Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Consensus on adding disabilities (blind/deaf) in biographical article first sentence?

Disabilities are almost never mentioned in first sentences, just nationality and occupation. See Category:Deaf actors for examples. However this article (Kaylee Hottle) seems to be breaking established status quo. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• The first sentence should highlight attributes that the subject is most notable for. Which attributes should be mentioned is very subject specific. Sometimes an attribute is crucial to a person’s notability (ie the person is notable because of that attribute), while the same attribute may be trivial to the notability of another person. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:SELFID come into play at all? How does the subject of the article consider themselves? An actress who is deaf, or a deaf actress? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Not for the opening sentence. That should be based on independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

When it is central to the subject's notability, it should be mentioned. When not, not. An example where it is central and mentioned is Chieko Asakawa. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, in both of the articles mentioned above I would make sure the disability is in the lead, and maybe the second sentence, but I wouldn’t put it in the first sentence as they are. Most people should be regarded for their work first, then their disability. The fact that they are deaf or blind is not the primary reason these people are notable, but it has clearly had a strong impact. — HTGS (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If nationality is there, then I don't see why disability can't be (as long as it's important to their notability). Zanahary (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We can’t load everything into the first sentence. Which attributes/aspects to put in the first sentence depends on the specific person. There is no single way to do it. Even nationality (which is usually presented in the first sentence) can be presented in a later sentence if there are other aspects of the person that are deemed more relevant to notability. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the first sentence should include the primary things which made the person notable. For Helen Keller, that probably would include her disabilities; that was a crucial part of her notability. For Ray Charles, not so much—he was primarily notable for being a musician, not for being blind. So, there's no "one size fits all" solution there, it has to be done case by case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole quandary of trying to put all the notable things a person is known for in the lede sentence, against the need to write neutrally and dispassionately about a topic is a long standing problem. The lede sentence dies not need to full encapsulate the person, that is the purpose of the entire lede. More notable factors should be mentioned earlier but that doesn't necessarily mean the first sentence if that creates awkward tone per NPOV. This sometimes means that was a person is most notable for may not be mentioned in the first sentence but in a sentence or two later as to give context to why that notability exists or came about. — Masem (t) 20:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence

Regarding MOS:FIRSTBIO, which says in part 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. Should this include or exclude the terms "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in cases where the subject is notable for something else but is also a convicted felon or sex offender? Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein are two key examples where edit warring of the lead sentence to include or exclude this phrasing has occurred. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this falls into RGW territory, but I think it should list the crime specifically. “Sex offender” can mean anything from rape in a dark alley to being gay before 2003, it doesn’t really tell the reader anything and depending on the crime it can actively mislead them. Same for felonies in general.

Whereas if you say “convicted rapist”, that maintains notability while being unambiguous. Likewise for felonies, “convicted felon” doesn’t really say anything. Did they commit arson or did they bounce a check? Snokalok (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends. The opening sentence of an article should explain what the subject is primarily notable for. Someone like Jeffrey Dhalmer is really only notable for his crimes. The opening sentence appropriately focuses on his mass murder. People like Epstein and Weinstein, on the other hand, are notable for a lot besides their crimes. While we definitely should NOT ignore their crimes, we should not highlight their crimes over the other things that make them notable. A more nuanced opening sentence is more appropriate (Epstein was a businessman who committed sex crimes… Weinstein was a Hollywood film producer who committed sex crimes). Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the answer is almost always no, at least for the felon part. That's rarely why these kinds of individuals are notable in sum total, and it almost always feels like a smear rather than neutral statement of fact (Safiya Bukhari is a convicted felon, but that's absolutely not the summation of her career, to pick another example.) Even if someone like Donald Trump got convicted, which would be an immensely historic and notable event in America, it still wouldn't make sense to say the most important thing about him was that he had a criminal conviction in the first breaths. The only places I think it makes sense is when the person's claim to notability is central to why they even have an entry (such as their criminal acts being the only reason they have an article.) There's also the issue of the fact that "sex offender" or "felon" is a massive gamut of potential crimes and would essentially lump without elaboration; to take the previous entries together, that a civil rights activist who got a patently unfair trial is equivalent to a Hollywood sex pest. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost always no. If their crimes are a major enough aspect for a first-sentence mention, it should almost always be possible to be more precise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Snokalok. We should describe the actual crime (and not just when the perpetrator is independently notable). So for instance, HH Holmes is described as a con artist and serial killer, not just as a felon.

In these particular cases, Harvey Weinstein would be described as a "convicted rapist" and Jeffery Epstein as a "convicted child sex trafficker". In both of these cases, I think enough of their notability is for the crimes that this should be a first sentence mention. Loki (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be case by case weighing the reliable sources about the person. I don't think a blanket rule prohibiting the use of "convicted felon" is logical. Otherwise we might as well change FIRSTBIO to only include the first reason the person was notable. Nemov (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on if their crime is the reason for their notability. In most cases it's better to treat it with more detail and context further on, e.g. X is an American musician and entertainer. In 20xx they were convicted on Y counts of Z. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with everyone here. When I see "convicted felon" crammed into the first sentence of the lede, it's often a red flag that the writer wants to cry "Shame! shame!", but realizes that the details would make the person seem not evil enough. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Exclude per WP:LABEL and instead describe the conviction in the first sentence if that is their main notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an issue that's come up at DYK and ITN. The common problem is that if you are trying to say something about a person in one sentence, there is nearly no way there is sufficient context in that one sentence to explain that subjective negatively-toned phrase (even if 100% objectively true) and provide the context that is appropriate to explain what for or other aspects related to that, which makes the phrase stand out as non-impartial or dispassionate writing. Where there is more space to supply the full details (like what they were convicted of), such as later in the lede or within the body, that language is fine. BLP does not require listing everything a person is notable for in one lede sentence, and to me it makes much more sense to wait a sentence or two, or even one or two lede paragraphs, to address such topics so that the lede works from the most objective material to more subjective later, using to opportunity in later paragraphs to give that context and breathing room.
The only exception here would be for a person where their only means of notability is from doing or suspected of a crime, in which case it's hard to say anything else for a lede sentence. — Masem (t) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

For both those people, without reading either article, I would expect to see details of their crimes in the second sentence, but not the first. This conforms with what you have quoted above, and I see no need to change it. In most cases I would not write simply “convicted X”. These people are notable for their crimes, not for the fact that they were convicted. We lead with the conviction because we don’t want to be unclear and to avoid allegations of libel. — HTGS (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless the primary reason someone is notable is a crime or crimes they committed, no, I don't think we should be describing them in the first sentence as "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender". And really anywhere in the article we should report what RS are reporting, and unless are RS are calling them those things, we shouldn't either. We should report what RS are saying: "In 2014, X was convicted of a sex crime." "In 2024, Y was convicted of securities fraud." Or whatever. Valereee (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

To me, this is where a bio is really no different than any other article. I could start off an article about, say... capacitors by saying, "A capacitor is a component used in making pulsed-power energy weapons." But what I have there is a headline meant to grab attention, yet tells me absolutely nothing about what the subject is. The first sentence of any article should answer the question of what in the broadest, simplest terms possible, and that rarely consists of some label. It will be vague, but that's fine. Details are for later. Only in cases where that's all the subject is notable for, such as Charles Manson, would that even make sense. In most cases, the person is something else, whether notable for it or not, but that something provides context for whatever crime or label they became notable for. For example, Mary Kay Letourneau begins "...was an American sex offender and teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child." The label is rather redundant and pointless, but is also preceding the context needed to explain it, so it's awkward to read. What she "was" was a school teacher. That provides context for what she did, which was have sex with her student. One needs to precede the other for the story to flow coherently, and the same is true for any article. Every sentence is context for the following sentences. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is what you're saying is ...was an American sex offender and teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child works better? If so, I agree. — HTGS (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's partly what I mean. I agree with many here that much of the use of labels is often more a case of recentism and emotion. Labels are a convenient way of boiling something down to a pure stereotype, which makes them very effective at eliciting an emotional response. But they're not one bit objective and an example of a poor way to write an article. We're no longer conveying facts but trying to provoke a gut-reaction emotional response to persuade the reader to a particular opinion, and those who say otherwise would only be fooling themselves. As an example of a well written article, see Adolph Hitler. We don't start off by saying he was a bigot and a mass murderer. He was, but we don't need to resort to name calling and such emotionally charged words to convey it, nor does it need to be in the first sentence. We start off with his role in German government and the Nazi party, which is the logical place to start, and then go on to describe all the horrible things he did. Those horrible things speak very loudly of their own accord, we don't need to add labels as a big exclamation point. That's what a very well-written article should look like, and a bio of a living person is no different. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, and also see parallels to discussions regarding a select few political articles starting with "....is an American far-right politician" ... but perhaps that is a wholly separate conversation. To me, labels shoehorned into the lead sentence like this doesn't seem encyclopedic and gets into RGW territory. Connormah (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Connormah, but it's more than just shoehorning labels into the first sentence. This is where it gets difficult to explain to people, so bear with me here, but much of what separates good writing from bad is counterintuitive. People put all this huge emphasis on the importance of the first sentence, but for all the wrong reasons. The first sentence, also called the "topic sentence", is simply to provide a starting point, and it's important only for providing the necessary context for the next sentences. But it's not --by far-- the most important sentence of the article nor the one people will remember. What people will always remember is the last sentence, and --by far-- the most important sentence of the entire article is the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is called the "thesis sentence". Note in the Hitler article, the thesis sentence is where we describe his genocide. That's why the article is so well written, and why these others read like they were written by 4th graders. Zaereth (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I've been trying to highlight this problem for years, but this is a succinct way of explaining why the lede sentence doesn't need to be crammed with everything a topic is notable - as long as that's achieved by the lede paragraph or in some cases the whole lede, if we are properly summarizing the article. I believe a lot of the current problematic examples are driven by editors that feel that these bad behaviors must be called out ASAP, but that just doesn't gel with good encyclopedic writing. Masem (t) 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Very well put by both of you - I agree fully. Connormah (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been right there with you, Masem, at least at BLPN. It's just so counterintuitive that it goes in one ear and out the other, but I'm not making this stuff up. Plenty of sources out there to confirm this, which is why I think a lot of these problems could be solved if we simply had some guidelines on good writing practices. I don't think it's a problem we can solve by simply adding more rules, because rules can never encompass every possibility. But if people could see that what they're arguing for is really a hinderance to the goal they're trying to achieve, maybe they'd be less apt to put so much emphasis on the first sentence. Everything before the thesis sentence is merely a starting point and a pathway leading up to the most important aspect of the subject. Zaereth (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• I oppose the use of the terms "convicted felon" and "sex offender" in the first sentence of biographies except for cases where 1) the commission of those crimes is the primary reason for the subject's notability and 2) there isn't a better way to describe the subject and their crimes. I believe the use of those terms comes across like an attempt to smear or shame the subject, but more importantly I think describing the specific crimes a person was convicted for (if DUE) provides a more accurate picture for readers. Hatman31 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• One thing I would add to the above discussion is that the main reasons a person is notable can shift over time as the body of reliable sources about them grows; it isn't fixed in time at the point they first became notable. For Epstein in particular, surely the coverage of him as a high-profile sex trafficker far outstrips whatever notability he had in other aspects of his life, and the lead sentence should reflect that.--Trystan (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that someone like Epstein is now most written about because of the girls, but being a highly connected, mega-rich financier facilitated his deeds. Putting "American financier who …" and then summarising the crimes, is a more efficient way of providing context IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• What is the reason behind saying "convicted"? Senorangel (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because that makes it obvious that we're not accusing them of a crime out of nowhere, we are reporting the results of the court. It's important to be careful with accusations of crime because of the possibility of libel. We wouldn't have wanted to say, for instance, that OJ Simpson is a murderer in Wikivoice because he was never convicted. Loki (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Convicted" does not seem to be necessary because, in the absence of court rulings, the first sentence should not describe a person as a criminal. The RFC proposes "convicted criminal", not "convicted of a crime". It appears to strengthen the case for a crime, not trying to be careful with the accusation. Senorangel (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• When I see "convicted felon" crammed into the first sentence of the lede, it's often a red flag that the writer wants to cry "Shame! shame!" Stylistically, and in more efficiently fully relating the narrative Letourneau ... was an American sex offender and teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child works better. As does Weinstein ... was an American convicted rapist film producer who was found guilty in ???? to XX counts of rape and other sex offences ditto how one would write Epstein or Jimmy Savile as their profession followed by their 'crime' stated explicitly wherever possible. I have so often found myself arguing that, except in a small number of cases, the previous life is a significant component of the notoriety, not an afterthought. Even if Weinstein is now mainly regarded as an offender, his role in the film world facilitated those offences, ditto Savile, Epstein and Mary Kay Letourneau. So "profession who did this" is the most concise way to give context to the crimes. Nobody bothers to write articles (either in the real world or on WP) about un-finished sex trials committed 45 years ago, unless the accused is famous for other reasons. So even to those who write about his crimes, or who despise him for his crimes, he's the internationally known film director who had sex with a 13 year old model not the accused sex offender who happened to make successful films. I don't also see the sense of 'felon' or 'sex offender' when the charges can be stated explicitly. If it's worth telling me that someone committed a crime, it's worth telling me what it was, otherwise we might just as well say 'bad person'. Where subject's SOLE notability is their crime, this obviously doesn't apply, but those cases are rare and tend to be the most heinous crimes.Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  100% agreed. If I hadn’t read this I would have written something substantially the same. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. There definitely are articles where it gets crammed into the lead in a weird or unnecessary manner, but it's also true that sometimes someone's crimes can overshadow prior notability (we would not, for instance, describe John Wilkes Booth solely as a stage actor in the first sentence of his lead, even though he was famous as that before he became famous for something else.) I would similarly characterize Epstein as someone whose primary notability is now his crimes. --Aquillion (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think that John Wilkes Booth's first sentence is perfect and would not be improved by adding the phrase "convicted felon" to it. (Well, obviously, since he was never actually convicted, but you get what I mean.)

  Part of the confusion here is that while nobody likes the proposition as phrased, the opinions on what to do instead are going in two very different directions. To somewhat oversimplify, one is that we should avoid saying bad things about the subject of the article in the first sentence, and the other is that we should be more specific about the bad things we say about the subject of the article in the first sentence. The way the RFC is currently framed, these two opinions seem to both be taken as "no" when actually they're opposites: if we can't describe Epstein as a convicted child sex trafficker in the first sentence of his article, I would very much prefer "convicted sex offender" to nothing. Loki (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that it's about avoiding saying bad things about the subject of the article in the first sentence. For me it has nothing to do with that.

  There are two questions here. The first is the terminology RS are using. If the very best RS are using "Convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein", we use it too. If they're instead using "Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sex trafficking," that's what we use. I see that NPR is using "Court documents made public on Wednesday disclosed the names of dozens of powerful men with alleged connections to convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein",[1] so that would for me be the argument to use that term.

  Whether it goes in the first sentence is a second question. The lead sentence identifies the person. We don't put every possible label they could be identified with in there; we use the important ones for identifying the person, and we decide which are important by what RS are using as identifiers. Has nothing to do with good or bad. What matters is whether multiple of the best RS are using a term as a primary descriptor. If multiple of the best RS are identifying Epstein as a "financier and convicted sex trafficker", we call him that in the first sentence too. If instead they're saying things like "Financier Jeffrey Epstein, who after being convicted of sex trafficking committed suicide in jail," then no. Valereee (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  I did say it was an oversimplification, so thank you for giving your side of the story.

  That being said, I also don't agree with this take. We rely on the sources for facts, not wording. WP:OUROWNWORDS is just an essay but it explains why this is so better than I could. Loki (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, as you say that's an essay, not policy, and particularly in the case of the lead sentence for living people, exact wording can be very important. When we're deciding how to identify people, we should follow RS. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Exact wording can be very important, which is exactly why we shouldn't dodge the responsibility to craft the best possible wording. There are a variety of problems with pawning off our responsibility to word things appropriately in this way.

  For one, Wikipedia is not a newspaper (or book, or other type of RS) and often the way newspapers word things is contrary to how an encyclopedia would. There are many entries in the WP:MOS where the way we word things is contrary to how many newspapers would. The one that comes to mind immediately is MOS:ENGVAR.

  Second, newspapers (or books, or studies, etc etc) aren't Wikipedia and aren't obligated to follow Wikipedia policy. WP:FALSEBALANCE/false balance calls out a specific common example of this, but several others exist.

  Third, and arguably most importantly, Wikipedia policy allows for the possibility of sources that are biased but reliable for facts. I would never want to decide whether any particular line calls a certain politically charged historical event "the Nakba" vs "the Israeli War of Independence" based on which bias the source containing that fact happens to have. Loki (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  But Loki, if NYT/WSJ/NPR/BBC/whatever top quality source aren't calling someone a sex offender, if they're instead saying he was convicted of a sex crime, why would we decide to call him "a sex offender" in the lead rather than saying he was convicted of a sex crime? Valereee (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't like "sex offender" myself, but for the wording I prefer, the reason why we'd call someone a rapist rather than a person convicted of rape is because

  a) it scans better

  b) article subjects should have their major sources of notability introduced as early as possible

  c) the longer wording IMO introduces a level of skepticism that is incompatible with WP:NPOV unless we have a concrete reason to doubt it. Loki (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  The first sentence is not required to be a full summary of why a person is notable; the lede in total needs to do that, however.

  If a person is sufficiently notable for more than just a conviction or equivalent, even if the conviction is likely more widely attached to the person than the other notable factors (as in all the cases we are discussing here), then having the lede sentence include the conviction can create a total lede that inappropriate in tone required by BLP and NPOV. It is far better to discuss something like a conviction in a separate sentence where one can include the necessary context, rather than forcing just the descriptor in the lede.

  Whenever I see articles that do place convictions in the lede sentence in these situations, it reads as if the editors have been trying to RGW to call out the person as "bad", which is not what we should be doing, Wikipedia should be written amorally to maintain its impartial and dispassionate tone. Masem (t) 18:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "convicted" in the lead sentence of already famous people is often swayed by recentism or campaign to WP:RGW. People like Kellen Winslow II, who were not involved in a "trial of the century", probably have WP:UNDUE weight placed on their crime(s).—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• In general, it seems like almost every time I see something like ", and convicted felon" in the lead of an article, it could be dropped without much issue. Usually, it does not seem relevant enough to the article to warrant being in the lead. There are a few people famous solely for their criminal acts, like famous serial killers or drug lords or whatever. In this case, we can just say "Alice Jones is a Swiss murderer" or "Bob Smith is a Canadian mafia boss" or whatever in the lead. This also has the advantage of being more accurate. In cases where it's like "Carol Glockenspiel is an Irish-Botswanan lawyer, politician, and convicted felon", where she was on the cover of magazines for all this other stuff 40 years and was disbarred after some kind of legal malpractice mumbo-jumbo -- is it really that important that we need to put in the very first sentence?

Another thing that's worth noting is that "felony" encompasses a very broad range of things. Dennis Rader is a felon because he raped and murdered a dozen people; Jeff Skilling is a felon because he did the Enron scandal. Martha Stewart is a felon because she did insider trading, which is certainly bad, but she did not rape or murder anyone (as far as I know). We also have people like Tanya McDowell, who spent five years in prison because she lied about where her house was so her son could go to school in a different district, or This guy, who probably doesn't pass GNG, but nonetheless is a felon because he stole a $2 candy bar. I don't want to get into a whole politics thing here, but there are a ton of people who are criminals for very dumb reasons, so it makes me a little uncomfortable to see stuff like this way up in the first sentence of an article. Sure, people are asswipes sometimes. But I think it's pretty obvious that, say, Kenneth Lay was an asswipe, and we don't need to say he was a "convicted felon" for this -- whereas there are a large number of people for whom this seems unfair or unnecessary. I think that being clear about the nature of the crime will make this distinction obvious: if replacing "is a felon" with the actual details of the crime makes the lead sentence sound idiotic and petty, then we know that including it in the lead sentence is idiotic and petty. and we know that we should probably not have it in there. jp×g🗯️ 05:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

(Brought here from WP:RFC/A) - Leaning towards the inclusion of more detailed summary of the crimes committed rather than a broad label. Seems most editors agree that "felon" is to vague a term to include into the first sentence. I would say we can't sugar coat Wikipedia, if a person is notable for being a criminal, it wouldn't be accurate to omit that information from the lead. Now it goes without saying that if it is included in the lead, there needs to be matching weight in the body and from reliable sources as to not violate blp protections. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It's more likely that its suitable in the lead, but not in the lead sentence (MOS:ROLEBIO). Too often the lead sentence is an excessive laundry list (and not just for felons). —Bagumba (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - The scope of this RFC is not clear. The section heading is "... lead sentence", but the description then quotes MOS:FIRSTBIO "The opening paragraph ...", before citing examples of "edit warring of the lead sentence". It is perfectly reasonable to mention a crime/felony in the lead paragraph but not necessarily the lead sentence. Another example is Rolf Harris - see discussion and subsequent RfC. Perhaps this RFC should propose some alternative wording to MOS:BIO § Opening paragraph and/or MOS:BIO § First sentence so it it clear exactly what is being proposed Mitch Ames (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Gender identity rules

I see the following: "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 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."

I do not understand the reason that it holds for any phase of the person's live unless they indicated a preference otherwise. I want wikipedia to be a source of reliable information.

I find it ridiculous when you write about some non binary in wikipedia "Nemo began their interest in music at the age of three"

I think the reader who want to know the facts want to know that everybody considered Nemo as a male at that time and from the value in wikipedia people cannot know the facts when they read wikipedia because of the rules that this holds for any phase of the person's life. אורי בלאס (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. People do not have the right to re-write or censor their own history, even their childhood. In particular the name they were given at birth. Even if they were not notable at the time (hardly anyone is notable in childhood). The facts of their life are what they are and should be reported. Not re-written to match their current (possibly changing) preference a la Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth. Ttulinsky (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia is not just a source of biographical information. What Wikipedia says about a living person can have a profound impact on that person and their life, as our information is reused in countless other sources and provides input to everything from AI chatbots to Google Knowledge Panels. Thus we should err on the side of respecting the identities of living people when possible. When a person was not notable under a previous name, what harm is there in not mentioning their previous name? Wikipedia is not intended to be the repository of all facts. It's only intended to give a summary of notable information about a person. Nosferattus (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot in WP:BLP that helps explain why certain verifiable information can be censored for living people for privacy concerns. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree: There are downsides to the current guidelines but they are preferable to the alternatives. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is really "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." It really shouldn't have anything to do with someone's stated preference, which may change at any time, or be reported in conflicting ways, or even attract several varieties of interpretational WP:OR. Rather, we should use something like "unless the majority of current reliable sources do otherwise for a particular time period in the subject's life". This would get around the perpetual sore spot of examples of like sports figures notable as, say, male competitors in men's divisions years before their transition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Native American/First Nations citizenship

I'm restoring the section on tribal citizenship per Tribal sovereignty in the United States:

Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names. (See also {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing.)

• 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.

• Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions about the tribes with regard to their property and citizens are made with their participation and consent. Bureau of Indian Affairs, US Govt
• American Indians and Alaska Natives are members of the original Indigenous peoples of North America. Tribal nations have been recognized as sovereign since their first interaction with European settlers. The United States continues to recognize this unique political status and relationship. National Congress of American Indians
• Tribal enrollment requirements preserve the unique character and traditions of each tribe. The tribes establish membership criteria based on shared customs, traditions, language and tribal blood. Tribal enrollment criteria are set forth in tribal constitutions, articles of incorporation or ordinances. The criterion varies from tribe to tribe, so uniform membership requirements do not exist. Department of the Interior
• Canada recognizes that Indigenous peoples have an inherent right of self-government guaranteed in section 35 of the Constitution Act , 1982. Negotiated agreements put decision-making power into the hands of Indigenous governments who make their own choices about how to deliver programs and services to their communities. This can include making decisions about how to better protect their culture and language, educate their students, manage their own lands and develop new business partnerships that create jobs and other benefits for their citizens. Canadian Government

@David Fuchs: this is not simply "a couple individuals" discussing this. Tribal sovereignty is recognized by the Unites States and Canada to this day and historically through the creation of treaties. Please provide sources that show tribal nations are not sovereign nations and do not determine their own citizenship before removing again. You can discuss wording, but it's a federal fact these are sovereign nations that determine their own citizenship laws.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

With some very limited exceptions, the opening sentence of a biography should deal with nationality only, not religion/ethnicity/being indigenous etc. If that status is somewhat relevant, it can be mentioned later in the lede. GiantSnowman 18:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Being enrolled in a tribe isn't actually about race, it's citizenship. For example, Shania Twain holds a status card and is included in the rolls of a First Nations tribe even thought she has no Native ancestry because she was legally adopted by a First Nations man as a child. And any case, most Native / First Nations people who are written about on Wikipedia tend to work in fields related to their tribes, culture etc.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

...that still does not mean it should be mentioned in the opening sentence of a biography. GiantSnowman 18:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

So citizenship doesn't go into the lead of articles?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not tribal citizenship, no. GiantSnowman 18:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Na·tion·al·i·ty: the status of belonging to a particular nation. Please provide sources that says tribal nations are not nations.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"National" in its citizenship sense is the recognized international state. So saying someone is U.S. national is not saying they are not American Indian or anything else Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a common misunderstanding of what the WP:MOS actually says. The MOS does not say that nationality = Westphalian citizenship; it says that In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident - and indigenous nationality is a prime example of a set of cases where the original rule doesn't work as a rote formula. In fact, if a BLP subject is, say, a Navajo whose career is based in Navajo national territory, it would be a more natural application of the rule to use Navajo instead of, or in addition to, American nationality. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

International recognition as a sovereign state is not required. We regularly identify people as being English, Scottish, or Welsh in the first sentence, e.g. we say Catherine Zeta-Jones is a Welsh actress. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We also refer to people as Puerto Rican, Bermudian, and Faroese. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Tribal Sovereignty is not International Sovereignty, so it does not fit here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Please elaborate and provide sources that tribes are not sovereign nations.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Where is that definition on Wikipedia? Wikipedia denies sovereignty of Tribal nations exists. --ARoseWolf 19:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

List of sovereign states. GiantSnowman 19:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Iroquois passport is an example of times tribes have used their tribal sovereignty as sovereign nations and has had various success/failure, so you can't say they are absolutely not recognized internationally. The Iroquois passport evolved from negotiations with the US State Department, Canada, Britain and other countries and has been used since 1977. Israel and Ireland both recently accepted these passports.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That article says that it a "expression of sovereignty", other than an actual legal document, and says that "The governments in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have refused to endorse the document as valid document for international travel. Additionally, the document does not appear on the list of forms of acceptable identification to cross into Canada." GiantSnowman 19:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan is not recognized by China as an independent nation, should Category:Taiwanese people be merged to Chinese people? You can see how using one nation's refusal of sovereign recognition can be a slippery slope. The fact is, the Iroquois passport has been accepted as valid by other international nations, even in recent years.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan is recognised by the majority of the world and was formerly a UN member. Is the same of the Iroquois or any other Native nation? GiantSnowman 19:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

They're in the process of that, actually.

In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Article 3 of the UNDRIP states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” As such, each nation of Indigenous peoples has an internationally recognized right to freely exercise its own origins, system of organization and political formation. Having self recognition in the definition was a victory, as nation-states had fought for the right to retain the power to define who is Indigenous. The United States (along with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) initially voted against the Declaration, reversing its position two years later.

UCLA: How are Indigenous Peoples recognized internationally?

Also:

Indigenous peoples are frequently classified as a racial minority. However, it is important to understand that “Native American” or “American Indian” are not strictly racial categories. Being a member of a tribal nation provides a membership status. Because of tribes’ status as sovereign nations, Indigenous peoples/tribes are political entities. Whether an individual is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe depends on the membership rules of each individual tribe. Those requirements usually have some basis in “blood quantum” ancestry, however, other criteria may also be used. A DNA test cannot tell you that you are Native American, because that status is defined by belonging to a tribal nation or community. “Native American” or “American Indian” thus differs from racial minority groups because it entails membership and that membership connotes a distinct historical and political relationship with the federal government. UCLA: Are Indigenous peoples a racial minority?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

From the US Department of of the Interior - "Tribal nations are pre-existing sovereigns over which states have historically lacked authority. One of the roles of the federal government, since the time of this Nation's founding, has been to protect Tribal nations from state regulation, intrusion, and overreach."

From the NCAI - "American Indians and Alaska Natives are members of the original Indigenous peoples of North America. Tribal nations have been recognized as sovereign since their first interaction with European settlers. The United States continues to recognize this unique political status and relationship."

I can not believe that there are fellow Wikipedians that are advocating the denial of tribal nation statehood without a single shred of evidence provided by reliable sources. Linking to a Wikipedia list is not a reliable source as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

The United Nations recognized Indigenous peoples right to self-determination and self-government and encourages other states to recognize and affirm such. The United States is one such state that does so for sovereign tribal nations within it's physical borders that it maintains treaties with.

Members of a Indigenous or tribal nation are citizens of a sovereign nation and should be treated as all other citizens of sovereign nations around the world. --ARoseWolf 19:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

the denial of tribal nation statehood Generally speaking, Native tribes are not sovereign states [2]. They are not "independent and not under the authority of any other country". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, MOS says In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident, which doesn't mean the Westphalian system (which is "a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory").  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that - see my more lengthy reply below. Just pointing out to ARoseWolf that "tribal nation statehood" isn't an exactly accurate phrase. Tribes aren't really sovereign states - they're closer to dependent territories. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox parameters under discussion are "citizenship" and "nationality". If you would like change these parameters to "Westphalian nationality" or "sovereign statehood", you could certainly make that proposal but that would need to be a separate discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox parameters? This discussion is about an addition to MOS:CITIZEN, which is about the lead section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I have them coupled in my mind because they usually echo each other. There's even less constraints of what goes in the lead sentence and lead section. I don't understand why it is so onerous to you for Native American people to list our tribal citizen in our introductions. That's exactly what we do in real life. Yuchitown (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disagreeing with that inclusion in the lead - refer to my more lengthy reply below. And please try to keep straight who you're talking to in a discussion, if you're going to personalize the arguments. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

See Sovereignty [https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty/Sovereignty-and-international-law] but its not that Wikipedia does not recognize anything, its that they are two different things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"International sovereignty" isn't a real term in the literature, maybe you mean international recognition. Tribal sovereignty, at least in the United States, is based (among other things) on international agreements (treaties) between nations. See Kalt and Singer tribes are not merely clubs; they are sovereigns – domestic dependent nations who never voluntarily relinquished their powers over their territory. Moreover, the treaties and statutes recognizing the reserved rights of tribes implicitly affirm tribal political powers of their retained lands. Treaties are literally de jure recognition of a separate sovereign.

And just to be clear, tribal citizenship also has very real world effects in the United States on things like criminal jurisdiction. For example, state and municipal courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over tribal citizens who commit a crime on an Indian reservation. Tribal citizenship, at least for federally recognized tribes, is at the least unambiguously recognized by the United States. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No, international sovereignty, U.S. state sovereignty is not the same either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to where you're getting your definition of "international sovereignty"? Because asserting it is a different type of sovereignty without defining how is not really helpful. Sovereignty (whose page doesn't mention the term "international sovereignty") is already a fuzzy concept in both law and political theory, so if you're using a more nuanced version of the phrase you should probably explain it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have, but I'm sure you know there are different degrees of sovereignty, that's just the way the world is. For example, neither Mongolia nor South Africa operate under American Indian law. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A grand total of two people weighed in on adding the verbiage; it has never been vetted or approved by any sort of critical mass of editors that should be necessary to add something to an existing guideline. None of the stuff you're saying above is relevant to the fact that consensus hasn't been established to put the content in, and the fact that plenty of people have argued against your novel interpretations of it to try and end-run around people calling you out on it. Start an RfC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Quit moving the goal posts and just have the discussion here like we're supposed to.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no moving goalposts. I just think a neutral RfC, should you be able to craft one, would be far more useful for the wiki. Most people don't follow all the Manual of Style pages. Wider participation is good, right? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's a step you could have taken rather than refuse to even start a discussion here after being reverted and being told to discuss it.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe a critical mass of editors was achieved in this discussion last year, the result of which was that the text in question remained in the MOS based on the support of more than a grand total of two people. Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is a fraught issue... but I believe it boils down to how we determine someone's nationality (which is technically distinct from citizenship, though there's a lot of overlap). Looking at this issue just for Native Americans...

• Native Americans are considered American citizens [3]. Native Americans are self-governing and have some legal jurisdictions; however, by most accounts, Native American nations do not have international sovereignty - what they have tribal sovereignty [4]. And the United States retains ultimate international sovereignty over tribal lands. So, if we're asking about the nationality of a Native American in an international scope, the general answer would probably be "American."
• However, nationality differs a bit from citizenship - citizenship is more about duty/allegiance to a state, whereas nationality is more about legally belonging to a nation. And the United States recognizes Native American tribes as "dependent domestic nations" [5]. So I think there's also nothing wrong wtih referring to someone by their Native nationality.

It seems that according to current policy, we could refer to someone's tribal nationality in the first sentence of the lead (provided, of course, said nationality is relevant to their notability). "Native American (X Nation)" seems to be to a comparable phrase to "American" in terms of this first sentence. At the least, it provides the same "where are they from" information.

That said, I don't agree with the inclusion of or as a clause after their names, as shown at WP:NATIVEIDENTITY with the example "Deb Haaland (Laguna Pueblo)". While that form may work for style within articles, it's too specialized a way of referring to someone to be used in the first sentence of a lead.

(Also, the example being added is pretty poor - the text added here isn't the actual first sentence of the lead of the article. It's also redundant, linking Cherokee twice). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

One refers to Cherokee language. Agree that a better example could be chosen. Yuchitown (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, the example should be changed/updated PersusjCP (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist, we should note the assumption that Native Americans are American citizens is only true after 1924. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is actually a good point, I agree with this. PersusjCP (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Good points, but note also that all American citizens are also American nationals , the two go together in that situation (but not all American Nationals are American citizens). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that Native American voices are always going to be outnumbered here (and, while Wikipedia publicly laments lack of Indigenous inclusion, it provides no support for those of us here), but I am still going to try to not have our tribal citizenship suppressed on this platform. Tribal sovereignty proceeds the existence of the United States and Canada; treaties with tribal nations are the supreme law of the land (U.S. Senate). The Jay Treaty still allows First Nations and Native American people to freely cross the U.S.–Canadian border. Not all people enrolled in Native American tribes even live in the United States. People use their tribal IDs at airports, etc. For notability issues, typically tribal citizenship is the defining feature of many Native peoples' core identity. It's usually the first thing we list after our names. Why are you so invested in removing this information from its place in Native biographies? What do you gain from not allowing us to list our tribal citizenship, as we do in real life? Yuchitown (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion For some individuals, tribal citizenship is a defining characteristic. That said, there should be care to ensure that the subject is, in fact, a citizen of their tribal nation. --Enos733 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  If enrollment is defining characteristic, won't the article sources say they are enrolled? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, so why do you not want it in the infobox and in the lead sentence where it usually is for almost every Native American biography and has been for years? Yuchitown (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Could not agree more. Yuchitown (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support having tribal citizenship be included. It is citizenship in a sovereign nation, not just someone's race or ethnicity. Agree with Yuchitown that tribal sovereignty is often the defining aspect of someone's identity in the way that citizenship to a country might be for someone else. It is legally this way, as PhotogenicScientist said. In the US, they are domestic dependent nations, and are sovereign entities. This doesn't mean that people should put Native American in the same way that they might say "American" in the lede, but it should definitely be allowed to say their citizenship just as any other person. PersusjCP (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. My experience is that (1) Native American activists feel strongly that only people listed on official tribal rolls should be listed here as Native Americans (as opposed to the many people with an unverifiable family story of Cherokee ancestry), and that personal statements of Native American heritage are unacceptable as a substitute, but (2) membership on tribal rolls is difficult or impossible to verify. At best, in some cases we have newspaper stories about tribal leaders stating their membership, or published obituaries that are maybe more believable than those family stories, but most such sources are nonexistent for most living Native American people. That puts us between a rock and a hard place: we cannot include this information if it is not verifiable, but it is not verifiable. Demanding that we must include this information (when we cannot include it because we cannot verify it) is a non-starter. Anyone more knowledgeable in these issues want to clarify? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

A WP:RS stating one's membership in a specific tribe has been the precedent as of yet, but like you said, a lot of the time they only say that someone is "of __ descent" which isn't enough to declare citizenship. In that case, I think it should be as per usual, such as if they were born in the US, then default to American. However, if it can be reliably sourced, it should be in the lede (and put the heritage somewhere later in the opening paragraphs or something, as you would with other ethnicity markers) PersusjCP (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a conversation about nationality not ancestry. Tribal newspapers, many of which are online, and other Native media mention tribal citizens all the time. Yuchitown (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

David - I don't see this addition as being a requirement, but as an option. I would also suggest that this information should not added to the lede unless the subject is especially known for being a tribal citizen. On sourcing, there are some individuals, especially tribal citizens who serve on a tribal council, where tribal citizenship can be verified, as well as tribal newspapers as Yuchitown says above. - Enos733 (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I support restoring the guidance. It's helpful, and it's generally aligned with other parts of the MOS that emphasize nationality over ethnicity. I agree that it can be difficult to verify whether someone is actually enrolled in a tribe, but we have to take the word of reliable sources (and sometimes uncontested self-description) as we would in any other case of nationality. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  No. Not if the position is the person can't claim it unless they are enrolled. In other words the statement 'X is Cherokee" in the source does not prove they are a "national". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, but if a reliable source makes the claim "X belongs to the Cherokee nation", why would we treat that different from any other claim a reliable source may make? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's my point. The source may not refer to enrollment in a dependent nation at all, just join the person (biographical subject) to the name of the various peoples, eg. not the Pottawatomie Band of Oklahoma, but the Pottawatomie. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That seems like a semantic difference, and an edge case example. I don't see why something like that would preclude the proposed change to this MOS page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Our lived experience as citizens of our tribal nations, for example the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, are not "edge case examples" or "semantic differences." During COVID when the tribes had to lock down their reservations and Pueblo, and the tribes were providing vaccinations, it was life or death. I wish people could familiarize themselves with the subject on hand instead of trying to weigh down discussions based on personal opinions. Yuchitown (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Edge case? That makes no sense, there are multiple dependent nations with specific names and also other names used generally. It is likely in almost every case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I see the problem, when there appear to be multiple bands (nations?) within a Native group... two people may both be "Cherokee", while their nationalities are actually "United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians" and "Cherokee Nation"(?). Similar issue in the Potawatomi example - it looks like their official name is just "Potawatomi," so a person belonging to the Oklahoma band may consider themselves "Potawatomi". But they also might consider themselves as "Citizen Potawatomi Nation"....

  Unless there are serious complaints from actual Native people, I think the best way to handle nationality is to associate them with the more inclusive nationality (e.g. Cherokee, Potawatomi, etc). That seems to be the most in-line with how other nationalities are handled in leads. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  But even were you to allow that, you have not indicated what to do when the person is only linked with a general name, and not a particular dependent nation, and you can't assume they are a dependent national. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I understand it, you can't claim citizenship in the general group's name unless you belong to a particular tribe. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  No. That's the issue. What does someone mean when they say "I am X", do they mean they are X of Y, X of Z or something else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't really matter, does it? As long as their being "Cherokee" is documented in a reliable source, and relevant to their notability. Then there's no issue with us simply saying "X is Cherokee" in the lead. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well no, not if you are representing it as their nationality, their nationality is not "Cherokee" its Eastern Band of Cherokee" or something else. See eg. Amanda Crowe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  What a person says about themselves is not reliable. In most of these sources they are just regurgitating what the subject says about themselves without thinking because most non-Natives don't understand the dynamic. That is why we look for Native media or Native sources to make the declaration. Non-Native sources aren't affected one way or the other. But tribal nations are potentially affected. Most sources wouldn't question if you said "I am American", especially if you are in fact in the US stating it. But what if they found that you were not born in the US to American parents (birth) and there is no record of your attempts to become a citizen of the US through any legal process (naturalization)? That is the two ways you can legally become an American. Would Wikipedia still state you are American? The issue is Native American sovereign nations do not have physical borders and so they may be scattered among multiple physical nations but they have their own distinctive laws for citizenship. The way we determine who is Native American is by who claims you not who you claim to be. --ARoseWolf 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  No. You have no basis to assume or presume anyone is unreliable especially in BLP or RS (should you have specific evidence in an individual's case then present the evidence in RS, and don't make it original research) you can't assume or presume, nor wish away what RS say. You make a very poor argument because carrying it to its logical end, we must assume and presume what you are saying is unreliable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  ...and sometimes uncontested self-description... Our category structure for people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent - without independent reliable sources either confirming or questioning that self-identification - are placed in categories such as Category:People who self-identify as being of Native American descent. This places them in the category tree under Category:Transracial (identity) and Category:Native American-related controversies, alongside proven frauds. Being of Indigenous descent and being a current member of a First Nation/tribe aren't the same, but it would be surprising if simple self-identification of membership were accepted as sufficient, given the highly skeptical default approach to claims of descent.--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can we please focus? Being a citizen of a nation is the conversation. Yuchitown (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Y

  I agree; this is about citizenship, not ethnicity. We generally include citizenship in the lead (when we know it, and often perhaps inappropriately when we can only guess at it). We more often do not include ethnicity, unless it is specifically relevant. As such, I agree that Native American tribal citizenship, when known and verifiable, should be included. Perhaps a good example here is Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, a single citizenship that mixes multiple ethnicities. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support including tribal citizenship in lead. I agree that tribal citizenship belongs in the lead when it can be verified in an independent reliable source, in particular sources from the Indigenous press/media or the tribe itself. If the citizenship/nationality is coming directly from the person who is the subject of the article or a non-reliable source, it should default to American or Canadian, whichever is relevant. Reiterating what has been said above that this discussion is about citizenship/nationality, and not about ethnicity, ancestry, heritage, or race. Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikidata data modeling would offer insight Wikidata does not have a recommended best practice for this either, and I think this challenge would be easier to solve at Wikidata than it is here in Wikipedia. If anyone wants to meet at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America to explore data modeling options then I would participate. Last year at WikiConference North America a group presented "Indigenous Artists and Wikidata", which, while insightful, also determined that experts and stakeholders did not yet agree on how to describe the relationship between people and indigenous community affiliations. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• I actually dislike the proposed form of the addition here. First, adding the nation or tribe “parenthetically, or as a clause after their names” is no better than simply allowing people to write prose that works clearly case by case. And as for the example of Wilma Mankiller, she is already notable for her tribal affiliation. She does not need the parenthetical, nor any additional justification for mentioning her tribal citizenship. Her article would be worse with that addition, and as such, the article doesn’t actually use the parenthetical as it’s written above. If we are to give an example with the intention of saying that any random bio who has/had tribal citizenship should have that citizenship in the lead, it should be one who is not notable for any reasons connected to their tribal status.

And at that point, I don’t know that I see it as much different to giving the American state as part of their dominant context; sometimes it will be relevant (if the person gained notability predominantly in the context of the tribal nation), other times it won’t be (if their notability was gained more as a citizen of the rest of their “country”), and we surely shouldn’t mandate, nor proscribe it at this level. — HTGS (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of tribal citizenship in lead. Native American tribes are sovereign nations with citizenship. It is not a matter of race, ethnicity, ancestry, phenotype, or color. The argument that tribal citizenship doesn't belong in the lead because tribes are domestic dependent nations is a nonsense. We do not waste our time quibbling over whether or not to mention in the lead that Bad Bunny is Puerto Rican, Duffy is Welsh, Samantha Barks is Manx, Heather Nova is Bermudian, Mari Boine is Sámi, Lemanu Peleti Mauga is Samoan, Tiare Aguilera Hey is Rapa Nui, Berta Cáceres is Lenca, Rigoberta Menchú is Kʼicheʼ, Roch Wamytan is Kanak, Masrour Barzani is Kurdish, Evelyn Wever-Croes is Aruban, and Eivør is Faroese. This should be simple. I am disappointed that some editors, who seem to have a drive-by knowledge of the issues at hand, have been quick to dismiss, demean, curse at, threaten, pearl-clutch, or otherwise speak down to or over Native editors on these matters. This is not respectful. It behooves non-Native editors to take a moment to familiarize themselves with the topic and engage with what Native editors have to say. Mistakes will happen, nobody's perfect, but active listening and learning is crucial for collaboration. Certainly, if we want to avoid the bias that Wikipedia readily admits exists, we must avoid behavior that discourages Native participation. Notably, there is consensus for inclusion among the Native and Native-allied editors who regularly edit on Native subjects. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per the reasons I have outlined at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States, this is a very controversial issue. Making this an official MOS guideline is strongly discouraged because many unrecognized could be left out. Throughout the world, indigenous identity is primarily ethnic, no matter how much you try to legislate it. Official tribal enrollment is absolutely not the same thing as being a U.S., Canadian, or U.K. citizen, and we should leave politics out of indigenous identity.

To recap my position (from the category discussion):

Federal recognition is a controversial topic.

We should look at serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, not solely on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair to every indigenous group.

I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals people according to "tribal citizenship" would be extremely offensive to some. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Same goes for China. There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.

The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.

I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.

As a result, I would strongly recommend leaving this out of MOS biography policies and to evaluate each article on a case-by-case basis. Equiyamnaya (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what ethnic groups in the middle east have to do with tribal governments in the US and Canada. Federally recognized tribes are more than just ethnic groups, in fact, many tribal governments represent several or many different ethnicities within the nation (e.g. the Tulalip Tribes, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, etc): they have a community, legal jurisdiction, (often) a land base that they govern, and as others have stated, tribal ID's are acceptable forms of ID for tribal citizens. They have a nation-to-nation relationship in the United States (and with the Crown in Canada). It isn't simply deciding to categorize people based on their tribal citizenship vs ethnic origin, it is treating them the same as you would the citizen of any other sovereign nation. PersusjCP (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly this. Thank you, PersusjCP. If an editor wants to include that a subject is a descendent of or mention their ethnic heritage they can do that within the article. This is focused explicitly on those whose citizenship lies with a recognized, meaning a government has signed a binding treaty with, sovereign tribal nation. That is what recognition is. Governments decide who to sign treaties with all the time and those treaties give recognition. The US government is not deciding who is legitimate as these sovereign tribes were always sovereign, even as they were forced to move off their lands and onto reservations, even as programs were developed that forced assimilation, they still maintained their political distinction. The US government acknowledged the mistake of forcing the disbandment of tribal governments and restored it with federal recognition of the treaties they agreed to. Enrolled members were always citizens of their respective tribal nations and that citizenship should be recognized. --ARoseWolf 11:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• I see it has been obliquely mentioned, but worth a direct link to WP:UKNATIONALS. CMD (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CONTEXTBIO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to make some suggestions for changes to the initial part of the MOS:CONTEXTBIO since Ethnicity redirects to that section, and to make it a little clearer and inclusive of information in the examples. Can I work on a draft and post it here - or is there another process? Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You should say what exactly the problem is or what you're not understanding before rewriting the entire section on your own and then asking for feedback.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I underlined the type of changes I am suggesting. If I am going to spell out the exact changes, I might as well write the draft.

I am just looking for process. It sounds like the process is to post the suggested draft here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Carole, respectfully, you need to explain concisely and clearly what you want to change. Nothing here makes any sense. GiantSnowman 20:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I am a little confused. There are bullets of the changes. The main difference is that the examples are inline with the guidelines. There is a link to compare the current Context section with the draft.

I am guessing that you are confused about 2 topics I added. I have added regional identity up for discussion, and I think it would be good to keep that. The Indigenous people conversation shouldn't have been started.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, slightly more forceful - this whole section is a mess and it is not clear what you are seeking. GiantSnowman 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I am not hearing that from anyone else. When I get no detail about the problem, it's hard to understand where it's coming from. Here's a summary of where things are at:

• Use in the article - is completed.
• Regional identity - is an open issue.
• "Additional restrictions"? - I believe is resolved, waiting to hear back.
• Indigenous people - I have struck out (striked out?)
• The draft is up-to-date with changes discussed here and a couple of other edits by others. Have you reviewed Draft:MOS CONTEXTBIO? That is really the key point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I looked at your edits to see where you might be coming from. It appears that you remove people's birth country info - also removing name info in their former language. Is that your concern? There weren't any changes for foreign born, dual citizenship scenarios.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"I am not hearing that from anyone else" - the issue is that you don't appear to be hearing from anyone, likely due to confusion. Either you can clarify as I have requested multiple times, or this discussion will get nowhere. GiantSnowman 18:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

One editor has made direct edits to the draft. Others have made comments here and I made changes to the draft. Your comments are not constructive, they seem to be meant to be disruptive. Unless there is something constructive that I can deal with, restating what has been done on this draft seems counter-productive and is creating a lot of unnecessary rhetoric. There's nothing more for me to summarize or restate.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF - I am trying to help you, and you are unable or unwilling to listen and engage. GiantSnowman 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A common thread with this editor. This discussion is not clear or specific about the problem so I don't see the need to accept any changes from the draft.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson I also would like to know what the problem being solved is here. I am generally open to reworking guidelines where needed, but rather than read through and make a bunch of notes to compare your draft with the current version, it would help us a lot if you said explicitly what your goal is. If you are trying to make text clearer, more legible, or easier to understand, that’s one thing; if you are trying to impart new meanings, that’s another. Neither are verboten, but it helps us to help you if you let us know what you are trying to do. (“Help me… help you!”) — HTGS (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

HTGS I appreciate your respect and politeness. Let's simplify this, then. The main things that I am interested in are the examples integrated with the guidelines and one of the examples showing both sentences of a two-sentence guideline. I know for next time not to do more than one or two things at a time. I am going to close this out - and resubmit with just two of my changes and I kept Alanscottwalker, so he doesn't have to do that twice.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Tribal citizenship is a political status not an ethnic status. There are innumerable classes and books available on Native American law. Yuchitown (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft

I created a draft Draft:MOS CONTEXTBIO with:

• an introductory statement about whether content should appear in the article, since WP:ETHNICITY redirects to this section. - removed per HTGS
• integrated examples with the guidelines, using the format from MOS:BIRTHDATE for consistency and with focus on the example.
• updated verbiage a bit about the examples, like to provide a second sentence example where a person's birth country is notable or defining importance.
• simplified the Native American information, per the comment and discussion about citizenship and because the information is incorrect or simplified for Canada, for instance, it does not consider the Indian Act which does not require citizenship. Of course, this information can be expanded as needed.
• removed the link to the WP:NDNID / WP:NATIVE-IDENTITY essay, which was said at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patricia_Marroquin_Norby that the discussion of self-identity and the document as a whole needs to be reviewed.

I look forward to your responses. There is a place to provide comments in the draft.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I just made a change to the draft to group Nationalities, residency... and Other into two sections. There are no new guidlines, the major change is linking the examples with the guidelines, as is done in other MOS guidelines. I ran a compare pages here. You need to go down to "Context" and then it helps to remember that the examples are integrated and nationalities information is grouped into one section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I took out the two section headings. It seems to have disturbed the flow, as discussed in "Additional restrictions".–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

If you have a new topic, would you please add a new subsection at the bottom of this section? It makes it so much easier to track the conversation. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Use in the article

“Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should not be used in the article …”

Well… we’re not off to a good start.

Just to make we’re on the same page, this section is about making sure that the context for an article’s lead stays on-topic, with regard to what makes the subject notable. It is not a set of rules for talking about ethnicity. The shortcut MOS:ETHNICITY (etc) leads here because it is a common shortcut to use to inform people about the guideline. I use it a lot myself in edit summaries because it’s a common error that needs correcting; this does not mean that the Context section is about ethnicity in biographies. — HTGS (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

HTGS I removed it from the draft.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Regional identity

In reviewing A 2018 RfC on Spanish regional identity in the lead resulted in consensus to use the regional identity that reliable sources use most often and with which the subject identifies., I wonder:

• Should regional identity go in the intro?
• If so, it seems that this statement could apply to regional identity in any country. For instance, "Use the regional identity that reliable sources use most often and with which the subject identifies."–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I made an edit here to try a universal statement on for size. The complete sentence is If there are two or more regional areas of importance, use the regional identity that reliable sources use most often and with which the subject identifies. How is that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"Additional restrictions"?

Is the intention of the draft to introduce additional restrictions on how national and regional identities, apart from Westphalian citizenship, are presented? Because I'm not convinced of a consensus or community appetite for that, but as of this moment the draft looks to me to point in that direction. Newimpartial (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I moved your question here for context, Newimpartial. The content comes from the existing MOS:CONTEXTBIO guideline. No new guidelines are added. What do you mean by Westphalian citizenship? See the bullet list above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, Newimpartial, I am guessing you are referring to the Arnold Schwarzenegger and Peter Lorre examples. They are currently used in MOS:CONTEXTBIO, but one or both of them could be changed if you'd like. That would make sense.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, the status quo version of CONTEXTBIO uses "nationality" a great deal, a term that sometimes equates to citizenship within the Westphalian system of national states and sometimes does not. Your proposed changes seem to me to elaborate based on the premise that nationality always refers to Westphalian citizenship, though perhaps I am not understanding your intended meaning correctly. I do not believe there is existing community consensus on this - if anything, I think the median view onwiki is somewhat less prescriptive about this than the language of the existing guideline. And yes, my impression is based partly on the way examples are presented in your draft. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't know what you are talking about. What specific sentence do you think was changed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I think my issue begins with moving The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable ahead of the section header. I have always read that sentence as governing what is to be included in terms of "nationality".

Newimpartial Okay. I made the change. It's no longer a lonely sentence and flows better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the status quo text the ethnicity, sexuality clause with its generally...unless reads to me as filling in some of the exceptions, noted in the previous paragraph with in most modern-day cases. By moving it to a separate paragraph the impact of both sections shifts towards "use nation-state nationalities" - "don't use things that could be seen as ethnicities", whereas the current flow of text does a better job of acknowledging the logic of the exceptions IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I made the sentence Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability or of defining importance. Underline just for emphasis here.

I am trying to figure out what else can be done - remove the section headings? What do you think should be done?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed the section headings. The combined guideline and example flows almost exactly the same now as the previous separate guideline and example flow, except Copernicus is up with other nationality examples.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous people

I changed "Native American and Indigenous Canadians" to "Indigenous people" to be universal here for the parenthetical / phrase part. (I am sure more will come about Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians).–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Does that make sense? It seems to, for consistency, but it may be adding a guideline that doesn't make sense for other countries.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Strike out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Context: ‘be’ or ‘include’

Hi MapReader, I substituted ‘be’ for ‘include’ in MOS:CONTEXTBIO (as below) because it seems pretty obvious that place will never be the only context for someone’s notability. People are usually notable for achievements, often within organisations or sporting codes or artistic movements and so on, and even sometimes for their race, gender, family, and other contexts which are the dominant subject of this section. The word ‘be’ there implies to me that the place is the only context for their notability. It wasn’t a major error, but I feel it’s clearer with ‘include’. Do you read this differently?

−

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a [[Citizenship|national]] or permanent resident

+

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will include the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a [[Citizenship|national]] or permanent resident

— HTGS (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the revert, you don’t have consensus - indeed I don’t see this having been raised anywhere? I completely see where you are coming from (geography clearly isn’t the only contextual parameter), but your rather narrow interpretation of the effect of your change is not the only one. Moving from a specifier (qualified by ‘most’) to simply ‘include’, is a drastic change to a sentence potentially affecting many many biographical lead sentences, and opens the door to arguments that other characteristics should have equivalence, or even supplant, the geographical one. Given the wide potential impact of even the smallest change here, this needs discussion. MapReader (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that, to me, it seems obvious that country, region or territory is seldom the only context of notability and that sometimes it is not even a relevant piece of context. So I would prefer "usuaĺly include" to "usually be" - I often see editors interpteting "usually be the country" as "is always the country and nothing else" which (i) is not actually backed by P&Gs and (ii) fails any kind of reality check in the world as it actually exists. So to me, "include" would prompt fewer fruitless arguments than "be" does at present. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree (with the point, but not the conclusion) - but isn’t that point already covered by the word “most”? MapReader (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't think so. The present "be" implies that the key characteristic to be presented is the geographical one, which is typically national citizenship or residency. The proposed "include" implies that geography (usually citizenship/residency) is most likely to be defining but that it can be accompanied (or even supplanted) by other factors.

This apparently trivial issue can have real consequences. For example, the way our article on Ernest Bloch is written follows the "fundamentalist" reading of CONTEXTBIO and opens as follows:

Ernest Bloch (July 24, 1880 – July 15, 1959) was a Swiss-born American composer. Bloch was a preeminent artist in his day, and left a lasting legacy. He is recognized as one of the greatest Swiss composers in history. As well as producing musical scores, Bloch had an academic career that culminated in his recognition as Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley in 1952.

I have included the entire opening paragraph to indicate what it leaves out as much as what it includes - our text departs greatly from what the WP:HQRS emphasize about Bloch. For example, the online Brittanica entry opens, Ernest Bloch (born July 24, 1880, Geneva, Switzerland—died July 15, 1959, Portland, Oregon, U.S.) was a composer whose music reflects Jewish cultural and liturgical themes as well as European post-Romantic traditions[6] - which reflects better the context for notability offered in the best sources and gives readers a better picture of Bloch's work.

I suppose the TL;DR of my comment would be - Wikipedia editors are biased towards identifying and following rules, and in areas where exceptions or nuances are important (like context of notability), a belt-and-suspenders approach may be preferable. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have consensus, I have never raised this before, that’s what we’re doing now. I didn’t see it as a contentious change, and I still don’t know why we’re having this discussion now. I have a deep dislike for objections on the basis of “no consensus”, because I’d rather just focus on the substantive issues.

All that being said, I have never seen a lead section that consisted entirely of “Jack Smith was an American.” or “Giacomo Ferraro was an Italian.” so I don’t see why we would want wording that implies the only contextual fact necessary is their nationality/citizenship/residence (or similar). — HTGS (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence usually contains the reason for notability and the context for it, and the consensus is that this context is almost always geographical/national. Thus a person is an American actor or British politician or German philosopher, etc. Other identifying characters, including gender, religion (or rejection of it), ethnicity, sexuality, politics, marital status, and so on (some of these, you cite yourself in connection with your proposal, above) are dealt with later in the lead, or in the body if less significant.

This is a settled and very long-standing consensus, which does reflect the reality of human interaction: for example, if I told you that yesterday somebody had invented a time-travel machine, but only allowed one question about that person (not about the invention), I am confident most people would ask where they were or were from, rather than about their religion or sexuality. Nevertheless in a world of growing identity politics it is inevitable there are editors who will argue that someone’s ethnicity or religion or sexuality defines their identify as much if not more than their geography, and your edit opens the door to pitched battles at zillions of articles over which characteristic(s) go into the lead sentence, and also to convoluted openings with a whole string of identifiers prefaced to someone’s occupation or notoriety. That’s why what you suggest is, far from being an innocent little change, a very major shift in policy that would need extensive debate and a solid grounding in consensus. MapReader (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The aspect of this where I think editors can reasonably differ is your almost always. This may possibly be a de facto consensus on-wiki, but it isn't what CONTEXTBIO in its status quo language actually says - it uses words like generally and in most cases, which in their plain meaning do not equate to "almost always".

I get that some editors think CONTEXTBIO means, or should mean, almost always - but my Ernest Bloch example above points to why I see that approach as problematic. "Fundamentalism" about this can (and has in this instance) lead to departures from the ways WP:HQRS describe the context of notability for the subject - both in the emphasis given to geography compared to other aspects, and in the ways those geographical identities or categories are described.

I for one would like for editors to be empowered to follow the best sources a little bit further when we write lead paragraphs, and I think "includes" would undermine the "don't add additional context!" aspect of CONTEXTBIO fundamentalism while maintaining the expectation that national geography still be present. Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, per the text in question, we are talking about the opening paragraph, not the opening sentence. There is obviously room for more than one contextual fact about a person and their notability in their lead paragraph. Nothing about ‘include’ vs ‘be’ changes how this guideline will ultimately be interpreted; it just makes it make more sense. — HTGS (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader would you prefer we amend CONTEXTBIO to address solely the first sentence? Because I think that might help achieve what you’re talking about. — HTGS (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I would think that changing be to include here would be a harmless change, and for the better, since it's correct that nationality (or close analogues of it) are often not central to why someone is notable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

JOBTITLES near other titles

Could we add guidance to MOS:JOBTITLE that recommends consistent capitalization for comparable job titles in close proximity? I'd say a sentence like "President Adams and President Bates met with UK prime minister Collins" would be stronger with a capitalized "Prime Minister". The temptation I see in other editors is to rewrite to enable capitalization while complying with current guidance, going with something like "Prime Minster Collins of the UK", which is an undesirable outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope. We should capitalize things based on what they are, not based on what they're next to. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with David. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Chicago style capitalizes job titles directly preceding a name (President Joe Bob). Where is the rationale that Wikipedia MOS does not do that? Yuchitown (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But MoS does do that. Just read it. We capitalize titles of office when they are directly fused with a name, but not when they are separated from it, as in "Collins, as the prime minister, was ...." But, yes, David Eppstein is correct that whether something is proximal in the text to something else is rather irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

British peer titles in infoboxes

The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG OM DStJ PC FRS HonFRSC
Studio portrait, c. 1995–96
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

I noticed that some infoboxes for British politicians use their honorary honorific peerage title in the name parameter rather than their actual name (see example at right). When I asked about this on the talk page, I was informed that it was correct and that "It's standard across infoboxes of all articles for British peers to use their name in the peerage." A few questions:

1. Is this practice in line with Wikipedia consensus on the use of biographical infoboxes and honorary honorific titles? And if so…
2. Should this practice be limited to British peers, or should it apply to all peerage systems and/or titles of nobility?
3. Should some clarification be added to the guidelines here (and/or at the infobox documentation) to make this less confusing and contentious?

Nosferattus (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Better ask The Lady Catherine de Burgh. EEng 16:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Peerage titles are not "honorary"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: Sorry, I meant "honorific" not "honorary". Nosferattus (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a strong proponent of the view that infobox name should 100% reflect the article name - but I don't go near royals/peers! GiantSnowman 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  As has been explained to you previously -- at least twice [7][8] -- your position is contrary to infobox documentation. EEng 07:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• This should definitely not be happening. It's against MOS:BIO and against the purpose, documenttion, and name of the infobox parameter in question. It's been happening across many articles, despite years of principled objections, simply as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI action on the part of the WP:NOBILITY and WP:ROYALTY wikiprojects, and this needs to stop. It's utterly absurd that our infobox for, say, Margaret Thatcher says her name was Baroness Thatcher, which is blatantly false. Either this stuff needs to be removed from the infobox, or we need a separate titles parameter for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The infobox is supposed to reflect someone's common name. In the UK, for a peer, this is indeed usually the peerage title (after being created a peer, Thatcher was referred to in the British media almost exclusively as Baroness Thatcher). How exactly would you structure Thatcher's infobox? Bearing in mind that it's supposed to provide information (hence the name) and an anti-title POV is not really a valid argument. I could live with "Margaret Thatcher, The Baroness Thatcher" (all bolded, as in the first line), although it is a little verbose for an infobox, but not simply "Margaret Thatcher" as that would be inaccurate, especially when combined with her postnominals (as, for example, her LG calls for a title unless she has a higher title), and accuracy is, of course, what we strive for on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to title capitalization

I propose we strike "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis)." There is a consensus to do so forming at Talk:Julian (emperor). Primergrey (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a change. Chicago style would be to lowercase those titles, with exceptions that are inapplicable here. I don't see the rule current rule being commonly followed (not always a persuasive argument, just some data). Removing the rule would bring the practice for title in alignment with other parts of the MOS, like MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Generally, any reasonable steps to simplify JOBTITLES would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with making it align with the INSTITUTIONS guidance. It always seemed like those conventions are at odds with one another. Primergrey (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the change too. It seems odd that this rule should apply to "the King" but not, say, to "the Manager" (when referring to a specific manager previously mentioned by name). "The President" of the USA is supposedly capitalized, but "the president" of a company, I take it, is not? That all seems odd and unworkable and dropping the rule is certainly the easier solution. Gawaon (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion began because Primegrey insisted that the word "emperor" be capitalized in the sentence, "[o]n the third day a major hemorrhage occurred and the emperor died during the night", on the grounds that "emperor" referred to a specific person while he was emperor. Several widely-used sources on Julian that were cited in the discussion consistently treat "emperor" as a common noun in this situation. There are counter-examples, but "emperor" is not consistently capitalized simply because it refers to a particular emperor, much less because it refers to him at some point in his reign.

I think that this is somewhat different from following prevailing usage in modern media, where you might see "The King dined with his family at Sandringham", although again there are counterexamples, e.g. in The New York Times, June 27, 2024: "Climate policy is another area where the king might find a Labour government more aligned with his views." I am not convinced that this is strictly a matter of UK vs. U.S. English, though I expect that "King" is more consistently capitalized in the UK, at least when referring to the reigning monarch, not historical figures; the three authors cited for Julian (Grant, Browning, Bowersock) all published in London (although Bowersock was American), and all treated "emperor" as a common noun.

There seem to be two reasonable alternatives that are consistent with Wikipedia's general guidelines: either 1) use the prevailing form, if there clearly is one, otherwise do not capitalize titles unless they are being used as part of a name, e.g. "King Richard", or the title itself is a proper noun, e.g. "King of England"; or 2) consider either capitalization acceptable when referring to a specific person (not, however, in "Richard had wanted to be king for some time", where it would nearly always be considered a common noun), but use one form consistently throughout an article, except when used as part of a name, or when it is itself a proper noun, as in the examples above. P Aculeius (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

My insistence is with, what seem to me like, clear guidelines being followed. Whatever they might be. I agree that ENGVAR is not relevant here, as capitalization falls outside its remit. I also agree with your "Richard had wanted to be king" example as being clearly a generic use. For the record, "...Richard wanted to be the king" is just as generic, the definite article causes me no confusion. Primergrey (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Primergrey's interpretation of the current guidance. I also support the proposed change to accept the lowercase emperor. Mgp28 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would go along with this as well. We have a long history of avoiding capitalization that is not essentially "required" (by being capitalized in virtually all other style guides and other relevant reliable sources). Usage with regard to this particular question is clearly mixed, so per the first rule of MOS:CAPS we should default to lower case. This would also ease a bit of the "MOS:BIO is confusing" problem, though there is more to do in that regard, including with titles in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on short-version of names

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Short-versions of names in intro. This is for pages such as Tani Oluwaseyi and Ayo Akinola. Should the opening read as "Tanitoluwa Oluwaseyi is a ......" or "Tanitoluwa "Tani" Oluwaseyi is a ....." RedPatch (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest: “Taniyoluwa Oluwaseyi (known as Tani) is a …” Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Or Taniyoluwa (Tani) Oluwaseyi. Short forms of names do not take quotation marks, as they are not nicknames like "Killer" or "Rochester Rocket" or "Babyface". There's a whole section about this as MOS:BIO, and the short answer is there isn't only one single mandatory way to write such opening sentences, as long as they make sense to the reader. We do not need to explain common-in-English short forms; e.g., an article titled "Liz McCulough" might begin with the full name "Elizabeth Jane McCulough" and no mention of "Liz" in the lead sentence, it already being understood by nearly all our readers that "Liz" is an everyday short form of "Elizabeth". This is not the case with short forms of names not common in English, as in the examples this opened with, or in the case of Russian Dima for Dmitri. Nor for unusual shortenings in English, like Reba for Rebecca or Nifer for Jennifer. In cases like that, they should be provided either parenthetically within the name or given in a "best known as" sort of statement after the birth name (or vice versa; there's nothing wrong with Liz McCulough, born Elizabeth Jane McCulough).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A reader will be able to equally undertand Tani as a shortening of Tanitoluwa as they will Liz as a shortening of Elizabeth. I wouldn't be surprised if most readers found the former more obvious, as it doesn't rely on assumed familiarity with a specific cultural tradition. MOS:HYPOCORISM should be updated to reflect that where the short form is just the beginning of the longer name, the connection is obvious and does not need to be explained.--Trystan (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I suggest the conversation continues on the original page and doesn't split into two separate discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)