it, at various article talk pages where the same issues kept coming up (as I referred to above), and at the wikiproject. When it was proposed on MOS talk, there were no objections. So for Squared.Circle.Boxing to say it was "contentious" doesn't line up with what happened. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Dual nationality: hypenate or "and"

In the examples added on 13:05, 15 November 2022, there's two examples for dual nationality that use "and" and discourage hyphenating:

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician

For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.

• Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor

This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.

However, these examples were added to the MOS only shortly after they were changed in the respective bios:

• 12:51, 15 November 2022: Schwarzenegger changed from "Austrian-born American" to "Austrian and American"
• 12:57, 15 November 2022 Lorre changed from "Hungarian-born" to "Hungarian and American"

These were not stable versions. However, per the policy WP:PROPOSAL:

Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.

Do the changes reflect a standard practice? Are there examples of where this has been followed, prior to the MOS change? It seems to contradict MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES:

For people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when using the combination adjectivally and a space when they are used as nouns, with the first used attributively to modify the second

The changes still might make sense, but I don't think we should rely on WP:SILENCE as consensus for this.—Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As for contradicting dual nationality, that guideline make sense everywhere but the lead sentence, where it leads to ambiguity because it is mostly used there for combining ethnicity with nationality, which is a different thing. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality issues again

Could some outsiders please comment on what is the proper way to introduce Christopher Columbus (1451—1506) when taking into account WP:MOSBIO? On the talk page there's been a year-long continuous discussion over whether Columbus should be introduced as 'Genoese' or 'Italian', which are the two most frequently used adjectives in literature. There is a general consensus that Columbus came from the Republic of Genoa, one of the Maritime republics on the northern Italian peninsula, though his origins are sometimes disputed (see the article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus), and he later moved to Iberia working for the Crown of Castile. There's also plenty of sources that suggest the origins of Italian nationalism can be traced back to the Renaissance which was already underway in Columbus' lifetime. My position has been to introduce him by 'Genoese', and I've tried to impose a middle ground solution by removing nationality altogether, but such edits always get reverted back to 'Italian' instantly. WP:MOSBIO has been introduced to the discussion only recently, but there is ongoing discussion over the proper interpretation, with some even questioning the guideline itself. Machinarium (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I will take a leaf out of the long story over at Nicolaus Copernicus (go trough the talk-page archives if you want, but it's a tedious read)...and would say that labeling him as a "Renaissance explorer" might be an approach that could at least be tried (if it hasn't been tried before, I haven't looked). Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment: should we add nationality usage examples for lead sentences?

I propose that the nationality examples recently removed be restored. I ask that we break the discussion into two parts: first support or oppose !votes for whether we should include any examples. Second, discussion to resolve the exact wording and presentation of the examples to be added. Accordingly, I've put the most recent version at the top of the subsection. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support There have been a few recent RfCs that have used the examples here to find consensus. This should be restored immediately and then any discussions to change should happen after. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support the principle of having a few examples, though the actual text and examples need further discussion. For a start, the introductory text talks about living people, yet all but one of the examples given are dead. The native American example also appears to be controversial and ought to be discussed separately. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is already an example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples, with Cesar Chavez shown with "was an American labor leader..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I hadn't seen this RfC and already reverted the removal. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Nationality examples

Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases). Examples of how to handle historical subjects vary:

The simplest example is someone who continued to reside in their country of origin:

• Daniel Boone (November 2, 1734 [O.S. October 22] – September 26, 1820) was an American pioneer and frontiersman

The second example is someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country:

• Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992) was an American writer

  Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance.

In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician

  For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.

• Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor

  This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.

Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. Indigenous people's citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.

• Wilma Pearl Mankiller (November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American (Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

Finally, in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted.

• Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance polymath, active as a mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic canon

  Copernicus's nationality is disputed, so it is omitted.

Notes for examples

The above is a starting point for discussion. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - unless explicit consensus is obtained somewhere for Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the guideline shouldn't be saying that most living people should be described with a single nationality. This is true whether or not editors want to include a list of examples. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The examples flow from that "single nationality" point and I don't think that it's necessarily correct in every situation especially when the lines around what counts as "nationality" aren't settled. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's not true that most people never have more than one nationality? Just trying to understand why you think it's an issue... it would be easy enough to modify that to say "Since most people are only citizens of their birth country, most subjects will be described with a single nationality." I never intended it to be prescriptive but rather descriptive. I would have thought that obvious logic, but apparently not... Skyerise (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not you realize this, but your modified proposal now imports the assumption that nationality equals citizenship: because X fact about citizenship, therefore Y rule about nationality in articles. I would not regard this as obvious logic, and it is not really a claim supported in the status quo of the guideline.

Also, the modified proposal carries the (probably unintended) implication that people who are not (and perhaps never were) citizens of their birth country, or people who had one citizenship at birth and obtained others later, will be described with multiple nationalities. I'm not sure this logic is in line with community consunsus, either. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is a problem my original wording does not have. Are you just wikilawyering because you don't like the proposal? Can't tell. Skyerise (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I was simply responding to your modified proposal. The problem with your original wording is that there isn't evidence to date that the community supports it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise, no, the issue is that their nationality (in the sense of the nation-state in which they were born or live) may not be the most relevant thing in the intro especially if the direction is that a Westphalian state nationality is the only thing that should be listed. Depending upon the person, their regional, ethnic, or religious identity will be more relevant than their citizenship/residence. For example, a strict reading of single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases). would have the lead for Carles Puigdemont describe him as a "Spanish politician" instead of (as it currently does) "a Catalan politician and journalist from Spain." His identity and notability are tied up with Catalonian independence, not his Spanish citizenship. As others have noted in the myriad discussions and threads here, we should follow WP:RS and shouldn't insist upon a Westphalian state nationality in the first sentence when it may not be the best way to describe someone. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent example to add! Skyerise (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I was looking for more writing on this and found two wikipedia essays that may be helpful. This one (Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality) is originally from 2007 and seems to have been received poorly. This essay (User:Mr248/Citizenship and nationality) was written in 2021 as an attempted rewrite of the 2007 essay and I thought was super interesting and may be helpful in building some consensus here.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove Daniel Boone There is already a basic example showing "an American" (Caesar Chavez) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples

Remove Isaac Asimov MOS:ETHNICITY already says: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability., and MOS:BIRTHPLACE says Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability However, there may be cases where it is tied to their notability. Anne Frank, an WP:FA, reads ...was a German-born Jewish girl ... Chris Lu, a WP:GA, reads ...is a Chinese American political advisor...—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger and Lorre Are there other exisitng examples that show support for "and" over hyphenated dual nationalities? As discussed at #Dual_nationality:_hypenate_or_"and" (above), those two bios were changed within the hour before the MOS examples were added. Also note that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES supports hyphenating.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove Nicolaus Copernicus Already multiple examples at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples that do not use nationality.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. In addition to Bagumba's demolition of these examples... the first example is wrong: Boone isn't described as American in that sentence; he's described as an "American pioneer", which is linked as a single phrase. He was also born before the US was created, so can't be an example of "someone who continued to reside in their country of origin". In the second example, "continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country" is too open to interpretation: what does "identify as a citizen of their adopted country" mean? What evidence is needed to support it? For Schwarzenegger, "avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is ... about dual citizenship"; is it? He wasn't an Austrian politician and he wasn't an American bodybuilder, so I don't see how this construction has reduced ambiguity. Around half of Lorre's talk page discusses his nationality, so this is a shaky example (Hungary didn't exist as an independent country at the time of his birth). In the final example, "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted" is wording to be avoided: it's encouraging the inclusion of nationality when it isn't relevant. And "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race"... great (although what does "status" mean?) ... (as with the other examples) what about the rest of the world, outside North America? And the opening – "Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status" – jumbles nationality, residence and time. EddieHugh (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Should nationality be included in the lead sentence?

We need to find a better formulation for opening sentences. The first sentence should focus on what makes the person notable… and in most cases the person’s nationality is a secondary characteristic, not what makes them notable. Most people are primarily known for being an academic, or a singer, or a business man (etc)… not an American academic, or a British singer, or a German business man. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like most encyclopedia, has already decided that nationality is important to convey up front. This is a totally separate discussion which should not be attached to my RfC. Start your own RfC about it. I'm changing the heading and heading level. To differentiate your tag-on from the my question. Pretty sure this is a non-starter, but hey, go for it! Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s common sense that national identity is intrinsic to who someone is as a human being, not their job. Trillfendi (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If nothing else, the discussions currently visible on this page should make it clear that there is no clear consensus among editors what national identity means. Some editors assume that the relevant national identity for BLPS is always, or nearly always, represented by a national citizenship (and this is clearly the case in some instances - such as members of national football teams - where citizenship is directly tied to Notability). Other editors are more interested in following the sources, and the sources will often frame BLP subjects in more varied ways, emphasizing region or territory rather than Westaphalian state, and sometimes invoking national identities that may, for example, include Indigineity.

Some editors seem comfortable to exclude WP:V information, such as birthplace, from the lead section while being equally comfortable making what amount to WP:SYNTH assertions about nationality (assuming that someone who has lived somewhere for a while must have citizenship or permanent residency and have thus acquired a "national identity", for example). Some editors hold to a Westaphalian principle in most cases while not seeing the treatment of UK subjects (for whom the specification of English, Welsh or Scottish nationality is typically required even for non-footballers) may reflect a practice relevant in the case of other multinational states.

So I might personally agree that national identity is typically a defining characteristic for most contemporary living people, but that personal opinion doesn't help guide in (1) deciding how a person's national identity should be determined and (2) deciding what level of source support is required for inclusion of this information in the lead paragraph. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

deciding what level of source support is required for inclusion of this information in the lead paragraph: At a minimum, it must be verifiable. —Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

For the reasons laid out by Newimpartial and Blueboar, we really need to pay attention to how sources describe the subject and follow suit accordingly. If RS do not emphasize an individual's nationality, neither should we. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In answer to the question: in most cases, no. Place of birth can be obtained from the infobox and body. If nationality is more complicated than that, the details can be provided in the body and (per 'lead summarises body') summarised in the lead if appropriate. There can't be many people who are notable for their nationality and we enter a quagmire with identification by region/people/religion, etc... taking it out of the opening is a clean solution. EddieHugh (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really find the argument that nationality/citizenship doesn't tell the reader important information about the individual's notability. On the contrary, it usually conveys where the person is/was notable. Saying a German business man can convey geographic information about the subject as well as just the citizenship/nationality. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The MOS:CONTEXTBIO guideline reads:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.

It seems the de facto standard to achieve this has been to state nationality in the lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that country, region, or territory doesn't necessarily equate to where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. The second part seems to mean almost exclusively Westphalian state, which would equate only to country. There are many cases where the region or territory may be more pertinent to identity and notability than country. See the prior example about Carles Puigdemont or the arguments on this page about Wilma Mankiller and whether or not tribal citizenship trumps Westphalian state citizenship. In some cases, nationality may not be directly relevant to their notability; for example Carsten Höller was born in Germany and apparently still holds German citizenship, but grew up in Belgium, made some of his early notable art in Italy, and now lives in Sweden. Is he a "German artist" because of his passport? An "Italian artist" because of his early work? A "Swedish artist" because that's where he lives? Or is "European artist" a better description absent any WP:RS where he is labeled German, Italian, or Swedish? Even when nationality/citizenship may help explain where a person is/was notable (per TulsaPoliticsFan's comment), is an adjective the best way to do it? For example, John Edward Bouligny's first sentence names him as "an American politician who was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing the state of Louisiana." Is "an American politician" really necessary there? Even if a reader wasn't sure if Louisiana was part of the United States at the time, it's clear he served in the U.S. Congress, so that should clue them to his nationality. In this case "American politician" is also ambiguous because he was elected as a member of the American Party (aka the Know-Nothings). Maybe the party affiliation is appropriate in the first sentence, but then it's not an indicator of his nationality. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be strongly in favor of a well-written RFC to de-emphasize nationality in cases where it is not closely connected with the biographee's notability. Most political figures should probably have nationality in the first sentence, but I see no good reason for it for, say, scientists and mathematicians. In many cases arguments over this piece of trivia become the most contentious aspect of the bio, which is just silly. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the cases where a one-word description is contentious or over-simplified, the location of their notability can be described with additional sentences later in the lead. FWIW, nationality in the lead sentence appears to be the norm in Encyclopedia Britannica. —Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The location of their notability???? Mathematics and science have no location. Well, I suppose some sciences are about location-specific things, but not necessarily where the person studying them comes from or works. --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The guideline says "should usually provide" (and there's anyways WP:IAR), so use common sense for exceptions. Perhaps "location" can apply if one does most of their research in a particular place e.g. their home country. —Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a reason it's linked from WP:CONTEXTBIO. The intent is to give the reader a quick idea about the where context. When is covered by parenthetical dates. Every reporter knows that who. where, and what, are essentials. Ask yourself - if you as a reader were just doing a quick check for context ... was he Polish or British? ... and really only intend to read the first sentence... what would you expect to come away with? How far into the article are you willing to read? If an automated process collected first sentence into an index, would it have enough info to give a quick idea of the whole context? Skyerise (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the hypothetical RFC I would support might well comport a change to CONTEXTBIO as well. I haven't really read that guideline so I don't know whether it also would have to change, but that would certainly be on the table.

I don't see why a "where" context is necessarily always key to bios. If the person was known for things of universal importance, then they really have no "where". --Trovatore (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

How is the "where" context not necessarily key to a biography? Every person lives in a place, a where, somewhere. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But why is that place important? Specifically, important enough to go in the first sentence? Sure, there aren't a lot of people who are complete cosmopolitan nomads (there are some, but for now we can consider that a corner case), but even if someone lives in a particular place, why should that place be one of the most important things the reader should know about the person? --Trovatore (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The status quo text of CONTEXTBIO seems to imply a logic something like, "all lives are lived somewhere, therefore BLP articles should open with a statement about citizenship or resident status of the subject". This logic does not seem to some of us entirely consonant with the WP:5P. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But is nationality the best way to provide that where context? "Polish" or "British" might indicate where, but not definitively. If Pawel Tumilowicz were to meet GNG, "British businessman" would describe where he is active, but would misstate his nationality. "Polish businessman", as he's described in the Telegraph article, is correct about his citizenship, but not his area of activity. "Polish-born English businessman" or "England-based Polish businessman" would be most accurate (providing both nationality and geographic information), but would be discouraged by the "single nationality" guideline and could be ambiguous if "Polish-born English businessman" is taken to mean a change in citizenship. I think part of the problem here is that "British" and "Polish" as an adjective can describe both a geographic context and nationality or citizenship (as well as ethnic group), but WP:CONTEXTBIO specifies that nationality is the one that matters, even though it isn't always the best indicator of where. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the long-standing wording "Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable." I'd go with "Polish businessman based in England". We don't allow abbreviations like don't - why should we insist on abbreviating what we say in the lead sentence with hyphens? It just makes the details unclear. The idea here is quick clarity. Why should we begrudge the inclusion of the single word "in" as "too long"? Do you really mean to say that 3 to 4 extra characters is too high a price to pay for clarity? Skyerise (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is more to drop the "Polish" rather than the "England". --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think "Polish businessman based in England" is fine. What I would object to is what was stated in the #Most living people will be described with a single nationality... discussion: it is completely within the guidelines to call someone who has taught at Harvard for 20 years an American - even if they were born elsewhere, retain their original citizenship, and are only a permanent resident of the US. In the original discussions, the key was: where did the work for which they are notable mostly occur? If it is predominantly in a single country, that's the context that supported them while they did the things for which they became notable. Per that sentiment, Tumilowicz would be labeled "English businessman" (he presumably became notable in England, where he'd been living for a dozen years).

If I'm following you correctly, your main objection is to hyphenated nationalities (Polish–British in this case, which doesn't seem to be how Tumilowicz (or RS) refers to himself), but the prior discussions and the straight reading of CONTEXTBIO also lean into the idea that we shouldn't say something like "Polish businessman based in England" (or "Yugoslav-born computer scientist who works in Canada" to pull an example from the other thread).

The point I'm concerned about is that most people may well have one nationality, but nationality/citizenship isn't always what's relevant to their notability or identity. Adhering to The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, the Dalai Lama would be described as Indian, not Tibetan, which is ridiculous. (Yes, there is conditionality in the CONTEXTBIO statement, but "in most modern-day cases" implies that exceptions will be rare.) People should be described as they describe themselves and/or how WP:RS describe them. Sometimes this will mean a single nationality; other times it may be a regional or ethnic (hyphenated or not) adjective or a more complex phrase. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion from Skyerise's RFC above. The question on-point here is, should we call out Tumilowicz's nationality in the first sentence at all? What's wrong with just dropping "Polish"? Of course his nationality can be treated in the body, maybe even in the first paragraph, but why does it need to be in the first sentence? --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a lot of overlap in these. I'd agree that nationality isn't always going to be needed or appropriate, but the where notability occurs may be relevant. So the conflation of nationality and location in CONTEXTBIO remains relevant (which is why it's been pointed to several times in this discussion). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality is important - it's defining, and the majority of categories are nationality related. Removing from the lede serves no purpose and would result in literally hundreds of thousands of articles having to be amended. It's not an issue. GiantSnowman 19:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Who says it's "defining"? What does that even mean? --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think they're referring to WP:DEFINING since they're talking about categories. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not under the impression that an attribute needs to be presented in the lead sentence for the category system to work. Also, if the way the current category system works for biographies depends on WP:OR, then maybe the problem isn't with CONTEXTBIO? Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah it is not clear what the problem is with having nationality in the lede? GiantSnowman 06:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, nationality is an important characteristic that I'd prefer listed for every subject. Ortizesp (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So first of all, the direct question is not about the lead, but about the first sentence; these should not be conflated. The problem is that any ambiguity becomes a battleground for nationalists, and it gets pretty tiresome. As long as we can defer discussion to somewhere later in the lead, maybe even in the lead paragraph, we can usually come to some reasonable formulation, one that doesn't make nationality more important than the things the person is actually known for.

As for many articles "having to be amended", I'm not advocating for a rule that would require removing nationality from the first sentence in cases where it's non-contentious or when it's actually a major part of the subject's notability. I would just de-emphasize it, make it clear that leaving it out of the first sentence is also a valid choice in cases where the source of the person's notability is not closely tied to nationality. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

But there is already flexibility in pages where it doesn't make sense in the lead sentence. MOS:CONTEXTBIO says In most modern-day cases.... It's a guideline, not a policy, and even for those WP:IAR always applies. "What about..." exceptions don't preclude a general guideline from existing. —Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sure, there's flexibility in principle, though in practice going against a guideline is a heavy lift even when the justification is pretty clear. I'm not really looking for a radical change here. What I've observed is that, on a repeated basis, large fractions of the bandwidth in editing discussions are consumed by arguments over nationality and other forms of group identity, on bios of persons where these are largely beside the point. I think it would be helpful to tweak the wording of the guideline to tone down emphasis on these.

One possible solution would be to state explicitly that, when nationality is ambiguous or complicated, it may be desirable to leave it out of the first sentence, and explain the complications later in the lead section. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with equating nationality wirh citizenship, and then putting a poorly sourced statement about citizenship in the lead sentence, is fairly obvious, no?

I also think insisting on a national state as first sentence "nationality" (unless the subject is from Wales or Scotland) while ignoring how high-quality RS actually desctibe the biographical subject is pretty clearly problematic. Doing so in service of the category system would seem to put the 5P upside down, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Question is - Can nationality be applied to all bio pages? That's a mighty big task, to get a consensus for an across the board application. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTBIO does say "in most modern-day cases." A living person is going to have, in most every case, a clear place where they were born, a citizenship (although they may have more than one), and a place where they live and work. For a many people, all three of those may be the same, but for many others they aren't. All of these will likely be included in a bio article, maybe in the lead section, but "nationality" does a poor job of describing which of those is relevant in the first sentence of a bio article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FULLNAME vs MOS:JR

At O.G. Anunoby, his full name is verifiably sourced as "Ogugua Anunoby Jr."[12] MOS:FULLNAME reads:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials).

However, MOS:JR says:

Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources.

Should "Jr." be included in the lead sentence's full name, if it's not part of the title i.e. WP:COMMONNAME? —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It must be used in cases cases where the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources. Hence John McCain starts with "John Sidney McCain III", his father John S. McCain Jr. with "John Sidney "Jack" McCain Jr.", and John S. McCain Sr. with "John Sidney "Slew" McCain". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason for requiring suffixes to be commonly used, a higher standard than we have for other parts of a full name, such as obscure but verifiable given names e.g. Elizabeth Stamatina Fey (Tina Fey)? —Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:: You recently made edits that introduced this restriction for reliably sourced full names in the lead sentence. Can you comment if this was the intended effect. Was there a wider discussion on this topic? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I can only view a limited portion of the article, so I can't say if that sports column is in my view a RS that the Jr is used. It certainly doesn't seem commonly used in his case. As for the edits, I simply made clearer, by changing "well-attested" to "commonly used" what was the case, that such suffixes should only be used if commonly attested to in reliable sources. That's hardly new in the MOS. There are too many cases of people throwing in a Jr. because the father had the same or a similar name and there's no reliable source saying Jr. was ever used. I think the distinction you are looking for is that the "obscure but verifiable" parts of a name are legally part of the name but the "Jr." is a disambiguator, not part of the name, used to distinguish between two people, which is generally dropped at some point without a legal change of name. Are you saying that one column by a sportswriter in the Sun makes the suffix "well-attested" but not "commonly used"?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. The source says: He’s actually Ogugua Anunoby Jr., son of a scholar, brother of a former NFL player. If I understand your concern correctly, editors should not WP:OR that a person legally added Jr./Sr. to their name. I am familiar with David Arseneault Jr., whose WP:COMMONNAME is referred to with "Jr.", but where it's dubious that it's part of his legal name, since he has a different middle name than his father. With Anunoby, his father is not publicly notable, so there's no conflicting evidence that their middle names dont match, and there is no reason to believe "Jr." is dubious. In my experience, people's middle names and suffixes are not commonly referred to in reliable sources, but are generally presented on WP as their legal name if reliably verifiable. While there is reasonable doubt to not include "Jr." as part of a legal name like with Arseneault, I think "commonly used" can be too confused with COMMONNAME, setting an excessive bar, in Anunoby's case. Anunoby's page title should remain without "Jr.", but it seems reasonable that it's part of his legal name, as we would treat a source if it mentioned a middle name instead. —Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that even "well-attested" is calling for something of higher magnitude than "reliably sourced". How would the "reasonable doubt" be established? Omission of the "Jr.", in Anunoby's case or generally, would prove nothing. Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

An edit summary at Anunoby said "32 of the 33 references used omit the suffix"[13] Of course it will, when it's not his COMMONNAME. The MOS change put new emphasis on the lead's full name, when MOS:JR before was only referring to a page title and the use of WP:NATURAL disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I would see if there is support for Jr. in sources not used in the article, especially league, team, and from networks like ESPN. If they don't use the Jr. then the single sports columnist starts to look like an outlier. I'm not sure that the parallel between middle names and Jr. is appropriate, a source is not likely to synthesize a middle name but might use a Jr. or Sr. without much thought when they're discussing the father and he has the same name as the notable son. That doesn't mean the writer's discovered what the rest have overlooked, that he uses a Jr. No matter what the wording of the MOS, a single source would seem scanty there. Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME

Sideswipe9th's proposal

At present, DEADNAME contains two paragraphs relating to how to handle the deadnames of trans and non-binary people across the project, with one paragraph giving guidance for people who were not notable prior to transition, and one for people who were notable prior to transition. Both paragraphs contain the qualifier that they only apply to living trans or non-binary people, and in practice there is some leeway granted per WP:BDP for a period after death.

Digging into the history of this, the living qualifier was added in October 2020 with the edit summary referencing a post-RfC discussion that's linked at MOS:IDINFO. Upon reviewing that discussion, I came to the conclusion that the living qualifier was added somewhat boldly, and while the post-RfC discussion went on for a significant period of time after it was added, the continued discussion was on whether or not the DEADNAME guidance at the time only applied to article leads.

Could we remove the living qualifier, from the two relevant paragraphs in DEADNAME, such that the guidance applies to all trans or non-binary biographies? In context, this would mean that the text would now read:

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

Impact wise, for dead trans and non-binary individuals who were notable prior to their transition, this would result in no change. However for dead trans and non-binary individuals who were not notable prior to their transition, this would mean that the only name that appears in their biographies or any content relating to them elsewhere is the name for which they were notable under.

As for why I'm proposing this, recently I created an article about the killing of a transgender teen in the UK. She was very much not notable under her former name, and the article reflects this by only using her post-transition name. However for a short period on 12 February, both The Times and Daily Mail included the killed teen's former name in their reporting, and several days later a few editors tried to use an archived version of The Times' article to add the teen's deadname to the article. While at present we can continue to remove and suppress that as necessary per WP:BDP allowing for BLP derived protections applying for 6 months to 2 years post death, there will come a point where that ceases to be the case. In the case of that article, as well as any other article about a trans or non-binary person who was not notable prior to transition, adding their deadname adds no encyclopaedic value. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Notified WikiProject LGBT Studies and WikiProject Biographies about this, as this discussion is relevant to both projects. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support: lots of people seem to be mistaking this for a privacy issue that expires when a person dies, when the larger issue is that using trans people's birth names are actively weaponized against them and that this issue will impact trans people reading these articles who will feel like their identity will no longer be respected when they die, cis people reading these articles who will feel it is acceptable to only refer to trans people by their chosen name to their face, and will allow editors to go out of their way to include trans people's birth names where they don't belong in the interest of discrediting trans identities. trans rights are a big issue in the US right now and anything that can be done to make the climate better should be done, especially when the strongest argument against doing so is that trans people don't need privacy if they're dead or that it would be censorship to omit their birth name, which I find to be a wholly disingenous argument. Tekrmn (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. While deadnaming the dead can't hurt them individually it can hurt their living friends and relatives. It can also distress other trans people who might reasonably fear similar disrespect after their own deaths. Both readers and editors can be affected by this. If this information had some encyclopaedic value then we would have to balance that value against the potential distress caused but, as there is no encyclopaedic value, this issue does not arise. In fact, it could serve to make articles more confusing. It is enough for an article to say that a person was transgender for the reader to be adequately informed. The motivations for adding deadnames are very suspect. Justifications demanding "truth", "accuracy" and the like are most often (but admittedly not always) made in bad faith. It reeks of gloating, gravedancing and general trolling. The behaviour of some on the article you mention has been both vile and disruptive. Anything we can do to try to cut off avenues for that sort of disruptive and offensive behaviour is beneficial to Wikipedia's readers, its editors and also to wider society. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  While deadnaming the dead can't hurt them individually it can hurt their living friends and relatives. It can also distress other trans people who might reasonably fear similar disrespect after their own deaths.

  This really isn’t our duty of care, and if it were, we would have drastically different content policies across the board. Any article about a victim of a crime carries the risk of hurting the person’s family and friends, for instance. — HTGS (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  you're ignoring the part that it can effect other trans people- additionally, a victim of the crime was hurt by somebody else and a wikipedia article about it would only be a reflection of that. there's no encyclopedic reason to mention someone's birth name unless it was notable, and then it should only be mentioned in the lead. people can and do go out of their way to deadname trans people in articles because of the word living in the policy. Tekrmn (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  there's no encyclopedic reason to mention someone's birth name unless it was notable

  I largely agree with that, I’m just saying it’s not our place to protect readers from content when that content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We don’t censor content, but we do avoid unencyclopedic content that is unnecessarily offensive. There’s certainly room for avoiding deadnaming in many cases, just not on the basis of protecting other trans people from seeing a deadname. — HTGS (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  that is already written into the MOS, it specifically says the birthname should be mentioned if the person was notable under that name. what we are talking about is cases where it isn't notable, and is therefor unnecessarily offensive content that has no encyclopedic value. Tekrmn (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is a huge gap between "a name under which a subject was notable" and "a name with no encyclopedic value". "A name under which a subject was notable" means that the person, while using that name, received such significant coverage in reliable sources that they pass WP:N and warrant their own stand-alone article. That's an extremely high bar; the point at which it becomes unavoidable to at least mention the name once, even for a BLP, because the name is referred to in so many other sources that readers are likely to come here looking for information on the individual, even long after the subject has transitioned. But most names mentioned in Wikipedia don't meet that test, including alternate names of notable people and all names of non-notable people. It can't be concluded that none of those names have encyclopedic value. We don't include gratuitously offensive content, but we do include content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—even exceedingly so—if it is verifiable and relevant. For articles that are not protected by BLP, the question becomes when a deadname is relevant, not whether the person was notable under it.--Trystan (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  and how would it be relevant if they weren't notable under it? Tekrmn (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  One reason would because reliable sources consider it relevant. For a current example, see the Isla Bryson case example that I posted below. BilledMammal (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see her birth name in this article and I certainly don't see how it would be relevant. it reliable sources consider it relevant than it would be notable. your argument is circular. including someone's birth name where it is not notable (or relevant) /is/ gratuitously offensive. Tekrmn (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  it reliable sources consider it relevant than it would be notable Something can be relevant without being notable.

  I don't see her birth name in this article and I certainly don't see how it would be relevant. It is not currently in the article because the only current exception under MOS:DEADNAME is that the person must have been notable under their previous name; Isla Bryson wasn't notable under it. It is relevant because reliable sources consider it relevant and include it in their reporting; see my comment below for examples. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  You have yet to name a way it could be relevant without being notable, and I certainly can't think of one. You're trying to tell me that Isla Bryson wasn't notable under her birthname but it's still relevant despite there being an entire wikipedia article about her under that name, making her notable under that name. Again, your argument doesn't make any sense. what reason would there possibly be to include a trans person's birth name if they weren't notable under that name? Tekrmn (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If reliable sources routinely include their previous name, then that would indicate the name is relevant. Wikipedia-notability is not exactly a perfect bar here. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  then why don't we include all of the information from every reliable source in wikipedia articles? Tekrmn (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If information is included in most reliable sources on a subject, we probably should include it. We don't include everything because Wikipedia isn't meant to be extremely detailed, but a name is a few words at most and not worth excluding on that basis. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  including someone's birthname if it's not relevant is inherently gratuitously offensive. that is why we should exclude it where not relevant. Tekrmn (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  This is circular logic. Obviously we should exclude the name if it's not relevant, as we would do for any irrelevant information. If reliable sources are routinely including it, though, it clearly is relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have yet to see anyone give an example of how someone's birthname would be relevant unless they were notable under it aside from vague assertions that a reliable source might find it relevant. regardless, what this conversation is actually about is the distinction between living and dead individuals and allowing the use of their birth name throughout the article once they die, not when it is appropriate to include someone's birth name at all. Tekrmn (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Elli: I'm not totally sure I agree. Is the standard for relevance just inclusion in reliable sources? It seems to me that there are lots of facts included in many reliable sources that are ultimately left out of a Wikipedia article. For example, on 2023 Nashville school shooting, many reliable sources note that the shooter had driven a Honda Fit to the school, but we don't include that fact in the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  The article using their former name as the title is about a different person. And the reason is because it is relevant to the article; why it is relevant can vary. One reason, as I gave above, is because reliable sources consider it relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  then how is it relevant to the article? nobody would assume that this Scottish rapist who used to go by the same name as an Oklohoma Democrat were the same person unless you connect the two articles to try to make a point about relevance. Adam Graham is also the name of an actor, but that isn't mentioned in the article on Adam Graham the politician because it's not relevant. Tekrmn (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  The issue isn't that people would assume they're the same person, but that some people might search up information on the case by the name "Adam Graham", since the media is using that name in the context of that case. Excluding the name when sources routinely include it is weird; it's not actually protecting any meaningful privacy interest since the name is as public as can be, and it just makes our article less informative and incomplete compared to what other organizations have published. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  then why did they link me to an article about someone else? sure you can make that argument, but again, we're not discussing what makes someone's birth name worth including, we're discussing removing the "living" qualifier from the MOS so that people's birth names cannot be spread over the entire article the moment they die. Tekrmn (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Their point is that there should be a hatnote on that article as a form of disambiguation, since we have articles on two people who can reasonably be referred to as "Adam Graham". Elli (talk | contribs) 16:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  While deadnaming the dead can't hurt them individually it can hurt their living friends and relatives. - if you’re talking about living friends and relatives, perhaps using the new name can also hurt friends and relatives. This effect of hurt to others (whichever name is used) just cancels out. starship.paint (exalt) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Might the same apply to any name change? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not even all other name changes made for personal safety (organised crime informant, totalitarian regime whistleblower, etc). Deadnaming trans people gives the impression that the shape of your junk is encyclopaedically relevant, which is not often the case. It's also exposing a deep and hurt part of the subject's psyche, like publishing their diary entries. Not only is it irrelevant trivia, it's also creepy. Folly Mox (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Deadnaming trans people gives the impression that the shape of your junk is encyclopaedically relevant — Mentioning that someone is trans at all gives the impression that the "shape of [their] junk" is relevant. The definition of transgender is someone whose gender identity/expression differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth. Realistically ("more than 99.95% of births"), that means their genitalia. If it wasn't relevant, the person would just be a "man" or "woman", not a "trans man" or "trans woman". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Theres lots of adjectives you can put before man or woman. Trans men are also just men as trans women are just women. So its not an inherently necessary qualifier. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Might the same apply to any name change? Honestly I'd say yes. What the deadname protection from GENDERID does right is that it treats any and all former names as a privacy issue. If a person wasn't notable under the former name, then we don't include it. What it gets wrong is that it only provides that protection to trans and non-binary people. Making this proposed change the standard at MOS:CHANGEDNAME for how we handle all name changes would I think be a huge improvement on how we handle such name changes for everyone else, though given that it would potentially affect a large number of articles a separate discussion and/or RfC would be warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• I would prefer to go the opposite direction. Wikipedia is not censored, and former names have encyclopedic value. I think there should be a policy about any former name that doesn't have a special carveout for transgender cases. Regarding the question of living, I'm surprised that the only argument is that it might trigger someone. WP:CENSOR: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. If the former name is an issue of privacy, then it would only apply to WP:BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  You don't seem to understand what trigger means. Do you mean "upset" or "offend" perhaps? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was referring to this comment above: "it can hurt their living friends and relatives. It can also distress other trans people". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Two questions:

  1. For a trans or non-binary person who was never notable under their former name, what encyclopaedic value does including their deadname after their death add to an article?
  2. For any person, who changed their name and was never notable under their former name, what encyclopaedic value does including their former name add to an article?

  Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  This issue is simple. Notability is a test of whether there should be an article or not. Notability is not applied to verifiable contents. The argument here is for privacy of changed names, and that is governed by WP:BLPNAME, and that policy does a great job of addressing non-essential details like former names. What I'm opposed to is this MOS entry that says that in the case of trans people, original names are censored. Applying that policy, most cases would turn out just like you're requesting, without the original name.

  I'm not sure how to answer your question on encyclopaedic value, as this seems obvious to me and in non-trans cases it is unquestionably standard, like Prince (musician), J. K. Rowling, Kirk Douglas, Meg Ryan, etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  In my view, this presents justification to extend the policy to cisgender and other non-queer individuals as well, to generalize as un-notable or unnecessary names. See for example Asmongold, where a name was removed for similar privacy concerns to the deadname situation. (Or, one time I read on Apple News that Stormy Daniels would rather her birth name not be as publicized (but unfortunately I can't find a source for that). I see no reason why this differs from a similar situation where an LGBTQ+ person has a non-notable prior name.) casualdejekyll 22:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Just linking a relevant RFC from 2021: RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people--Trystan (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• I think the close of the 2021 RFC is still valid. The need for the privacy protections of WP:Deadname do fade over time. So… I have to OPPOSE the proposal to extend it forever… however, I would support including a warning that DEADNAME also covers the recently deceased. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  The closure of that RfC made a recommendation that a subsequent RfC be held, on a narrow question of extending the BLP protections inherent in GENDERID for deadnames, after determining what that period of time should be. So in light of that closure, if it is to be a finite period, how long do you think that time period should be? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "Recently deceased". Lets say that a trans person dies today. On what date do I get to stop treating them with the respect and decency that the WP:DEADNAME policy asks of me? Like, when in the future do I get to stop doing the proper and right thing? That's important to know. Recently is rather vague. If I want to start deliberately disrespecting a trans person, how long after they die do I have to wait before I do that? --Jayron32 17:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sarcasm aside, WP:BDP covers this. — HTGS (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  But unlike most of what BDP covers this feels weird to add ever. There's a very obvious reason why we can add someone's previous address years after their death and only then: by that time they're not living there any more, nor does their estate even, so they have no privacy interest remaining in that address. And most privacy interests covered by BDP are similar.

  However, a previous name is a different sort of privacy interest, which doesn't expire. The reason for not using it is the same decades after death as it is when the person is still alive: they asked people not to use that name for them. And also, by doing so, they make it an incorrect name, reducing the encyclopedic value of including it significantly. There are few situations I can think of where a name excluded under MOS:DEADNAME would be useful to include without it. Loki (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  the [trans] person ... asked people not to use that [dead]name for them. And also, by doing so, they make it an incorrect name ... — It's not an "incorrect name" for them for the period of time before they stopped using it - it was their actual name. If a (hypothetical) trans woman was assigned male at birth and named (including on the birth certificate) "John", was enrolled at primary school as John, answered to John, introduced herself as John, then - up until she change her name - "John" was her name. If at 13 she asserts that she is female, calls herself Mary, and all her family and friends do likewise, then "Mary" is her name from that point on, but not before that time. We might agree that she was always female, since birth (and initially "misdiagnosed" as male), but her name - even if it did not match her female gender, and even if she subsequently does not want people to use it (including retrospectively) - was very definitely John for those first 13 years.

  One obvious encyclopedic value for including the birth/former/dead name is to allow our readers to do further research about a person, in particular before the name change. Just because the trans person's earlier life is not notable enough for Wikipedia, it does not mean that our readers won't be interested in learning more about the person's early life. This is particularly the case where we specifically mention the difficulties the person had pre-trans.

  Just because a person changes their name does not mean that the previous life - in which they used their original/birth name - ceases to exist. (If it's almost always relevant to include someone's birth date, then why is their birth name less relevant?) We may not cover it, but our readers should not be prevented from learning about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  we're not preventing readers from learning about people prior to their transition by not including their birth name. presumably, if there is anything remotely worth looking up from before their transition then their birthname will be in the sources which they are easily able to click on.

  to use your misdiagnosis analogy, the person's birth name would be exactly the same as their assigned gender at birth. both were given at birth before the person was able to identify themselves and both were never an accurate reflection of that person. when we refer to trans people prior to their transition we don't start using their birth name because that was what people were calling them at the time.

  date of birth tells you a lot about a person, especially in the context of an encyclopedia. the time period a person was alive in is very relevant. a name they used to go by but no longer do is not relevant unless notable. Tekrmn (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  This response is very confusing. At 2023 Covenant School shooting you are aggressively advocating for removal of the birth name of the perpetrator despite repeated and continuous use in reliable sources. But here, you say a name they used to go by but no longer do is not relevant unless notable (emphasis added). I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the clearly notable birth name of the perpetrator at that article. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  ...their birthname will be in the sources which they are easily able to click on. — Not necessarily - Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  as you are well aware, I was advocating for the remocal of his birth name in a third location. It belongs in the lead and in the bio template, but there is no reason to put it anywhere else. Tekrmn (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  ...the person's birth name would be exactly the same as their assigned gender at birth. both were given at birth before the person was able to identify themselves and both were never an accurate reflection of that person. — The difference is that (using my example) Mary asserts that she has always been female (although it may have taken a while for her to realise it), but she does not assert that her name has always been Mary. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  your analogy would only make sense if being female meant having a vagina. as it stands, your logic is flawed. a trans woman saying she was always female is not saying she was born with a vagina, she's saying "use this language for me." likewise, a trans woman changing her name is not saying she was never called by her birth name, she's saying "use this name for me." they're exactly the same. in either case you would not refer to her by what she was assigned at birth because they were never a reflection of her identity. it's called a deadname because you aren't supposed to use it anymore. Tekrmn (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Now your reading your own interpretation into what someone says. (Admittedly that someone is my hypothetical example, so she may not be an accurate representation.) A trans women saying she was always female isn't saying "use this language", she is saying "I identify as female and have always been female". Can we find specific examples? The National Center for Transgender Equality's FAQ says that "Some people can trace their awareness [that their gender identity differed from what they were assigned at birth] back to their earlier memories", (my example, Mary knew she was female). Are there any examples of a trans person saying "My name has always been Mary and was never John"? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  your response does not address my point, and your argument still doesn't make sense. yes, a trans woman's gender has always been female, therefor that is the word we should use to describe her. no, a trans woman's birth name did not fit her identity, therefor that is not a word we should use to describe her. Tekrmn (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removing the qualifier, but agree that this should apply to the recently deceased as well. Treating this as an extension of the protections that BLP offers that's relevant to trans/non-binary people is the way to go here. Getting stricter than that, or expanding this to anyone whose name has changed, only makes our site less useful to our readers without protecting a similarly compelling privacy interest as we do here. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at the RFC, one issue with applying DEADNAME to deceased people involved figures from the past who didn't have as clear of a distinction between name and deadname in the sources. I don't think it's reasonable to apply DEADNAME to someone from the 18th century who may or may not have considered their birth name a DEADNAME and when reliable sources are providing both names. That said, for more recent cases, given evolving expectations and understandings, it would make sense to continue DEADNAME provisions after death for someone not notable under their prior name. (Basically something like Option B in the 2021 RFC, but I don't know if 1920 is the right place to draw the line.) At the risk of CRYSTALBALLing it, I think we're likely to see reliable media sources more commonly excluding deadnames from coverage, which may make some of this moot. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I oppose extending the BLP-based protections in WP:DEADNAME to dead people (beyond the period for which WP:BDP applies). As I said in the RFC, the guideline against mentioning a deadname is explicitly grounded in the very strong protections of WP:BLPPRIVACY. We mention a deadname of a person covered by BLP only when absolutely necessary, to identify a name of prior nobility. Based on the privacy concerns, we exclude the deadname even if it is of some relevance. Once BLP ceases to apply, those privacy concerns end as well. I don't think James Barry (surgeon) or Billy Tipton would be improved by removing the deadnames. Both articles discuss their subjects in ways that would be horribly intrusive for a living person, but are appropriate for a detailed exploration of a life lived in a very different time from our own. For Brandon Teena, the deadname seems to have been removed without much discussion, despite the name being explicitly referred to (without being given) in two important contexts and its clear relevance to the various chosen names the subject went by. That said, for most trans people alive today, their articles, even after their death, are unlikely to warrant delving into the deeply personal circumstances life in the way that is done for historical trans people or victims of crime, so the deadname won't usually be relevant.--Trystan (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding for most trans people alive today, their articles, even after their death, are unlikely to warrant delving into the deeply personal circumstances life in the way that is done for historical trans people or victims of crime, so the deadname won't usually be relevant: I think my concern would be in cases where editors feel the deadname is necessary for encyclopedic completeness, similar to how we often include middle names even for people who generally don't use them and when its not part of how they are notably known. Does that reach the level of the DEADNAME being relevant? If not, and there aren't other questions of relevance or notability for the dead name, should DEADNAME still apply? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would say no, routine encyclopedic completeness should not be considered sufficient for relevance in this case. I think it the standard should be something like "significant, detailed focus in reliable sources on the subject's pre-transition identity (beyond standard biographical details like birth and family)." For example, James Barry (surgeon) § Early life could in theory be rewritten to obfuscate the birth name, but it would be very convoluted, and I don't think leaving it out could be defended on the basis of it being irrelevant. I admit it would be very challenging to get consensus for such a standard, as many editors would support never including it, and many editors would support always including it.--Trystan (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  For James Barry, I would tentatively agree that including what we consider to be his deadname is of encyclopaedic value. However that is only because Barry's story is unusually complicated.

  For Billy Tipton however, the question that needs to be asked is under what name did Tipton become notable? According to the article, his transition was a surprise to all of those people directly involved with his life as they only became aware of it after he died, and his name change occurred some time in the early 1930s as his music career was beginning. With the possible exception of Non Earl Harrell, none of his later romantic partners were aware of his transition, and the only reason we're even aware of it today was because it was discovered by paramedics while attempting to save his life in January 1989.

  Perhaps there's more in the sources that I'm not aware of, but on the surface it looks to me as though Tipton was not notable under his former name. If that is the case, then as a follow-on question, what encyclopaedic value does including his former name add to the article? With regards to the rest of the article content, excluding his former name would not prevent us from discussing all of the other details surrounding his transition, nor would it I think cause confusion to readers by not including it. On the surface it looks as though he used the name for a relatively short period (approximately 20 years) with respect to the rest of his life. So what vital encyclopaedic value does including his former name add to the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Once the privacy concerns relevant to a BLP are long over, I don't think the appropriate test is either vital encyclopedic value or under which names they were notable. Simple, concrete relevance of the name - as determined by fairly summarizing the way the subject is generally discussed in reliable sources - is what I would argue for. Billy Tipton might well be an article worth reviewing, as the coverage of the subject's pre-transition life is actually very brief, and the birth name doesn't come up in any specific ways. But any applicable guideline should require assessment of relevance on an article-by-article basis.--Trystan (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blueboar, and for the same reason we have different policies for living and deceased people generally. GiantSnowman 15:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems to me that there are two importantly different issues being conflated here. Sideswipe9th argues that non-notable former names are not encyclopedically notable, whether for transgender persons or otherwise, and that's at least a cogent position to take. If we're really just discussing offering guidance that such names should not usually be given, the same as we don't usually refer to biographees as "Dr", for example, well, the stakes are fairly low here.
  That's very different from recognizing a privacy interest to deceased persons, and suggesting (though I doubt the MOS actually has "jurisdiction" over this) that such information should be oversighted or revdelled, as opposed to just removed as part of style cleanup.
  Revision deletion is an extreme measure that goes against the presumption of openness in the encyclopedia and should be used only in cases of grave necessity. Non-administrators can't in general even find out why a revision was deleted; they just have to trust. I don't think the privacy interests of deceased persons rises to that level. --Trovatore (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  For the vast majority of articles, I would not see the temporary inclusion of a former name of a deceased person as rising to the need for oversight suppression or revdelling. In those cases, I would envisage GENDERID (or NAMECHANGE if there was consensus to broaden that) to be a reason to exclude mention of a non-notable former name from the article by default, without a need to revdel or suppress it, while also allowing for a per-article consensus to include it.

  There are some exceptions however, like the killing article I mentioned in my opening post, where the addition of a former name would only serve to denigrate the deceased. In the context of that article for example, readers do not need to know her former name to know that 1) she was killed, and 2) she was transgender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I would oppose oversighting that article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• I would oppose this, per Blueboar. However, this guideline does need to be revised. It needs to be expanded to cover other name changes where a privacy concern exists, it needs to clarify that it covers the recently deceased, and it needs to have an exception added for when the former name is WP:DUE - for example, we should include a hatnote at Adam Graham to Isla Bryson case, and we should include the name Adam Graham in that article, because that name is considered relevant by reliable sources, such as the BBC, the Glasgow Times, the Herald Scotland, and the National, and we are expected to follow the sources.
  I am also concerned about WP:NOTCENSORED issues; the arguments in support of this change appear to be directly in conflict with that policy and could be applied to other arguments where editors have argued for censorship, such as of images of Muhammad. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Even were it not for DEADNAME, there would be a strong presumption against such a hatnote. If BLPNAME applies to a war criminal who shot multiple unarmed civilians in the back – and consensus is that it does – then it surely must apply to Bryson, who would be just as notable as the other thousand or so convicted rapists in the past year (i.e. not) if it wasn't for this culture war bullshit gripping the UK (and US) at the moment. Which is why the hatnote was revdeled from the Adam Graham article, of course.

  Just because people off the encyclopedia are using these thin edges of the wedge to justify a bigoted culture war doesn't mean we should follow their . We are not tabloid journalists muckraking for profits or notoriety in a changing world; we are an encyclopedia. Cooler heads should and must prevail. Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Referencing WP:BLPNAME here doesn't make sense; we already identify the individual by using their current name. I see that an edit on the article was revdeled, but it can't have been for that reason.

  Journalists at reliable sources like the BBC aren't tabloid journalists muckraking for profits or notoriety in a changing world. BilledMammal (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC are demonstrably just as at risk of the culture war brainworms (and related institutional capture) the rest of British civil society seems to have contracted over the past few years (thanks a lot, Boris Johnson); after all, what was "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" if not exactly that? Sceptre (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If you think the BBC is unreliable for trans topics than you need to open a discussion about downgrading it at WP:RSN. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. --Jayron32 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support and I'm frankly surprised by all this opposition. The only cogent argument against the change I've seen is in cases of long-dead figures whose trans status was not entirely clear like James Barry. I'd support adding a caveat about that, but in general there's nothing about this guideline that is unique to living people or otherwise BLP-related. Loki (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Even if a trans person died long ago, if they never gained any notability under their deadname we have no valid reason to include it in this encyclopedia. Avoiding deadnaming is not just a matter of privacy for the immediate subject being written about, but respect for all trans people. Yes, I expect to be accused of bias (being trans) and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS etc., but truly, I see no encyclopedic value in including non-notable deadnames. Funcrunch (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment If this is going to become a formal discussion with !votes then it needs to be opened as an RfC, probably at WP:VPP. I would also suggest that you include alternative revisions, such as those proposed by Blueboar and myself, to fully comply with the requirements of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  It might come to an RfC, but we've already seen from the 2021 RfC that more than two options would split the vote in a way that makes consensus nearly impossible to determine. I've no objection to us workshopping an RfC if we truly feel that we need it, though we will need to consider ways to appropriately "chunk" this so that a consensus can later be determined (multiple narrow sequential questions maybe?).

  That said, there are many ways to arrive at a consensus, and an RfC is but one. If we can reach a consensus here without one, then do we truly need one to cement it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes; for a proposal like this we need the input of uninvolved editors that a formal RfC would bring, and because it would overturn the result of a previous RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, as can be seen above and in the above-linked prior RFCs, this is a situation where there are so many views it's difficult to even get consensus on what question to ask, let alone get consensus for any answer to a question, because various people would rather ask various different questions. I mean: in answer to this question about removing the "living" qualifier from DEADNAME and applying it to dead trans people, some people have commented above that they would rather the question have been about removing the "transgender" qualifier and applying DEADNAME to all former names, whereas other people have commented they'd rather remove DEADNAME and apply it to no names at all.
  Another complicating factor is ... while it seems obvious to many people that because a modern person like Laverne Cox's deadname is non-notable and including it would serve no purpose but transphobia, it's perverse that policy/guidelines say if you murder Laverne Cox you then are allowed to insert her deadname into her article two years later (or earlier, depending on interpretations of BDP) ... not only do some people disagree and think it's good for policy/guidelines to say that ... but there are also, separately, questions about whether it should apply to people who lived and died long before the modern era, and yet, do people agree on where to place a cutoff, given that some people don't agree on whether to place a cutoff, but for mutually exclusive reasons, either thinking it should apply without cutoff to all names, or thinking it should apply to no names? I would be fine with removing "living" (few if any of the reasons for not using someone's non-notable deadname are changed by someone murdering them), but I think there are too many moving parts for it to be likely for this to reach a consensus on anything.
  Regarding Brianna, I would point out that if the news articles which would be cited for some piece of information are still live but have been updated to no longer include that specific information, it seems pretty shaky for Wikipedia to include it—can we be sure it was accurate, and wasn't removed because the paper realized it was inaccurate or unverifiable? Here, it might be helpful to think about a less-politicized example: if a news article says a shooter was seen leaving the scene in a white car, and the site later updates the article to say the shooter was seen leaving the scene in a black car, or to not mention the color of the car, do we cite the archived version to say in our article that the shooter was seen leaving in a white car? The information — Brianna's deadname or the car's color — would presumably also be WP:UNDUE (if the only available RS was revised to not give it any weight), and Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. -sche (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the back-and-forth above about whether a name being "notable" and being "relevant" can possibly be different standards: well, let's not let perfect be the enemy of good, if we can agree to something like "For [non-recently] deceased transgender people, do not include their former name if it is not relevant." that'd be an improvement. And it might help with issues around modern vs historical people. (Sure, let me anticipate the likely response, that people will just disagree on whether a name is relevant: people also disagree everywhere across this encyclopedia every day on whether things are DUE, FRINGE, NPOV, BLP-compliant, etc, etc, etc, but guidelines are useful nonetheless.)
  (At a minimum it would be helpful to add some language, whether in a footnote or in the prose, clarifying that merely referring to a dead person does not mean a deadname will/must be included, since there are all the other policies and guidelines linked above to consider.) -sche (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  your proposed clarification would not make any difference. if there is any precedent that does not specifically prohibit unnecessarily including someone's birth name then people are going to do it. Tekrmn (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  "For [non-recently] deceased transgender people, do not include their former name if it is not relevant." I think that would be an excellent addition to the guideline. I would suggest something like "...if it is not specifically relevant.", to clearly convey a higher (but unspecified) standard than routine inclusion of a birth name. As you say, there would be some difficult discussions in applying it, but perhaps those discussions would let a more detailed consensus evolve that could subsequently be incorporated into the guideline.--Trystan (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Adding intentional ambiguity to our guidelines here is about the last thing we should be doing. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  how is the word specific any more ambiguous than no word at all? Tekrmn (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  How is "specifically relevant" different from "relevant"? We don't define "specifically relevant" anywhere. It's just going to lead to more arguments over its meaning, when we should be striving for a more objective standard here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  as Trystan said, it conveys a higher standard for what can be considered relevant. I think the bigger issue is the "living" in the MOS, but this comment thread is already largely about what constitutes relevance (which everybody seems to want to protect but nobody can define). I think indicating that there has to be a specific reason the person's birthname is relevant in the article beyond "reliable sources used it" is a step in the right direction. Tekrmn (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced a bar of notability is always equally useful for all dead, especially historical, people. How about something about significant (nontrivial) encyclopedic value and/or common use in RS? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, procedural and otherwise - as noted above, this RfC in Aug.-Sep. 2021 covered basically this issue, and did not find consensus for a change. To actually change it should only happen after an RfC overturning that. In all fairness, the closure (by a panel of 3 admins) did leave the possibility open for that, but contained pertinent advice in that regard. As for my own position on that matter, I explained it in that RfC and feel no need to repeat it here and now, but I do emphasize that this in no way is carte blanche to include deadnames for those who are deceased, as this should be decided based on each article's circumstances, and in many many cases, including the article OP is concerned about, is WP:UNDUE or even not reliably source-able. Indeed, claims appearing only in past versions of sources and that were later removed should be considered retracted claims and not reliable enough to even pass the WP:V threshold, let alone NPOV/DUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  people are using this as carte blanche to include deadnames whether or not that is your intention in keeping this wording. Tekrmn (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Where? People misuse guidelines relatively commonly, in good and bad faith, but that isn't a reason to change them. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  the 2023 covenant shooter page for one has been full of people using any excuse to include the shooter's birthname and old pronouns in places where it doesn't belong. the article is currently fairly respectful of the shooter's identity but it's still an ongoing conversation and it took a lot more effort than it should have to get it to that place.

  There's no good reason to keep this guideline though, the main argument I'm seeing is privacy, which may not be relevant to the deceased but it is relevant to trans people all over the world, and in many cases people who knew the deceased.

  additionally, it seems like we are coming toward a consensus for a change now so I'm not sure how relevant an outdated talk page is. Tekrmn (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see anything that looks close to a consensus for any particular change. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like the discussions and edit-warring over the deadname at 2023 Covenant School shooting is what prompted this discussion (the article is Fully-protected right now because of that). As others have mentioned already, similar issues have been previously addressed in this 2021 RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2021 archive#RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people. Some1 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  While that article is a problem with respect to the commonly held interpretation of the GENDERID guidance, and a good example for Crossroads' question of where editors are misusing the guideline, I was pretty open in my opening post about what prompted this discussion. As other editors present here can attest to, this issue of the deadname guidance ceasing to apply when BDP ends is something I've been discussing on the Wikimedia Discord since October 2022. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support I don't see this a privacy issue, but an accuracy, dignity and style issue. I do not see a good reason to have separate practices simply because the person being discussed is no longer living. Its surprising to see people argue in favor of separate style policies based on such arbitrary criteria as the concerns MOS:DEADNAME seeks to address are much broader than simply those of BLP. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support. Jayron32 so eloquently put it: Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. If you can't respect dead trans people, then that's a problem. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE makes the matter redundant after death. Our encyclopedia should follow our sources, and this feels like editorializing for the sake of it. If our sources consistently use a name for one of our subjects, then we should as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: We treat living (or recently deceased) people differently to dead people, as laid out in WP:BLP. I don't see why birth/former names should be treated differently to other privacy issues. It's not disrespecting a dead person to mention the simple (presumably verifiable) fact that they had a different name for the first part of their life. (Note that "mentioning" a person's name is not the same as "using" it - the latter may be disrespectful, the former is not. We can briefly mention the birth name, while using the post-trans name throughout the article.) The fact of a person's birth name is an intrinsic part of that person's biography, just as much as the date of their birth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the birth name has encyclopedic value because it allows our readers to do further research about a person, in particular before the name change. Just because the trans person's earlier life is not notable enough for Wikipedia, it does not mean that our readers won't be interested in learning more about the person's early life. This is particularly the case where we specifically mention the difficulties the person had pre-trans. Just because a person changes their name does not mean that the previous life - in which they used their original/birth name - ceases to exist. We may not cover it, but our readers should not be prevented from learning about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mitch Ames: Note that "mentioning" a person's name is not the same as "using" it - the latter may be disrespectful, the former is not. We can briefly mention the birth name, while using the post-trans name throughout the article. That is exactly the reasoning to support this change, because editors are trying to say that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to dead people and we can therefore use their deadname throughout. If we remove the "living" qualifier it will be clear that we should only mention the deadname of deceased persons, not use it. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  The proposed new version (at the start of this section) says that for all trans/non-binary people, including dead ones, a former [non-notable] name (a deadname) ... should not be included in any page, ie anywhere at all, thus prohibiting mentions. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Mitch Ames: If their deadname was notable though, the policy says it can be mentioned. I guess my confusion is why you think we should mention a non-notable deadname for people who are deceased, but not living people? Why would deceased people not be afforded the same respect to the preference of their own name? ––FormalDude (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  why you think we should mention a non-notable deadname for people who are deceased — For reasons I've covered in previous posts, I think that a person's birth/former name is inherently relevant and encyclopedic, so worthy of mention.

  Why would deceased people not be afforded the same respect to the preference of their own name? — It's not about "respect" it's about privacy - MOS:DEADNAME says "Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest". We have a whole page WP:BLP describing the ways we treat living people differently to dead ones. I don't think names are somehow special. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  it is not about privacy, and someone's birth name is not relevant without specific reason Tekrmn (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  without specific reason Identification, as we would with any other person, trans or not, that changed their name. It's not, on its face, any different than including a maiden name (which we do in many articles), or "real names" for famous people who use stage names (and whose articles are located at the stage name). To be crystal clear: I am not against MOS:DEADNAME for living subjects. But for those who have passed, the potential harm is outweighed by being complete (especially if other policies, like WP:DUE are rigidly followed, and such naming is proportional to the coverage in our reliable sources). To the extent WP:BDP allows for a temporary extension of BLP/MOS:DEADNAME (with editorial consensus), that ought to be enough. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  it is different than including a maiden name or a legal name for a performer who uses a stage name. it is unnecessary and harmful to the trans person in question as well as the entire trans community. Tekrmn (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Encyclopedias are historical records for people. If you believe recording historical facts is "unnecessary" and "harmful", you may not be clear on what our purpose here is. This is part and parcel of why WP:NOTCENSORED exists. We don't self censor to avoid offending people. Whether it's through explicit images, or in this case, identifying someone by their former name if reliable sources do as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The thing about NOTCENSORED is that it's a reason to not remove content that some readers might find objectionable or offensive, but it is not in itself a reason to include content that others find objectionable or offensive. Citing NOTCENSORED as a reason to include a dead trans or non-binary person's deadname is a misuse of of that policy and the related offensive material guideline. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I’m sure you’re aware, but I did state we should follow our reliable sources. And as I’ve said previously elsewhere, we should follow WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE, when dealing with such content. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  NOTCENSORED is a reason to avoid excluding content when the argument for exclusion is that people deem it to be harmful, offensive, etc, and that is the general argument for the position of "almost always exclude deadnames" here. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  and what is the argument for inclusion? Tekrmn (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DUE —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole: Going to use Laverne Cox here as an example, as a couple of editors elsewhere in the discussion have mentioned her previously, but this question would equally apply to Rachel Levine (the other example listed in GENDERID), or any other trans or non-binary person who was never notable under their deadname. BDP notwithstanding, if Cox died right now, why would we need to include her deadname? What identification purposes would including whatever her deadname is that wouldn't already be solved by searching for the name by which she is solely known?

  I can think of plenty of reasons not to include it. She was never notable under that name. She doesn't use that name, and has as far as I know gone to some effort to not reveal it. There's no information about her early life that we would need that name to find. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or trivia. So what is it about her death that would mean that it's now content that we should include? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  She was never notable under that name. This argument has never been persuasive for me. Marion Morrison was never notable under that name, either, but we include it (and have a redirect for it) nonetheless. Likewise Leslie Townes Hope, Donald Yarmy, Cherilyn Sarkisian, Merwyn Bogue, Florencia Vicenta de Casillas-Martínez Cardona (without the redirect; piped here) and many others. The idea that DEADNAME is not something to mention based on pre-transition notability doesn't convince me any. We include encyclopedically the birth names (and for Cher, intermediate names) of notable subjects as a matter of course. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The dead expect nor fear nothing, meaning no disrespect, no privacy and no harm, among all other real world problems. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support If it is inappropriate to include a deadname when the person is alive, then it remains inappropriate once they've died. Otherwise we'd run into situations where people would then add in the deadname the moment the person dies because they'd claim this MOS no longer applies. Which is blatantly dumb. Also, several of the Oppose votes above seem to be making arguments that would run afoul of the current wording in regards to living people as well, so their claims should be disregarded as not relevant. Silverseren^C 04:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  By that logic, it's inappropriate to embalm, burn or bury a dead person since it would have been a few minutes before they transitioned. If you look at human rights, you'll notice a pattern of preferential treatment for the living. This is a feature, not a bug. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blueboar, Crossroads, and InedibleHulk. — Czello 08:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Mitch Ames. The article should be written using the person's most recent chosen name, if known, unless they were overwhelmingly known by another name. However I don't see any "disrespect" in stating the neutral fact that their parents named them with a different name, and reporting what that name was. It's not usually going to be one of the most important things about them; I wouldn't put it in the first sentence. But it's very standard to report birth names in the "Early life" section, whether the subject liked the name or not. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, Per InedibleHulk and Blueboar. Koltinn (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is not a privacy issue, but one of basic dignity. It is inline with editorial practices of major publications. Further, the current exemption/loophole has an affect not just on the subjects, but on the general atmosphere of the project and transgender people generally, including readers and editors. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • While we are not formally !voting here, if we were, this would be a duplicate !vote. On the merits, I haven't seen anyone explain in what way reporting a birth name is an offense against respect or dignity. --Trovatore (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the former name can be reliably sourced then there is no problem with including it, as with any other name change. This is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedias include such details. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Emotive rhetoric aside, there’s been no attempt to give a lucid argument as to why the real or imagined privacy needs, in death, of one minority group should be privileged above numerous others' equally speculative claims to privacy. For the sake of close relations (the only purpose of the "recently deceased" clause) an argument could be made for formalising that phrase in some reasonable number of years (>10) for certain categories of information. The notion that encyclopaedia articles not discuss the birth name of dead historical figures, an implicit result of the above proposal, is absurd. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Blueboar, Crossroads, and InedibleHulk. I wholly endorse Jayron32's comment that Treating people with respect and decency doesn't stop at the moment they die. - or at least it shouldn't, particularly the recently dead. But I see no reason why excluding their birthname should be done automatically as proposed. Where there is no good reason to include, it should not be included, but where relevant it should be allowable. This proposal is too broad and may lead to absurdities in our coverage. We should trust to editor judgement rather than imposing a 'one size fits all' rule. I could probably support a less draconian change. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The spirit of the MOS:DEADNAME policy is that failing to acknowledge respect the totality of a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity; the taking up of a new name as part of transitioning has greater meaning and greater importance than the taking up of a nom de plume or the like, because the deadname – even when given with the best of intentions – is an extension of the 'mistaken' gender assigned at birth. I see no reason why our respect for this principle should end at any given person's death, as Jayron32 so eloquently puts it. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC), ^{edited 11:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)}

  That said, I do accept the concerns that some editors have expressed regarding the effect this change could have on our coverage of long-dead subjects. In general I support the "recently-deceased" sunset we apply in the BLP policy, but in this specific topic – given my rationale above, and recognising that most change in social and medical attitudes to gender has occured comparatively recently – I would instead suggest that DEADNAME should apply to all people who are currently alive or who were alive for any amount of time after a certain fixed point in the twentieth century.

  On the whole though, I still support the proposal at the top of this section and would prefer that it was implemented and then tweaked to better handle historical coverage, rather than endlessly deferring acceptance and implementation because we get caught up in options paralysis. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I really like this suggestion of the 20th century and onward as it generally reflects the modern conception of deadnames. I can think of a few gender people who existed prior to this who expressed similar feelings about past names but still feels like a good easy point to use for an MOS. Filiforme1312 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  failing to acknowledge a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity — By that logic we should definitely acknowledge the change of name in the article, by explicitly stating that they changed their name. But to say "Mary changed her name" without mentioning what she changed it from, seems somewhat incomplete. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  why would that mean we need to acknowledge their name change? that should be mentioned in the transgender article, but that doesn't mean we need bring it up on every article that mentions a trans person. Tekrmn (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  why would that mean we need to acknowledge their name change? — Because (according to XAM2175) failing to acknowledge a trans person's abandonment of their deadname infringes their essential dignity. I suppose we could acknowledge that they abandoned their deadname without actually saying that they changed it. But saying that "Mary/she abandoned her old name" implies that she changed it, because it's used in that sentence or elsewhere in the article.

  Just to be clear, I do not agree with XAM2175's statement ("failing to acknowledge ... infringes their essential dignity"), I was merely pointing out that it's not a very good argument for suppression of the deadname. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  In retrospect using "acknowledge" was a poor choice, and I have edited my original post to better reflect my meaning. The gist is that I don't believe that encyclopaedic completeness is sufficient grounds to include a deadname; rather, only when said deadname already has notability attached should there be a presumption of inclusion. In respect of the principle of least astonishment for our readers, I would feel in general that the fact the subject of an article has a deadname at all need not be introduced unless necessary – as while I completely agree that the principle should be observed as fully as possible, I don't wish to see it used as a coatrack for deadnaming. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I should make it explicit that I support the spirit of this proposal, although I'd prefer mine! There are limited reasons why we should be deadnaming trans people; the current rules we have regarding trans peoples' deadnames have been formulated over many years in line with the principle that a person's name is integral to their identity, which is a topic where we should, at least, take note of the sensitivities involved. I'm not convinced that death of a subject changes the balance regarding inclusion of deadnames that drastically that a distinction necessarily needs to be made; the special protections of BLP are a sufficient reason to exclude UNDUE information, but not a necessary reason before exclusion can be justified. Basically: unless you can justify it editorially, it's best not to include deadnames, and if you're looking for an excuse in policy to do it, then you probably can't justify it editorially. Sceptre (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a matter of basic respect and dignity. Any case where including the deadname would actually be relevant is covered by the "notable under former name" clause. I also think this discussion can be converted into an RfC. Galobtter (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:RGW gone overboard. I can get on board with the idea that we as a project should not be willfully inflicting harm on a person. And I accept that using a deadname or misgendering does do that, so I can get behind the idea that what we usually say, (we follow the sources, we are not here to change the world but to document it, our opinions do not matter, what matters is what the weight of the reliable sources) should not always apply, but that should as be limited as possible to avoid the harm while not turning our long established practices upside down. This does that though. When the considerations of BLP pass, we no longer have a reason to not follow our policy on WP:WEIGHT. When the sources shift in one direction or another, we follow. We dont lead. For a living person who may suffer some actual real injury as a result of that, then absolutely we take that in to account and give that substantial weight, so much so it overrides our non-negotiable policy. When that possibility of harm is removed then that policy should revert to being the controlling one for a discussion on what should our article say. nableezy - 23:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy, Locke Cole, Crossroads and Mitch Ames. I’ll add my opinion that the current guideline is to protect living subjects from being exposed to their deadname if not notable. If the subject is dead, they won’t be exposed any more. Consideration of how other people feel, who are not the subject, I do not feel it is relevant, because they may feel negative towards either the old or the new name. So, we should follow sources, what they report. starship.paint (exalt) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is the simplest solution and would result in a single policy that gets applied everywhere; it also reflects what's increasingly the most common practice among the highest-quality sources, making it a reasonable inclusion in our MOS. And many of the concerns above seem misplaced - obviously, proper sourcing would still be required for the fact that it is their preferred name; sourcing indicating that they were notable under their deadname would still be reflected in the article, and so on. Likewise, I don't agree with the arguments above that this would somehow make our articles less accurate - in high-quality sourcing, using the correct name is how you cover trans people accurately; it is linguistically correct, beyond all else (hence why this is fundimentially a MOS issue.) We would not include archaic or excessively informal language in our articles, even if vast swaths of lower-quality sources could be found using them; similarly, it makes no sense to argue that we should disregard a basic principle of modern, high-quality academic writing simply because sources exist that use lower-quality language. --Aquillion (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment You say "using the correct name is how you cover trans people accurately", but that's about using rather than mentioning. I don't think anyone is proposing to actually refer to deceased persons using a name other than their chosen one, at least in the usual case. The question here is whether it should be forbidden to report the birth name, if the person was not already notable when using that name. --Trovatore (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

    I would say it applies for mentioning their name as well. In my field, we’ve been writing about trans people just fine without the use of deadnames. It is a bit odd to see how wikipedia is lagging over a decade behind academics in this area. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I think MOS:DEADNAME takes the wrong approach by treating trans people as somehow different from everyone else. IMO, name changes should not be treated differently depending on whether or not the person is trans. I realize this is an unpopular opinion, and I've avoided certain areas because of it. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per User "Adoring nanny" above....I think having the policy in the first place (even for living people) was a mistake - one which prioritized ideology and went against (what had been) core Wikipedia principles - making a mockery of things like "NPOV" and "not censored." If a person is notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia, their birthname is inherently notable. As far as I'm concerned, a trans person who changes their name should be treated no differently than a woman who changes her name when she gets married, or a author/artist/musician/performer who has a pen/stage name (which in some cases they legally change their name to). The article of course should primarily use the new name, but the old/birth name should be noted if reliable sources can be cited for it. In any case, I oppose the proposal as it would simply be the expansion of a bad policy to cases where there's even less justification for it. This proposal seems to have been inspired by the Nashville shooting, where the media has primarily used the shooter's birth name, but where some people want Wikipedia to exclusively use the shooter's new name. -2003:CA:8708:3F10:A06:7FE8:46B0:8C69 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  If a person is notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia, their birthname is inh[e]rently notable. That seems a bit circular to me. There's all types of facts about a person that we wouldn't include in an article about them, for examples, sometimes because it wouldn't be consistent with summary style. I think the question has to be why is a birth name inherently relevant? I would lean towards thinking that it's often not—it's a mere factoid, no more "inherently" worthy of inclusion than a person's height, weight, children's names, or any such detail. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  No, I don't think that's circular at all. Whether or not a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography article is determined by its own set of notability guidelines, which have nothing to do with whether or not the birth name is included. What I'm saying is simply that IF a person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, their birth name is inherently worthy of inclusion, as it's a basic fact about that person, which should always be included in a biography. This is why we include, for example, the birth names of married women who changed their names, even if they changed their names before becoming notable. Most biographies have sections about the person's childhood, which usually happened before they became notable (with some exceptions for child actors and the like). And it'd make no sense for a biography to talk about what happened during the person's childhood but omit the name that they went by at that time!

  Like I said, the only legit reason (in keeping with "NPOV" and "not censored") for omitting someone's birth name is if there's not a reliable source to substantiate what it is. Anything else is simply purely ideological - an Orwellian attempt at rewriting or denying basic historical facts. -2003:CA:8708:3F1A:2506:B0AD:F222:26D5 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

A different approach?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed RfC questions

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

A: Yes

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

C: No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madeline's RFC proposal

Idea:

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

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

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-sche's proposal

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

Should we add the following guideline to MOS:GID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I don't want to blend the talk pages, Hale does serve as an example in which the outcomes would be different depending on the interpretation used. Hale was not notable when he identified by his deadname. However, when the incident occurred, his deadname was widely reported—possibly (for example, in the case of the New York Times) because, at the time of the breaking-news reports, it was not clear how Hale identified. ("There was confusion about the shooter’s gender identity in the immediate aftermath of the attack" [14]).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

Spitballing: what if we ask (in one RfC) a set of agree/disagree Qs about the different levels of inclusion-vs-exclusion which have been suggested? Unlike an RfC of one multiple-choice question "when should names be included?" with overmany choices, here each level of inclusion would have two options (agree/disagree), so for each one it should be clear whether there's consensus for it, against it, or no consensus, without needing multiple RfCs. We'd have to decide how to word each line, and whether it's better to have pairs like 3 and 4 below or to collapse them into one option like "include if and only if" (IMO pairs like 3 and 4 allow people to agree with multiple options better than if the options were "do X only if Y" and "do X only if Z", but collapsing them would be more concise), but the idea is:

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following. Deceased transgender or nonbinary people's former names ("deadnames") should:

1. always be included in their articles.

2. always be omitted from their articles.

3. be included if the people were notable under those names [like for living people].

4. be omitted if the people were not notable under those names.

5. be included if they are specifically relevant.

6. be omitted if they are not specifically relevant.

7. be included once WP:BDP ceases to apply ["two years at the outside"].

(Again, wording can be changed, options collapsed or added, but this is the concept.) This way, it should be possible for people to express and closers to assess where consensus is, e.g. "most people agree with X and disagree with Y". Thoughts? -sche (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have two main objections to this framework

1. It doesn't distinguish use from mention, and we've seen from the discussion that some people think the argument is more about whether former names should be used to refer to the person, and others think it's more about whether we're allowed to report it.
2. It tries to make a one-size-fits-all rubric for all articles, not leaving room for editorial choices at particular articles.

My position would be that it should not be forbidden to report former names, and that they're presumptively of encyclopedic interest on the basis that it's a standard piece of information about early life, but that we should not ordinarily refer to the subject that way — and I certainly wouldn't say they "always" should be included, just that there should not be a rule against mentioning them. --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

My objection is that many of these options are mutually exclusive, making this not significantly better than the last RFC for assessing consensus.

I understand the desire to resolve all the issues at once but IMO that is a trap. We should ideally ask one yes-or-no question. I don't know what question exactly, but it should definitely be a single question, and if it falls to get consensus either way, then we should ask different questions until we see what the community agrees on. Loki (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If we want a single RFC with a yes/no question, my preference would be to clarify not using deadnames to refer to trans/nb people, living or dead, unless that was their clearly stated preference. Resolving the use issue first would make the mention issue (when to include it) cleaerer.--Trystan (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we could run simultaneous separate RfCs on "use" and on "mention", since they are different issues. But are people currently using deadnames in any article that an RfC about anything discussed above would result in different guidance on? The only examples I'm calling to mind offhand are ones where the person died so far in the past that there's also disagreement over whether the person was trans, so it's unclear that editors would decide a guideline about trans people applied. Mentioning deadnames, on the other hand, is clearly an issue that comes up a lot all around this encyclopedia, so it'd be beneficial to try to resolve it. -sche (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any articles where using deadnames is currently a problem, and agree that typically indicates a guideline is working well without the need for changes. However, there does seem to be some use-mention confusion in the above discussion, so thought clarifying the guideline with respect to use might help to somewhat simplify a difficult issue. Perhaps it wouldn't be contentious to clarify that the guideline against using a deadname also applies to deceased subjects, so wouldn't need a full RFC?--Trystan (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Use and mention are different issues, but also interrelated ones. To use a deadname in an article, you first have to mention it. If the guidance forbids mentioning the deadname in certain circumstances, then you would also be unable to use it in those circumstances.

That said, I'm not sure that use of a deadname is a major issue here, as the use of a name after the first mention is covered under the separate MOS:SURNAME guidance. Minus the exceptions for mononyms, patronyms, pseudonyms, nobility, royalty, etc., our articles really should only be referring to a subject by surname and pronouns only after the first use. Historical examples like Public Universal Friend aside, are there any modern examples of articles where we would refer to Jane Doe as Jane instead Doe in our article prose? Note that for the purposes of this question, any article where we use the forename instead of the surname, regardless of whether or not it's about a trans or non-binary person, would be helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

First name mentions can be necessary in content that mentions people with the same last name, such as family members (see Zelda Fitzgerald). Schazjmd (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I could see a use guidance that supplements MOS:SAMESURNAME and maybe also MOS:SURNAME and MOS:GIVENNAME being warranted in that particular circumstance. But at the same time, we don't need to reinvent the wheel of the circumstance specific guidance, so:

As the first paragraph of GENDERID already requires us to use the gendered words that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender identity, I think working something like For the purposes of MOS:SURNAME, MOS:GIVENNAME, and MOS:SAMESURNAME, refer to any trans or non-binary person with the name that reflects the person's most recent expressed gender identity. into that same paragraph would provide both continuity of guidance for which name/pronouns to use in complicated cases (covering the use case), while also referring to the more specific guidance without needing to repeat it. This would also still leave the second and third paragraphs of GENDERID, which cover the mention case. Ie, only mention the former name of a trans or non-binary person if they were notable under it.

Obviously my wording is nowhere near final, or maybe even representative of what we might find consensus for. Just think of it as a starting point until something better comes along. It also still leaves us with the conundrum over the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary individuals, but it would at least clarify the use-distinction issue that some here have raised. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is the sort of change I think would be very likely to gain consensus, as well as amending the later portion of MOS:DEADNAME that applies to use: In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current (or, if dead, last-used) name as the primary name...--Trystan (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. One other benefit of this approach is that we don't run into circumstances where, because of the current phrasing of GENDERID, editors can make arguments over using the former name of a trans or non-binary person, but with their post-transition gendered terms and pronouns. Ie, we won't run into a situation where we use the name John Doe to refer to a trans woman, while also using she/her pronouns and feminine gendered terminology.

For that particular RfC, the question would be a pretty straightforward yes/no binary of something like should we add the following sentence [snip] to the first paragraph and amend the fourth paragraph to [snip]. We should probably make another subsection so that we can briefly workshop those changes, and find a smooth way to more neatly integrate it with the existing guidance on pronouns and gendered terms.

That still leaves us though with the other problem to resolve of mentioning the former name of deceased trans or non-binary individuals, and under what circumstances it is or is not appropriate to mention. Regardless of the proposal that we eventually wind up with on that, it should I think be a separate RfC that could run in parallel or separately to the one on use of the former name. But even for this discussion, if we can more clearly define which RfC is about use and which is about mention it might make it easier for us to come to a consensus on what questions to bring forward to an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree it'd be good to add guidance about not using deadnames. Note that some trans people change surnames as part of transitioning (e.g. Fallon Fox), so the requirement to use WP:SURNAMEs does not, on its own, inherently or entirely preclude deadnaming. -sche (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolving the use issue first would make the mention issue (when to include it) clearer Would it? You cannot use a deadname if you cannot mention it. Would we not need to resolve the mention issue first, before we can resolve the use issue? Or is this a chicken or the egg causality dilemma? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It goes without saying that we can't use it if we don't mention it, but I think warrants clarifying that we shouldn't use it even when we do mention it.--Trystan (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Trovatore, former names should be reported and they have encyclopedic value. BLP already handles the various sensitivities, including the living/dead distinction, and GENDERID should not make a special case to exclude former names of transgender people just because they changed gender. GENDERID should simply clarify that the encyclopedia uses a person's preferred name and pronoun. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because we already don't use deadnames, and no one is seriously proposing we should! The only issue where there is actually debate is whether we should mention the names. Obviously we aren't going to be deadnaming people in wikivoice. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I have concerns that focusing too much on the use-mention distinction could encourage bad actors to try to sneak their way around the current rules. That’s why I proposed the wording “inclusion” and “editorially justified”; it’s basically a “use your common sense” rule. (So, for example: including Caitlyn Jenner’s name, especially in regards to her athletic career, would be common sense, even though she’s alive; including SOPHIE’s, as a trans person who took her privacy incredibly seriously, wouldn’t, even though she’s dead). We already make these sorts of allowances when it comes to nationality; for example, it would be technically correct, but incredibly silly, to describe Willie McRae as “British” outside of talking about his time in the military. Honestly, unless a demonstrable detriment (again, defined in common sense terms) can be shown to the contrary, I’d argue that “just refer to people how they’d prefer” rule is the NPOV treatment (in so much as not doing so is rude at best, and pushing your beliefs on them at worst). Sceptre (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I’d argue that “just refer to people how they’d prefer” rule is the NPOV treatment (in so much as not doing so is rude at best, and pushing your beliefs on them at worst) Not always. For example if someone describes themselves as Jewish but reliable sources disagree then we shouldn't refer to them as Jewish.

The NPOV way is to follow the sources and WP:DUE. This will usually result in us aligning with the individuals preference, but not in all cases and if we allow our own judgement to determine what these exceptions should and shouldn't be then we would be violating both WP:NPOV and WP:OR - two non-negotiable core policies.

I also think you are looking at this the wrong way for mentions; it doesn't make sense to mention SOPHIE's because reliable sources don't mention SOPHIE's. It makes sense to mention Caitlyn Jenner's, because reliable sources do mention hers.

If our rule is just to follow reliable, independent and secondary sources then we won't have a problem - bad actors may try to squeeze it in with primary sources, but so long as the rule is clear that primary sources are unacceptable for this then we can easy reject those. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with what you're saying, because there are absolutely reliable sources that mention SOPHIE's deadname. I'm not going to post them here both because it feels disrespectful and because I don't want to get rev-del'd, but you can easily find big WP:NEWSORGs mentioning her deadname within five minutes on Google.

The simple fact is not every fact that can be sourced belongs on Wikipedia. We rarely include a deceased person's address even though that's often reliably sourceable because it usually has zero encyclopedic value. (So for instance, even though this lady's house is now a museum we don't mention her former address in her article, only the article for the house.) Many trans people's deadnames are similar: there's really just no reason to include them. Loki (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

And how many sources mention it? Would it be WP:UNDUE for us to do so, or would it be WP:DUE? I should have been clearer, but I didn't mean a single source is sufficient to mention SOPHIE's name, nor that a single source not mentioning Jenner's would be sufficient to exclude it.

What I am saying is follow WP:NPOV. If the name is WP:DUE, as it is in the case of Caitlyn Jenner, then we include it. If it is WP:UNDUE, then we don't. What issue can there we with that? BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Santos's claims to a Jewish ethnicity has nothing to do with the principle I'm talking about, because he was making a statement of fact that can be, and was, disproven. If Santos made a statement of Jewish faith, though, then the only WP:DUE response would be to include his statement of faith and no others.

A core principle in polite society has been, for a very long time, that an individual is the final arbiter of their own identity in certain cases, which includes gender identity; as much as American and British conservative politicians are trying to push this as part of their culture war, I don't think this principle has appreciably changed. The second principle is that referring to someone by their deadname often (not always, but often enough) goes hand-in-hand with denying their identity. Hence, the starting position should, I believe, be against inclusion.

However, there are circumstances which can, and do, tip the balance; for example, it would be entirely justified to include the name "Bruce" when we're talking about who won the 1976 Olympic decathlon.

I agree that we shouldn't be engaging in instruction creep. That's why I believe my proposal is the best one; it keeps to the principle that an individual is the sole arbiter of their own identity, but allows for common sense deviations where justified if – and only if – it can be justified. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your example was an individual claiming to be Scottish over British? However, regardless of whether Santos claimed the ethnicity or the faith we should follow reliable sources. For example, some Black Hebrew Israelites claim to be Jewish, but whose status as such is disputed by reliable sources. In those cases, we can and should reflect both their claim, and the fact that reliable sources dispute it.

From a practical point of view, do you have an example where the inclusion of the deadname would be WP:DUE, but it shouldn't be included? BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Small proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal - Follow WP:DUE

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

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

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

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

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

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