Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Discussion: We did consider contacting trans organizations and just asking people what they thought, but we figured this would violate the votestacking rules.
Vannie227 (talk | contribs)
81 edits
Line 500: Line 500:
# '''Support''', in that I think my cavaets on the previous option (the USE BOTH ALWAYS) amount to this at the basic level, or at least my opinion sits somewhere between these at a high level. I do stress that relevancy should be based on sources at the time if we are talking a date event, as to make sure the reader has a good awareness of search terms to do their own research as well, and common sense does come into play (ala the Michelle Obama example). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
# '''Support''', in that I think my cavaets on the previous option (the USE BOTH ALWAYS) amount to this at the basic level, or at least my opinion sits somewhere between these at a high level. I do stress that relevancy should be based on sources at the time if we are talking a date event, as to make sure the reader has a good awareness of search terms to do their own research as well, and common sense does come into play (ala the Michelle Obama example). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As others have pointed out, it will not always be necessary to use both names. When it is, the current name should be put first. I would write it thus: "Caitlyn Jenner (then known as Bruce Jenner). I include the "known as" because it's not that she was a different person then; she was just known by a different name. [[User:Neljack|Neljack]] ([[User talk:Neljack|talk]]) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As others have pointed out, it will not always be necessary to use both names. When it is, the current name should be put first. I would write it thus: "Caitlyn Jenner (then known as Bruce Jenner). I include the "known as" because it's not that she was a different person then; she was just known by a different name. [[User:Neljack|Neljack]] ([[User talk:Neljack|talk]]) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
#'''Support''' parenthetical dual-naming as an appropriate style when readers' might otherwise be confused or draw false inference. [[User:Vannie227|Vannie227]] ([[User talk:Vannie227|talk]]) 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


===Support ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT===
===Support ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT===

Revision as of 00:26, 16 October 2015

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.



Are software changelogs acceptable?

WP:NOTCHANGELOG tells us to avoid describing software updates using primary sources, yet we have longstanding article sections and entire articles devoted to doing just that, listing new features and other changes (or just copying the official description), often without any citations. Examples include the tables at iOS version history, Adobe Photoshop version history, Palm OS#Version history and technical background, and until a few months ago every article listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox One system software—even MediaWiki version history.

Does NOTCHANGELOG need to be updated to reflect practice? Or are these listings unacceptable? If ignoring this rule improves the encyclopedia in all these cases (in every case?), why have the rule at all?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll say I’ve been attempting and advocating to “clean up” the console OS articles to comply with this policy which I am now questioning. I’ve also started a WP:Help desk discussion that may be rendered obsolete.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:NOTCHANGELOG as it stands now. The reason why we ask for secondary sourcing is not because the primary source is unreliable, but because not every little bugfix is notable. If an article in a notable magazine mentions that Frobozz3D finally got the shader that everyone's been waiting for, then maybe it's worth including— in prose, of course, not in an unstructured list. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of those lists are rather structured, actually. But for the record, I agree completely, and I don’t think we should use lists for this at all. Ideally to me, every mention of any new feature, fix, update, etc. would be given in context with why it matters; we say Frobozz3D got that shader everyone’s been waiting for, and we cite a source that says everyone’s been waiting for it, or else we don’t mention the shader at all. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; you said it better than I. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and tables are often the best format for the kind of changelogs allowed by "Not exhaustive logs of software updates", i.e. those using reliable third-party sources. When the amount of text from the source that can be used to describe one release is a short sentence, a table can be easily scanned to find out the dates and numbers of each release, while writing the same in prose would fall prey to the "wall of text" effect; so structure in such cases is a very good thing. Prose is best when each release gets at least a paragraph with analysis and commentary from one or several sources, describing its relevance and impact.
In any case, that does not need to be an either-or proposition; when there's enough coverage by third party sources to get a comprehensive (which is not the same as "exhaustive", and which should be the target of every changelog we write), we can have both the table as a "timeline-like" summary of the software history, and a prose section for the details. Diego (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting the changes of a major software program as noted by secondary sources does fall into the scope of an encyclopedia, but we have to avoid the indiscriminate nature of what full-on changelogs can be. Of the three articles given above, the Adobe and Palm OS seem to be reasonable distillations of the more critical features added/bugs removed in the individual version, as covered by secondary sources. The iOS one on the other hand lacks that distillation, simply reiterating the changelog likely published by Apple (and republished on third-party sites) without discrimination, which is why we have WP:NOT#CHANGELOG on WP:NOT. I don't see a need to change policy given a few outlyiers like the iOS one. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Diego Moya and Masem: Changes are listed without sources in these articles, though… and when sources are cited, they’re not suitable (both the Palm and Photoshop version histories, for instance, cite the company’s own official descriptions or deadlinked press releases sparingly and almost exclusively, which NOTCHANGELOG says not to do at all). Also, is it enough for us to say simply that a change exists, without context or any indication of weight? And Masem, I think you missed the links to MediaWiki version history and all the console OS articles (though recent revisions of some of the console articles are much better about this). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is good, and that means we don't exhaustively list changes in software in the style of a changelog. That has nothing to do with what types of sources are used to support statements in an article. So my !vote would be to kill the proscription of source types in favor of stating the real guideline: We discuss changes that are relevant to the topic, we don't list every one. That means we'll probably want to be including analysis that isn't going to be in the changelog to be cited, but we could still validly cite the changelog for e.g. a sentence about what the change actually was or the specific date or version in which it was made. Anomie⚔ 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could support that. It wouldn’t be my preferred outcome, but it would be better than the inconsistency we currently have between policy and practice, which was my target in starting this discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason not to use primary sources alongside secondary or third-party sources to develop summarized software revision lists - things like actual release dates, internal numbering, etc. are all good pieces of data that primary must provide. It's just that secondary sources should be required to provide the distillation of the change log and decide what are important parts than to let editors guess of just the primary. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: How about discouraging lists of changes within update tables? Version numbers, release dates, codenames, etc. are tabular data, thus tables work well for them; changes between versions should be discussed in prose (preferably in some depth, if merited), because if there’s no reason to describe them separately from the table in prose, describing them in the table gives them undue weight. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point to Slackware as a good example of using changelogs as sources without it being an indiscriminate collection of information. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Slackware#Releases is also a good example of what I proposed immediately above; it lists the version information, but no changelogs. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While that example is certainly in line, I think that saying that one can't include a brief summary of major changes (at major or minor version numbers but no deeper) can't be included as well. We're talking a one or two sentence description, nothing like lists of notes that are included with changelogs - the more prose-like, the better. Optionally following a table like this, one can highlight the major changes in prose sections, using what secondary sources have pointed out. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And indeed, Slackware does exactly that, in the history section. Only the really important changes are listed, and the descriptions are as brief as possible -- and Slackware has a lot of history to choose from. The key here is allowing usages like Slackware while forbidding usages like the ever-popular "document every tiny change in loving detail" that we have all seen on various pages. So my question is this: do our current policy pages make this clear, or can the wording be improved? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By my read, WP:NOTCHANGELOG explicitly forbids (as much as consensus-based policy can) the sort of (collapsed) tables at iOS version history, and explicitly encourages the approach taken by Slackware. I don’t see how it could be worded more strongly. Maybe we could stick some examples (good and bad) in there? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy does not forbid sourcing from changelogs, rather that articles should not contain exhaustive lists of changes. A change can be described and sourced to a change log if there is consensus to do so. (That consensus will of course be much more likely to form when there is secondary sourcing.) Rhoark (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhoark: As presently worded, it does exactly that: “Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources …” (emphasis mine). Maybe something else was intended and the wording got mangled? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that as an overly-prescriptive explanatory comment. Similarly to the trouble[1] caused by the appearance of the world "reliable" at WP:OR. The question is a matter of reliable sourcing, not in WP:NOT's wheelhouse. Rhoark (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhoark: Interesting. Would you say then that WP:NOTCHANGELOG does not reflect consensus, even contradicts it? Makes me wonder how it came to be so, if that’s the case. I agree that it seems prescriptive, but I also agree with the prescription, as compliance with it makes better-written articles more likely. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about unsourced/lightly sourced information contradicted by primary sources / users connected to the subject of the article?

So there's a problem I've been struggling with for a while: on an article, there's some information that I know to be false, which appears in one secondary source. That information is contradicted by the primary sources on the topic, but due to WP:V (and the expanded essay on the subject at WP:NOTTRUTH), it can't be corrected (secondary sources trump primary sources, including published ones, I think). Additionally, I have a COI on the subject (because I'm involved with it, I personally know what the truth is, in addition to the primary sources backing me up). This is causing problems because people keep on citing Wikipedia on the subject, causing misinformation to gradually spread (and me to have to repeatedly correct it wherever I see it; quite problematic given that errors in Wikipedia are meant to be corrected when you spot them!). Ideally I'd like to just blank the section, or place a disclaimer explaining that the source is incorrect, but I'm pretty sure policy disallows that at the moment.

I was looking through the {{request edit}} list and noticed a very similar situation. Another user is trying to get some misinformation in an article corrected. The user in question has provided some primary sources as evidence for the correction, but also has a COI. According to the instructions at Template:RE/I, I (as an uninvolved editor) should deny the edit on the basis of lack of proper verification, but this seems to be ridiculous in this case (especially as it's unlikely to make the article worse).

As far as I can tell, it would be useful to have a policy to be able to deal with this situation (although it might potentially cause trouble on more contentious articles; the articles I'm currently thinking about are both pretty much conflict-free). WP:SELFSOURCE is a decent start, but I'm not sure if it's sufficient to allow removal of "more reliable" sources that happen to be incorrect. Likewise, I'd like consensus that published WP:SELFSOURCE information can be added (via {{request edit}}) even with a conflict of interest, if the information is otherwise uncontentious, NPOV, not misrepresented, and in context (i.e. all the normal requirements for making a COI edit other than the secondary source requirement). My current reading of policy is that neither of these are possible, but both situations seem sufficiently absurd that they're worth changing (and I don't particularly think it's advisable to ignore the rules on COI-related issues). --ais523 22:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources do not necessarily trump primary sources. It depends on the nature of the information and the nature of the sources. So it should be discussed on the article's talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In the case in question, the articles have relatively low-traffic talk pages (due to being rather uncontentious). I wonder if WP:BOLD would apply in that case. (At the moment, I'm leaning towards approving the other user's edit request, and using {{request edit}} for mine with a link to this section.) --ais523 23:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:IRS is not a suicide pact. It is never acceptable to include unverifiable content, but verifiable content can be removed if there is consensus that it is inaccurate or undue. Take a look over WP:Inaccuracy as well. Rhoark (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - should we allow primary sources sent in to OTRS

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW close. There is consensus that primary souces cannot be submitted through OTRS for verification - OTRS agents instead need to cite a reliable source when making changes to personal information, or remove it completely if incorrect/unsourced. Thanks all for participating. Mdann52 (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all,

I'm starting this discussion as this issue does affect this site. Recently, there has been some internal discussion within OTRS about what to do when subjects send in copies of primary sources (such as scans of passports or driving licences), and whether these can be used to source information such as dates of birth on articles. The main areas of dispute is whether such documents fall under WP:SOURCE as unpublished, or whether it makes sense to WP:IAR and add them. Of course, any such uses can be verified at WP:OTRSN. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Should we allow subjects to submit documents via OTRS (eg. passports) to verify/change content in articles?

Support

Oppose

  • Scans of passports and driver's licenses cannot be used as reliable sources as they are easily doctored and fail WP:BLPPRIMARY, regardless of whether they are presented on or off Wikipedia. OTRS agents have never had the remit to override community policies while carrying out their work, The majority of tickets regarding concerns about incorrect information in articles or other disputes direct the editor back to community discussion and consensus (with the obvious exception of blatant BLP violations and vandalism). I believe that the role of the OTRS agents handling quality queue/BLP tickets is to review and evaluate the concerns and then provide advice based on our policies, not to be a super editor with the ability to overide consensus and core policies. If there is consensus that we should be able to use scanned documents sent via OTRS in BLPs, then I urge that at the very least the scans should have to come from a verified email address of the subject or their representative, not generic email accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By themselves no, only valid as corroborating evidence where information sourced elsewhere may be disputed. All info on wikipedia has to be verifiable by READERS of wikipedia, and a scan of a passport is not verifiable by readers as we cant host a copy of primary documents for obvious identity theft reasons. Which means no one except whoever has OTRS access would be able to confirm it. If however there are multiple dissenting sources, a primary source provided through OTRS which corroborates info should be okay. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This violates WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia must strive to get it right, but as a secondary source, we cannot be the clearinghouse for primary sources as well. Traditional publications must be the means for publishing and correcting information. We can correct or omit incorrect sources and information, but we can't become a primary source for information ourselves. Subjects of articles generally have access to blogs, twitter accounts, etc., which can be used to post information, which can then be cited by Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in all cases. WP:OR requires published sources. If reliable secondary sources (or self-published info for uncontroversial common details) can't agree on a fact, Wikipedia shouldn't use unpublished information as some kind of "backup" solution. The correct approach in such cases is to either include all viewpoints from secondary sources in due weight, or none if the issue is too complex or questionable BLP information. GermanJoe (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt any relevant individual is qualified to verify the authenticity of a document issued by a government or similar institution. Scans and copies even more so. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quite aside from the fact that this would mean including information that by definition is unverifiable in reliable sources, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging anyone to upload any remotely sensitive document to the WMF's servers, which are not the most secure in the world. Over the years, there have been some industrial-grade whackos who've managed to get OTRS accounts. ‑ iridescent 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both as per the reliability issues listed above and the security issues mentioned below. Moreover it is unneeded. If the subject of a BLP article wants his or her DOB to be public, s/he need merely include it on a bio page of a personal website, and could confirm that the site is his or hers via OTRS if needed. Such a posting would be an acceptable source for a DOB as per WP:SELFPUB and WP:DOB unless the date is controversial, as it rarely is, and would have some weight even then. DES (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Mdann52, can you give an example of when this would be needed? Sources must be published, but published primary sources, including self-published sources if written by the BLP subject, are fine. If the birthdate of a BLP is wrong, and for some reason editors won't accept that person's word, all she has to do is self-publish it (e.g. on a blog, Facebook, Twitter). Per WP:BLPSPS, an SPS is an acceptable source for a BLP if published by the subject, if nothing contentious hangs on it, and so long as it doesn't contain material about third parties. Sarah (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Having already experienced this here Talk:Randy Quaid#Birth Name of Randy Quaid (and I still think WikiP got "punked" in this situation) avoiding WP:V should be avoided. As others have pointed out this has WP:PRIMARY problems as well. MarnetteD|Talk 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • While all of the above content-policy-based points are true, the most important reason that we should not under any circumstances advocate the submission of these documents is the personal security of the article subject. Passports, drivers licenses and similar documents are absolutely not suitable for submission to Wikipedia. They contain vast amounts of personal information, and in certain countries there are legislated penalties for use of the documents outside of their primary purpose, or alternately legislated penalties for requesting or even permitting the use of such documents outside of their primary purpose. We also have no means to ensure the security of any such information, which places the project and the article subject at risk. This is a major security issue. Risker (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has unfortunately happened at least a few times where subjects have voluntarily sent scans of documents to say something is wrong on the respective articles. If something is unsourced here, all they have to do is ask to have it removed, but most people don't realize that. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo Risker's point. On several occasions, someone has sent in a scan of a drivers license, thinking they have to prove who they are for some reason. We cannot guarantee the security of our system. If they send it in of their own volition, that's on them, but if we ever encourage it, we might open ourselves up to problems. If we do anything, we ought to add to our OTRS training material that we should never ever ask for such documents.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo Risker's point as well, using these documents on this site could invite forging and other misuse. These documents may or may not be transferable to any other peron or entity anyways and people might just print these documents off the computer if they were to be put on here. Sam.gov (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a major snowstorm is approaching. Czoal (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mdann52: How about an alternative idea: Those wishing to provide such material can self-publish the information, then use the OTRS process in combination with some other means, such as a notary public or similar "strong legal document," to verify that 1) it was really them that published it and 2) the published document does in fact match the underlying legal document. Note - I'm not advocating discussion this at the PUMP now. In any case, the end result would be no stronger than self-published material from a source that is considered "reliable when talking about itself," which is a concept we already have at Wikipedia. It should NOT be considered "super-authentic" (notary public affidavits can be forged and Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of verifying a supposed notary's credentials - at least not until notaries start publishing government-signed public keys AND they start signing their documents with those keys). I am advocating taking this - along with the other arguments in the discussion above - back to the OTRS team for internal discussion before any future idea is brought back here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Czoal. For the record, this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question, which originates in OTRS ticket #2015100510009382.
The relevant question is whether Wikipedia contributors need to show courtesy to subjects of Biographies of Living People (BLPs), when
a.) there is no reason to assume that biographical data given or documented (albeit off-wiki) by the subject itself, such as place or date of birth, are incorrect, and
b.) there is no publicly available, verifiable information that says otherwise, and
c.) the inclusion of incorrect, poorly sourced or unsourced information may be detrimental to the person in question.
Quite obviously, the Wikipedia community at large first and foremost has an obligation to present verifiable information, but within that parameter the "Assume good faith" doctrine mustn't be forgotten, as has been the case here.
There may also be a legal aspect to this: In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation has been informed that information publicized about a BLP subject is incorrect and may be inadvantegeous to that person's professional and/or private life. A refusal to make amendments or changes to incorrect data that may be hurtful or damaging to that person is imprudent at best, possibly negligent in a legal sense. (I would be interested to hear the legal department's take on this.)
I feel that is a relevant question that begs to be discussed, not the one up for debate here, which, again, is highly irrelevant. Asav | Talk 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of clarity, Asav, when somebody writes OTRS, they are not informing the Wikimedia Foundation. They are communicating with volunteers. This is the reason behind the disclaimer on the bottom of every OTRS email. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and OTRS is obliged to hand the matter to legal in certain cases. The fact that OTRS volunteers are just that does not relieve them from any obligation to show prudence in BLP matters. Any user who contacts OTRS will assume that the foundation is involved one way or another and the matter will he handled responsibly. "Insiders" may know the nooks and crannies of this system, but the common user cannot be expected to do so, bottom disclaimer on our e-mails notwithstanding. We've both been handling these matters for so long, I think we should agree on matters that concern common courtesy and common sense as well as editorial prudence. Asav | Talk 20:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should remove information we know to be incorrect, regardless of whether or not it is properly sourced (see, for example, Talk:Meek Mill), and if we need to make that more explicit, I would support a wording or policy change in that direction. But this change goes much further, to allow the original publication by Wikipedia of unpublished information. Gamaliel (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my thought as well - I can see an argument for removing info which is found to be inaccurate, but not for allowing people send us "proof" of information that is either not covered in available RS, or which contradicts what available RS say, and have that inserted into a BLP. That seems like a slippery slope that we really should not start down. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • davidwr your proposal would still not provide a reliable source, since the information is now self published and not independently published by a third party source WP:USERG, and in any case not available from a source outside Wikipedia. By uploading materials to Wikipedia and using it as source the verifiability would become circular WP:CIRC. Also considering all the discussion about privacy above, we may run afoul of privacy laws by using such information without it being explicitly allowed by the owner of the information; and of course the ethical issues of privacy issues mentioned above. This would be a potential time-bomb that may lead to serious fines (talking millions if not billions of Euros as the EU is currently fairly strict in enforcing its privacy ruling on internet) and thus put the whole project at risk (as Risker mentions in the first post here). We should not even want to touch this stuff with a ten foot pole. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mdann52: In light of Asav's comments of 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC), I recommend withdrawal of this proposal, going back to OTRS do determine exactly what it is they want or need that they don't have now - if anything, then - if necessary - come back here with a proposal that 1) has the clear support of the OTRS team and 2) has a decent chance of getting community support. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • davidwr, I don't believe OTRS is planning to form clear support outside of the project impacted by a decision. That's not how it works. :) I took part in the email thread that prompted this RFC, and I think it accurately reflects the issue. Specifically, can a scan of a document mailed to OTRS be used to source personal information, such as a birth date, about the subject of an article? This is not a policy User:Mdann52 is proposing - it's a debated question he's seeking resolution for. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not reflect the issue at all. The issue is whether the Wikimedia community has a moral (or possibly legal) obligation to try and set right a problem caused by unsourced misinformation posted on one of its sites, as such misinformation is known to rapidly propagate further. To assume that faulty BLP information spread through Wikimedia has no impact at all on personal matters is naïve at best and negligent at worst. That's the case at hand.
This RfC is about a completely different issue and a waste of time. It's not even worth voting on, since the outcome is given. Asav | Talk 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The core issue here is whether the documentation submitted by the BLP subject - a private document - to OTRS can be used to verify content on our projects, Asav. That's the core. It has nothing to do with removing faulty or unsourced information, but replacing it with material presented privately. Of course, article subjects with websites have a pretty simple way to publish their birthdates if they want the content included. It's not a "this or nothing" situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already corrected incorrect information of this kind. We are not here to spread misinformation; that would make our encyclopaedia worthless to our users. When a BLP article is found to contain incorrect information, even when reliably sourced, it must be corrected per WP:FALSE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean when you say you have already corrected incorrect information of this kind, Hawkeye7? :) That you've corrected information sourced to such unpublished documents? Or that you've used unpublished documents to support BLP information? It's a little unclear. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I was approached by an athlete who was frustrated that her article had her date of birth incorrect, causing her great embarrassment. Many competitions are based on age, which is why athletes' ages are published in the first place. A typographic error had been made by an otherwise reliable source, which had then been picked up and spread about by other sites, including Wikipedia. The error was corrected, with the source in the article shifted to a site that had it correct. WP:FIVE: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Aside: the email template currently in use on Commons which OTRS volunteers encourage people to use when sending in statements of permission and which I've been working on polishing up currently says, "if you are releasing a work that is not available online, you may be asked to privately provide evidence of your identity to the OTRS volunteer who processes your statement". I should probably start a different RfC to reconsider THAT, but Gawd, these things sometimes seem to explode so.] KDS4444Talk 00:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resurrect some MOS consistency policies

The Manual of Style page Wikipedia:Consistency has been declared inactive. However there should be some policy to deal with inconsistent definitions such as the following: (my paraphrase followed by the actual text.)

In the opiate article: Opioids includes opiates.
In the opioid article: Opioids excludes opiates.

The actual text... (emphasis mine)

In the opiate article: The term opiate should be differentiated from the broader term opioid, which includes all drugs with opium-like effects, including opiates, semi-synthetic opioids derived from morphine (such as heroin, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone), and synthetic opioids which are not derived from morphine (such as fentanyl, buprenorphine, andmethadone).

In the opioid article: An "opioid" is any synthetic narcotic not derived from opium.

The only talk page response to my post seeking a consistent definition was: "Actually Wikipedia doesn't need to settle on a consistent definition.... [I]f authoritative sources use both definitions, we should give both of them and explain the range of usage: that's the function of a neutral encyclopedia."

I can agree with the second part with qualifications. There should some MOS policy directing that a consistent primary definition be used across related articles and the secondary definition(s) be mentioned second such as, "X is sometimes defined as" or, "some authorities define X as" or else be placed as a footnote.

What I fear will happen—in this case—is that each article will make their existing definition primary and provide the other's as their secondary definition. This may serve the views of the editors but still confound the audience. To illustrate this in a more bizarre fashion, the editors at opioid may say: "opioids excludes opiates; however the Wikipedia opiate article uses the alternative definition that opioids includes opiates" and vice-versa at the opiate article. Further, imagine the mess if certain parts of the opiate article would be transcluded in opioid or the reverse.

I know of no encyclopedia that would allow opposing definitions in related articles. There must be consistent primary definitions. Some MOS policy should exist that editors may use to justify such consistency. I don't want to fix this and end up in an editing war or be seen as a trouble maker without such a policy to back me up. Box73 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to concur that the Encyclopedia is improved if articles do not directly contradict each other; and note a previous suggestion by Gamaliel that In general, secondary articles should echo the characterization and consensus of the main article, though I am not sure which of the two is primary here. I also note that Opioid is not even internally consistent on this point (see contradiction tag at end of the lead). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just deleted the word "synthetic" from the opioid definition. The very next sentence refers to natural opioids. That might help a wee bit. Dcs002 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ryk72 for your feedback and noting the internal inconsistency in the Opioid article. Where do I find the comment by Gamalie? My sense is that articles or parts thereof (sometimes) tend to become "owned" by certain editors and the bigger subject matter suffers. Yet by the lack of response on those talk pages these editors/"owners" must be sleeping.
Thanks Dcs002 for the fix. You are right. I think they included synthetic to distinguish substances like oxycodone that are synthesized from opiates, but synthetic (synthesized from) is different than derived. Further the way it was written actually alludes that oxycodone would be an opiate. Lastly, various endorphins are considered opioids but aren't synthetic.
I'm surveying pharmacology/medical texts, PubMed and some credible web sites seeking the best primary definition and how the secondary definition might be treated. All things being equal, I am leaning toward opiates being a subclass of opioids. IMO there should be one term to cover all; for example, should we talk about "opioid abuse" or "opioid and opiate abuse".
Elsewhere, I am struggling with the term "substituted amphetamines" (SA) replacing the common term "amphetamines", justified by reducing ambiguity with "amphetamine". The term isn't widely used, when used it commonly refers to ecstasy etc., except among toxicologists and a few Wikipedia editors to whom it includes amphetamine. SA is (too) esoteric and worse it creates confusion when readers move from Wikipedia to outside material—a reverse ambiguity. If you Google the term "substituted amphetamines" it is over-represented by Wikipedia/Wiktionary and web pages copying greater Wikipedia. In this sense Wikipedia isn't conveying but is promoting.
Regarding opioid/opiate, ie, conflicting encyclopedia definitions, should, and how would, such an MOS policy be considered or created?
Lastly, please comment on the following and tell me if a policy exists supporting it: "[T]here's no reason for a template to exist solely to transclude a table to 2 articles". It would seem unreasonable to do so for one article but otherwise I am not aware of any minimum. Box73 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some sentences to be fixed: WP:PCPP

Hi, guys. I just noticed that at WP:Protection policy#Pending changes protection(oldid=683730676 as of 2015-10-02), there are some awkward sentences that doesn't sound like English. Allow me to quote:

When a page under pending changes protection level 1 is edited by autoconfirmed user, the edit is visible to Wikipedia readers, however when editing a page under pending changes protection level 2 or there a pending changes, the edit will not directly visible, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right.

I'd love to fix it, but unfortunately I'm not an admin or someone who knows these policies a lot, therefore dare not. I'll appreciate it if we see it amended.

Besides this particular issue, I think the whole guideline (section of PCPP) is vague.
First of all, I can't figure out what is level 1 and level 2---at the least, which colour of lock do they refer to, white or orange? In the "further information" of WP:Pending changes(oldid=684410885 as of 2015-10-06), we only see a definition of level 1 PC protection, and level 2 is "no consensus" (I just found the obscure footnote!); by Ctrl+F there're only a handful of the word "level" appearing.
Secondly, the guideline is not clear overall, about who edits at what protection and what happens; and who can review. It's written in such a tedious way, and I guess I'm not the only one that's lost. Maybe that table at WP:PC (main article) is sufficient, but that doesn't help improving the quick guideline intro at WP:PP.
I hope someone could resolve this. :) -- SzMithrandir (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with new non-notable person pages

Having spent some time in the "articles for deletion" (afD) section lately, I've noticed the extent to which the editors involved are deluged by the creation of new non-notable person pages. As the WP:PEOPLE guideline is one of the few notability guidelines I find well-conceived, concrete, and evenly-applied, I think it deserves a better process to go with it. The present process deprives non-person topics of the attention and discussion they deserve in the AfD arena.

Probably the most obvious way to fix this is to require that articles regarding persons go through the "articles for creation process" (AfC). Certainly, notable topics in other areas of knowledge are "born" more quickly than notable human beings, and most people simply are not notable in an encyclopedia sense. Already, new or anonymous users may not create new articles (despite the lengthy and condescending questionnaire they're put through before being told they can't). So it would not seem like a stretch to not accept notable people without a discussion over creation first. The real issue with a policy idea like this is if it will represent something of a "slippery slope", where a practice such as this might spread to other topical areas and make Wikipedia more closed than it already is. But I doubt any other topic on Wikipedia, save news and politics (which seem to be in good hands just now) will represent a problem of this magnitude.

I would love to hear from others who have had similar (or different) experiences and anyone who might care to crunch the numbers and quantify the precise size of the person-submission problem.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can't see why someone is notable, doesn't mean they are not. Case in point: When Deanna M. Mulligan was created, it was quickly posted on her talk page "what makes this page needed?" The user couldn't see at first why she was notable. The article was built up from there and the problem went away. It isn't always obvious why someone's notable until the article is done. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl That's a very good point. But I think the development you describe could happen in an AfC discussion, draft article, or userspace and develop until it's been agreed upon. Though as I mention in a discussion on this page, I've seen some really nasty behavior with pages from AfC, where after an extensive discussion agreeing to add something, it's deleted without a thought by "patrollers". That could probably be addressed by having pages with positive AfC outcomes be immune from deletion for a time. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: I have seen plenty of AfD's lead to improvement, but I don't think that's really the forum for improving articles. The nasty behavior you've seen is driving people away. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curbing hasty deletionism

Again, spending some time in the "articles for deletion" section has left me feeling that the process by which articles are initially nominated could use further examination. While I don't wish to spark an inclusionist/deletionist flame war, it has been my observation that many editors engaging in "patrolling" mark pages for deletion within a timeframe that is implausible and inconsistent with any stated guideline. Perhaps I'm slow, but it takes several minutes to glance at the page, peruse the sources, click through the Google/Scholar/News links on the AfD page, and so on. Yet many pages I've found marked for deletion have been "patrolled" and tagged for deletion with 2-5 word explanations in well under 3 minutes (some under 2!).

To make matters worse, only the really conscientious editors return to answer user questions or rebuttals. Often, the user is left with no answer to what the 5 word, mostly acronym-ridden response they've got means and then suppose (often correctly) that new pages in Wikipedia are deleted as a matter of course and left for other editors to sort out. I'm sure that in years past, a hundred things have been tried and discarded; I'm not conversant with any of the history here. But I do feel there ought to be a discussion of how to show a little discernment and restraint with new articles -- particularly given the issues Wikipedia has keeping editors. Blowing a user's page out of the water with a bunch of WP:x links practically as soon as they've been typed is antithetical to Wikipedia's overall goals.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... there is too much Speedy Deletion going on and the worst is the reason that the article does not indicate notability. Sometimes the user hasn't had the chance to finish editing the article before a speedy deletion tag is put on. Also, the speedy deletion tags are VERY intimidating to new users. I think that's often why they are used: some editors are trying to intimidate newbies, IMO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl I'm assuming you mean speedy deletion in the sense of quick thoughtless deletion by editors, not the actual "speedy deletion" process which is, at least in my brief experience, somewhat rare. I think the admins are suitably wary of speedy deletion processes. I would be very curious to see a list of time between creation and deletion of new pages in the last month or year. Perhaps I'm just in the developing topic areas of Wikipedia, but it seems to me as if that time is minimal (2-3 minutes many times) -- certainly not enough time to perform WP:BEFORE. If only deleting articles was as byzantine and bureaucratic as adding an image.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are here to "build" and encyclopedia, then tearing it down certainly doesn't seem to be the way to go about that. I honestly cannot understand why people prefer to mark delete rather than try to improve the file. If they don't know enough to know how to improve it, they should not be allowed to nominate files for deletion, IMO. The difference between weight of a source and length of a source is misunderstood my many. It seems to me that there are many who want to wield power without accepting any responsibility for content. SusunW (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of something that's been deleted which you don't feel should have been? While there are some trigger-happy admins, they're a vanishing breed, and in my experience most things which are deleted are deleted for good reason. ‑ iridescent 18:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:NOT is there for a reason. It is a policy that has been refined through the years and it is helpful in keeping article creation focused on building an encyclopedia. Remember that WP:UNDELETE exists for any deleted articles that deserve a second look. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, I want to be clear: I agree with WP:NOT and following GNG. However, I'm saying that articles are "prodded" very quickly--too quickly to give the article creator time to finish their work. While some cases are very obvious, others are not and we seem to not be giving the benefit of the doubt often enough. In addition, we are driving away potential contributors by discouraging them through speedy proposed deletions. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that many people make it to WP:REFUND after a prod or over hasty speedy delete, but it does happen now and then. Do you think we need an edit filter to stop nominations for speedy delete too soon? Or should we just warn and block the nominators if they don't change their ways? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Do you think we need an edit filter to stop nominations for speedy delete too soon?, absolutely not. If the entire contents of a page is "fuck fuch=k fuck lol", there is no legitimate reason for the page not to be tagged immediately, and if the page is a libellous attack page Wikipedia would be grossly irresponsible not to provide a mechanism for deleting it the moment it was spotted. ‑ iridescent 22:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well certainly for attacks, vandalism and perhaps copyvios, speedy nomination is sensible. But I am thinking of A1, A3 and A7 where the problem could well be in the process of being sorted by the creator by further editing. A filter could quite easily detect these kind of nominations. Another idea would be to encourage patrollers to work from the end of the list. Since a lot of things are slipping by unpatrolled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: I think here and there, we've conflated "deletion" with "nominated for deletion." In my initial statements, I'm referring to the nomination process. From my very limited experience on AfD, the admins would appear to be a fair-minded and considerate lot (one even noted the implausible time between creation and nomination). But as the current AfD lists show, no one can keep up with the deluge of nominations that comes in (see my notable persons idea above).
So if I might read your question to ask "which articles have been nominated for deletion that you disagree with," I would have to reply: nearly every non-person article I've ever seen in AfD. Now, that's not to say some of them shouldn't be deleted eventually, after confirming that someone followed WP:BEFORE, or (gasp!) after engaging the creating editor. But the process of page creation by some innocent soul, an immediate (w/in 1-3mins) deluge of tags and a nomination from "patrollers," no responses to inquiries by the creator, followed by a series of bracketed acronym discussions in AfD, is gravely irrational. Worse, it makes Wikipedia and its editors appear essentially arbitrary and capricious, as we bandy about terms like "notability," as if it were some universal, in topics as diverse as web forum software, rare birds, musical groups, TV shows, and condominiums.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pet hate of mine to see an article slapped with A1, A3, or A7 mere minutes after creation, when the creator is a newbie. Such taggings usually become self-fulfilling, because who'd stick around when their initial good faith efforts to contribute are vandalised by drive-by tagging? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Lankiveil: You know, I never thought of it that way. The tagging and drive-by deletionism that happens 1-3 minutes after creation really could be considered vandalism, especially since it's generally done by people who explicitly know better. The real trouble is that the patrolling of new pages has turned into delete every single new page and let the chips fall where they may.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Word to watch RfC: consistent use of "stampede" in crowd disasters

I started an RfC in the W2W talk page because we have overwhelmingly applied "stampede" to events in non-Western, non-white countries (70-83%, depending on method), but we use other words ("disaster" or "tragedy" for instance) for the great majority (87-90%) of identical events in predominantly white, Western countries. There are reasons for this disparity (mainly the usage in RS). The English definition of the word "stampede" is also at issue. The question is whether we should continue to rely exclusively on RS usage to determine our own usage if the result is racially biased and/or incorrect. This important and emotional issue arose on the talk page of the 2015 Mina stampede, when a close minority (6-8) prevailed in a RM discussion to change the name. The closer was correct - addressing this "on a one-on-one article basis" is problematic. The usage problem is system-wide. Dcs002 (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD culture

I have been participating in AfD for a few months now. The culture of deletion is becoming rather aggressive. Is anyone else experiencing this? Is there any way that we can look at policies to help slow down the process?

My suggestions would include:

  1. requiring AfD nominators to do WP:BEFORE. I've found quite a few articles nominated with so-called "no room for improvement found" as the reason for AfD and I and a few other users are able to find reliable sources within hours (or minutes on Google nonetheless!)
  1. give articles breathing space. Several new articles have been up for AfD. This is especially problematic when we have a new user who doesn't know about putting up a template to indicate the article is still under construction.
  1. create additional criteria surrounding topics that are more difficult to research, such as areas where there is a language barrier or where history has ignored the achievements of various groups based on race, culture, religion/lack of religion, gender or non-conformity.

I know this has been discussed in the past, but I think it needs to be discussed again. I just witnessed a new user give up over an AfD. (See Malissa A. O'Dubhtaigh: which I'm not saying necessarily meets GNG, but it wasn't given time and the user was handled brusquely.) Wikipedia is about amassing all human knowledge, as I see it, and all voices should be welcome and feel welcome. The aggressive culture of deletion is frustrating even to most hardened editors.

Any suggestions out there? Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl I would be loathe to work on this article because the lawsuit involved, which stretched out ten+ years, appears to be the only source. There was a name change during the process and since there are no sources to guide us, how can we be sensitive to the preferred name of the party. Further, in reading the suit, the party has felt her medical privacy was not protected. While I encourage diversity and would wish that Wikipedia did as well, this particular article seems like an invasion of privacy. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that being said, the culture of deletion on here is ver frustrating. If one must check boxes and give rationale to even post a picture, it baffles me that anyone and everyone can nominate an article for deletion without the skill to weigh notability or do any sort of research beforehand. I cannot understand why improvement rather than deletion is not the key. SusunW (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While you can see my postings on deletionism above, I'm not even sure it's a culture. What I've seen is the positive practice of a few people "patrolling" for vandalism and other negative stuff turn into "I'll delete every new page and let the admins/other editors sort it out." Given the effort involved in getting something into Wikipedia these days, such intellectually dishonest activity discourages nearly anyone making a new article. With some of the articles I commented on in AfD, the creator would ask simple questions about the rationale for the deletion and get absolutely nothing, except the odd "per nom." Once the drive-by deletion happens, the editor in question almost never returns. My favorite had to be an article that was discussed in AfC for ages. Someone took responsibility, wrote the page, and had it marked for deletion essentially as soon as it was submitted. This is how Wikipedia actively drives away contributors.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: I would like to echo the above suggestions and well as emphasize Wikipedia:CSD: unless the article created meets said criteria, don't nominate it for speedy deletion; if it is up for deletion, calmly let creators know tips and give them time to improve the article and send words of encouragement, maybe an encouraging emoticon along with the words. Sam.gov (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam.gov:, I like that idea. I really think we need to nurture editors more often. I was on Wiki for a long time before I felt confident enough to edit, let along create my own articles. It is intimidating. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, It can get intimidating during the time before editors become more confident. Sam.gov (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The culture of "bigger and more is better" has been proven troubling to reputations again and and again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely with TRPOD. Wikipedia is not and has never been "about amassing all human knowledge"; it has a very specific remit to only cover material which is demonstrably covered in multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, and admins deleting material which doesn't fit that remit are acting entirely correctly. As this is an absolute core policy of Wikipedia, there is no realistic prospect of any discussion ever changing it as long as Wikipedia remains in its current form. ‑ iridescent 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying bigger is better. You're right, all human knowledge is impossible, I was being hyperbolic in my attempt to describe why I think it's important to have diversity in Wiki. Thanks for calling that out--I should write more concisely sometimes. However, what I am worried about, and why I brought up the topic is that I think that there really is a deletionist culture. I've observed a pattern over time, and so have a few others on WikiPedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red. For example, I have run into plenty of AfD pages where the nominators often say they've done WP:BEFORE, when they clearly haven't. Sometimes, the nominator will even say they have additional information, but because it's "not in the article," the article should be deleted. I understand that editors want others to follow through and add information when they say they will, but just because someone else didn't add that info, why can't you add it? I only tag articles when I don't have time to add the info myself. If I see an article with a tag, I fix it. It doesn't take long. Why aren't we doing that more often? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer; because you have 3458 active editors (with "active" defined loosely as 100 edits in the last month), of whom 580 are admins, dealing with 5 million articles, and it's not reasonable to expect us to do everyone else's work for them when they can't be bothered to do it themselves. If you haven't already, it's a salutary exercise to look at the new pages backlog; those highlighted in yellow are the ones that nobody has looked at. "If you see an article with a problem, fix it" is a laudable aim, but completely impractical unless Wikipedia can drastically grow its editor base or throttle the article creation rate; the former has resisted every effort to address it, and every attempt to address the latter has been vetoed by the WMF. ‑ iridescent 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get what you are saying Megalibrarygirl. I don’t see anyone asking the admins to do everything. I do agree that there is a “get rid of articles” culture on here and have pointed out on more than one occasion to those who say “I would vote to keep if someone would edit the article” that good prose is not a requirement. Then there is the ever popular “editor doesn’t appear to be active” (isn’t that own?, who cares if the creator is active?), and “I see no better improvement” (because if the article is complete and notability is not debatable why would anyone need to improve it?) Seems like a lot of whining and little action on the part of some. Usually I just fix what I see that is problematic. I have rarely asked an admin for anything. What I see is a small group of people, who don't appear to be admins, who nominate every file they can for deletion. I also see a trend of an unwillingness to make Wikipedia an inclusive or welcoming platform, which will result in poor retention. Nothing is written in simple, straightforward or friendly language. (Admittedly, after a year, I still don't know what 1/2 the acronyms that are bandied about mean, and I don't think I want to). Group A and Group B are forever opposing each other as well as any ideas for improving the overall performance. I try to avoid all the drama and save what articles I can. When it gets too stressful, I walk away or just go silent.
Absolutely! I started this discussion because I believe we can change things. The place to create change is through discussion. I have spent time in the backlogs working to source tagged articles. With the amount of female bios at a measly 15%, I try to source as many as I can in order to at least satisfy GNG. I understand the frustration with many created biographies, but many are actually notable...just because the nominator knows nothing about the topic, doesn't mean no notability. Case in point: looking at new articles, hardly any are women, and the ones who are, are often sports figures or models. Interestingly, a female sports figure with 1 reference often gets an AfD pass, but not other women. Something's off with that. I want to see things change. Let's see what we are able to do. For example, how can we get hard data to support what I and others are observing? I might think there is a problem, but I'd prefer numbers to "it seems." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was active last year for a few months in AfD discussions, and it bothered me deeply that most of them were about notable subjects, but nobody involved in the AfD discussions looked for RS to establish that. That is grounds for a stub tag. That is grounds for doing the work yourself before nominating. I found myself working long hours every day to save articles from deletion, regardless of the topic (I don't care about role-playing games or "onomastics", but I worked to save those articles anyway), and in the end there was only one I couldn't save. This onus has to be placed on the person nominating the article for deletion. So many of them talk about "your" article instead of seeing all articles as "our" articles. Megalibrarygirl, I agree with you completely on requiring WP:BEFORE in order to nominate an article for deletion. iridescent, "it's not reasonable to expect us to do everyone else's work for them when they can't be bothered to do it themselves." This is not "everyone else's work." This is our work. Right there is the problem. We are a community with a common purpose, not factions of "us" who do the work and "them" who don't. And we can never say why someone stopped working on an article (or "can't be bothered"). I think we would have more people participating if this was not such an adversarial environment. We don't have enough admins and people working clean-up, but we certainly do not have enough people doing the work to save good articles from the excessive AfDs for notable subjects that just need a quick Google search.
We are not supposed to "own" articles as editors, but I think we all know that people do. They will revert everything that did not originate with them. Try editing an article for a popular progressive rock album. Or worse, try starting a new article on any music album. It's often an exercise in futility to contribute and make meaningful changes. I got worn down. In AfD discussions I felt beaten down. Nobody tries to help articles before nomination, and discussions are full of competing acronyms, as if they were etched in stone, and everybody (myself included) is convinced they are right. But again, I rescued several articles from deletion, all but one. Had I not taken the time to provide the RS for notability, no one else would, and they would be gone. Then when someone decides to start a new article and sees that a previous version was deleted already, how likely are they to continue? A stub tag (or other tag) is enough to tell readers the article might be a little iffy. If editors have time to patrol and nominate AfDs, they could instead use that time to improve things. More editors might stick with it without all that unnecessary struggle. WP is always a work in progress, and that means a certain percentage of our articles are always going to be stubs under development. "It's been a stub for years," I heard. "What have you done to change that?" is my question. The answer is always the same: nominate it for deletion. Sorry about the tirade. If things were more cooperative, WP would be a lot more rewarding, and a lot more diverse. Right now we have a selection bias - editors who are willing to put up with the struggles are the ones contributing. Dcs002 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Dcs002 I think you about covered the problem. It is exhausting. Mostly I work on women because as a member of several Wikiprojects on women, those are the alerts I see. But I recently saved a multiple award winning French male architect, and a couple of movies which I have never even seen or heard of because they came into my viewing range. I don't go to the Afd page, it is too overwhelming to think of all the files that have been nominated. Maybe there are indeed a lot that aren't notable, but in my experience most that I have worked on just needed sourcing and a little TLC. SusunW (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Dcs002 and SusunW. I want to see the culture change. The same people are nominating articles for deletion without doing WP:BEFORE. Also, I love the way that you emphasize that it's not about us vs. them... it's about all of us creating a better resource. I think that deletion is especially problematic because others took time to create something and other editors are trashing the creations. Please note, I'm not saying that EVERY article needs to be kept! But let's exercise more care. Let's see what we can do to create a better environment for newbies and let's work on the AfD area. It shouldn't be exhausting or frustrating. How can we do that? Who do we need to get on board with looking at this? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree that there are many self-proclaimed deletionists active in Wikipedia and some good material gets discarded, not all all deletion-related discussions are groundless. Just a look at recent nominations reveals some obvious problems. An article about a video game which is entirely unsourced and contains very little information. A film-related trope pointed by Roger Ebert that may be notable but has otherwise received very little coverage. An article about a local police department in Alaska with not much material to cover. Articles about music performers and bands with no particular level of success (two album releases at best). A minor organization which was briefly in the news in 2007 but has not had any coverage since. A Star Wars-related podcast that got some positive comments a few years ago, with no evidence of lasting influence.

Unsourced articles might have potential for growth, but some are only of interest to their creators and others are potential hoaxes. For example, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia lists examples of hoax articles that went unnoticed for years. An article on "Jack Robichaux", supposedly a 19th-century serial rapist, existed for 10 years before someone questioned his existence. "Pikes on Cliffs" was an article on a 16th century house with both historical significance and a related legend. It took 9 years before some people realized this article was fabricated. More embarrassing for Wikipedia is that some hoaxes are pointed out by newspapers critical of our accuracy.

Meanwhile, images that get deleted often are tagged for copyright issues. This includes book covers, album covers, screenshots, etch. All to avoid potential legal troubles for Wikipedia. That something is available does not make it free for use. This can get very frustrating when searching for some image that can be found everywhere except Wikipedia.

While habitual deletionists may get annoying, indiscriminately accepting any contribution may be the wrong idea. Dimadick (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no one on this thread has advocated for "indiscriminately accepting any contribution". I believe that each person has agreed that GNG with RS should remain the norm. The issue is the "rush to delete". If it harms no one (i.e. is not a biography of a living person) there is time to review the article and fix any problematic areas. There is certainly time to communicate with the creator and try to mentor them through the process, as well. If one does not have the skill to search for sources to improve an article, then they also do not have the skill to evaluate whether it is notable and should not be allowed to propose it for deletion. (And we can tit for tat all day about deletions - I fixed Pakistan's trade secretary today who was prodded. Clearly notable, government bio, took about 10 minutes to add sources, at most). SusunW (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick, I agree with your entire post. I also saw many articles that were blatant advertising for investors and bios for clearly non-notable people (including one by a kid that broke my heart to !vote down, along with everyone else - I hope he eventually understood). While I was participating in AfD discussions, I don't recall seeing a discussion for any recorded work that I would not consider notable under WP:ALBUM, though there was the occasional local band with their own page, and I think they were usually written by fans. I could be wrong with my memory, but I recall about half of the articles on the AfD list being clearly articles that should be deleted, and half being either blatantly notable with inadequate sourcing or questionably notable. My belief is that it hurts us to delete articles because notability is questionable, so I guess I'm an inclusionist.
But the biggest problem, IMO, is the attitude of absolutism in AfD discussions. There is no discussion. Too often there is an acronym cited and an entrenched opinion. When I have fixed articles, or even tried to fix them, I have perceived an attitude of resentment and on many occasions warnings that "we" were just going to delete the article anyway because somehow they knew, without looking for sources or viewing my changes, that there was no way an article or subject could be "made" notable (made, as opposed to being notable). Sorry, another tirade. I guess my experience was more frustrating than I remembered, and maybe I've been carrying some emotional baggage for a while. Dcs002 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcs002: I think you're spot on. It's a big encyclopedia, and there are a couple of great folks in AfD, but I would say that that there is this notion among many AfD editors that things like notability are these platonic sorts of things -- abstract ideals which a topic either does or does not embody. Also, if an article creator dares stand up for their work (few do), that's a paddling deleting. So, while we must assume good faith, people should try to acknowledge non-extremist views about notability and such.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wake-up call. I need to say that not everyone in AfD discussions was as obstinate as I described. (They were just the ones that made it such a miserable experience.) There were many thoughtful editors as well, and the closers were always very thoughtful and considerate. Dcs002 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the same culture exists throughout the XfD spectrum. Sometimes it seems that certain editors are more interesting in amassing stats for how many of X they successfully nominate for deletion. I have participated in a few of those discussions, and sometimes agreed that deletion was needed, but only after doing my own research on the nominee. I don't see how anyone can possibly research all of the nominees for deletion, and vote on every one of them, within the span of just a few minutes, but that's what some people seem to manage. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, several of us here agree that we have a problem. What is the next step after we're done preaching to the choir? What action can we take? What remedies are available? And more importantly, who wants to stick their neck out and take charge of that action? Dcs002 (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest starting with Megalibrarygirl's initial proposal to require more work be done before a nomination can go through, echoing SusunW's points about adding files. There is also something to be said for enacting and enforcing a temporary freeze (perhaps a week) on nomination of new articles except where they need to be speedied. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this. The entire aggressive attitude of deletionists has been baffling to me for years. They do not seem to be motivated by logic, even when the debate points are overwhelming them. I understand there is a lot of junk out there that needs to be cleaned up, but once the substance of an article is established, a reasonable person would back off. You can see the wave of reasonable people switch their "votes" (I know they aren't really votes, but they are). These deletionists do not back off. They fight to their last breath trying to get legitimate content deleted. I have publicly suspected there is some accrual of brownie points for the most scalps. Worse yet, sometimes they find a corrupt administrator to back them up and they win, forever dooming a valid subject to the perceived WP:SALT, even if not specifically administered. What shocks me the most is how uninformed these people are. They dabble in subjects they do not understand, dismiss sources that are the top of their field, and do not do the required research WP:BEFORE posting their attack. Frustrated as I am about the cases I've seen lost, I have a pretty good record of successful defense when I get involved. I see some names over and over, pushing repeatedly against . . . facts. There should be a penalty for bringing too many unsuccessful (the only way to categorize unfounded) attacks on articles. Once they reach a quota, they should be prohibited from making another proposal for a period of time. If they continue to lose, add to that length of time. You'd think they would learn, but some just won't get it. At some point, ban the serious, serial abusers from ever making another proposal for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a large cadre of editors on Wikipedia could be categorized as deletionists, I think any steps taken would have to be modest and incremental. If we can get away from the culture of deleting most every new page straightaway for others to deal with, that would be a serious start. Some of my thoughts are: 1) require Prod'ing first, and only allow a second user to AfD, not the initial prodder 2) Make filing an AfD at least as hard as uploading an image. Lots of questions about "have you really done WP:BEFORE? and have you tried improving this page." 3) Prevent articles that have had a favorable AfC outcome from getting immediately AfD'd 4) Require each nomination to, if at all possible, bring up specific actionable items that could make the page suitable. I'm sure there are lots of better ideas out there, but beginning to talk concretely is a good start.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source guidelines on census pages

Official WP policy on primary sources is "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Yet pages on the U.S. Census do just this since the document speaks for itself largely. However, comparing the 1930 United States Census with the Polish census of 1931 we see two censuses using a similar methodology of not counting ethnicity in the population treated in very different ways. One is exclusively based on the primary source, and in the other we are having issues of claims of improper usage of the primary source and the need for a secondary source to report it. See related discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931 I am therefore requesting some clarification on the policy which I believe should be amended to note that when the census or a similar document from a national government is the subject of a WP page, that the official census questions and reports should be used to accurately report what was originally published, and then a related section should contain criticisms and controversies, etc. I just don't want the original report to be censored in any way by critics unhappy with government recognition of linguistic, religious, or ethic groups recognized, (or implied), in the census itself.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some topics are just as well covered by primary sources as secondary sources, or maybe even better if the secondary sources are out of date. For example, some of the more obscure symbols in Lists of United States state symbols may be best supported with references from official state laws or proclamations rather than relying on possibly-outdated, restricted-access, or hard-to-obtain newspaper articles or other secondary sources. When it comes to bare facts drawn directly from Census reports, I don't see anything wrong with using primary sources. If policy is getting in the way of writing a good encyclopedia, try to change policy. If it's a one-off thing and you are 100% sure you are doing the right thing and that no reasonable editor will disagree, WP:Ignore all rules, which itself is policy, is there for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: When a government collects information for a census, the forms where each person's information is collected is a primary source. When the government issues a report summarizing all that data, the report is a secondary source. Please see the definitions at WP:PSTS for more info. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a census be treated differently from any other other scientific study? Survey-based research is common in the social sciences. For example, if I wish to study attitudes towards ethnic groups by university students and publish the results of my study, my published paper is a primary source. A peer-reviewed additional party reviewing my study would be a secondary source. The surveys that people fill out in a census (or in a sociological or psychological study) are the raw data. Per policy: " a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." So, the paper itself (equivalent to the government report) is the primary source. The surveys that people hand out are the raw data for that study. Secondary sources are academic works that review and discuss the census. Also: "Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." When a government released census results, that government's report is a primary source. When another party examines that data and the government's original report - we have a secondary source. Here is how a secondary source is defined: " It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6]". So the research paper in the field (such as a census) is a primary source, the review article or book discussing this census is the secondary source. More: [2]: "In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source." So the Polish government's census publication - the first publication of the census results - is the primary source. Academic works analyzing, discussing, reviewing the government's report are secondary sources. Faustian (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing some sanity to the contention that a published national survey is a primary source, rather than merely the survey forms. As you will see from the debate from another editor on the OR board, reason disappears when people have emotional attachments regarding ethnic issues. This policy should be clarified by a rule/definition specifying that the published census is not a primary source, and accurate translations are not OR. It will avoid many problems as WP expands to such subjects.Doctor Franklin (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the fine print, " Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires..." WP:OR The policy needs to be changed to reflect existing practice, per common sense.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals

This proposal revisits MOS:IDENTITY as recommended in this recent proposal. How should transgender individuals be referred to in articles about themselves?

  1. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.
  2. For any person whose gender might be questioned, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification when discussing events that took place after the individual's gender transition. Use the pronouns, adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that correspond to the individual's previous gender presentation when discussing events that took place before the individual's gender transition.
  3. [Removed per neutrality. Functionally equivalent to option 2. However, the options remain numbered as if this option had been kept.]
  4. Whatever the rule for a biographical article about a transgender individual, move that guidance from WP:MOS to WP:MOSBIO (this option is not exclusive with any other option above)
  5. For any person whose gender might be questioned, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect the predominant usage of reliable English-language sources. Give more weight to sources published after the transgender individual has gone through a transition or has "come out." If the sources do not show a clear preference, use the forms preferred by the individual, if there are reliable sources indicating this preference. For historical events, look to reliable sources that describe those events, again favoring post-transition sources, but include both names where failing to do so is likely to cause confusion.

This does not apply to articles that merely mention transgender individuals in passing; that is covered here. 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Adding a third option and pinging those who've already participated (only the one who presented the proposal in this case).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Because your option was functionally identical to option 2 but contained non-neutral language, I have removed it. Your beliefs about why Wikipedia should support option 2 belong in the discussion section and in your own comments. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed below and on my talk page. I'm alright with it being dropped as an option. The intention was to make pointing out the sex of a subject for clarity in an appropriate manner reasonable per the guideline.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

  • Option 1 (keep current rule) (but add the word "name") Many trans men and trans women say that they remember having feelings of being the gender to which they later publicly transitioned even when they were small children. It seems to me that a trans man always was male in a way and that a trans woman always was female. If it becomes clear that this is not the case as more trans men and trans women tell their stories, we can always change the rule then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 (move guidance to WP:MOSBIO) – WP:MOSBIO is much better equipped to explain how to deal with this in the lede, and in subsequent uses in the body of the article. Once that is accomplished WP:MOS#Identity should for transgender indivuals be confined to whatever results from WP:VPP#Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - Per MOS:IDENTITY, In such cases [of gender identity], give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Unprecedented authority/leeway is given to subjects to control the gender identity and language used in this encyclopedia to describe them (as it is currently popular within modern language and the mainstream media). Everything else plays by a different set of rules and isn't determined by how the subject may feel. Sex and gender, and their corresponding language were once synonymous, but that is no longer the case. The sex of a subject is a fact that is quite useful/helpful when researching or reading about them, and it should be clarified.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 (keep current rule). This is the most respectful way to refer to trans people at any stage of their life. If specifics in the article require clarification about a person's birth-assigned sex, that can be provided without changing their currently-preferred pronouns. Option 3 as currently worded (males produce sperm, females produce ova) is biased and erasing of intersex people. Funcrunch (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 I see no good reason why this case should be a drastic exception. Wikipedia is not the place to form social norms, rather it is the place to report them. If most sources follow a person's expressed preferences, so should we. If most post-transition reliable sources use the gender identity that a person had (or was publicly thought to have) when the events occurred which made the person notable, then so should we. In short, follow the sources wherever they lead, and if they have a clear consensus, that is all that matters. Where sources are divided, then and only then look to the preferences of the person involved. DES (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5- as option 3 has been removed (I thought the language was reasonable, perhaps it could have used some adjustment [done a bit hastily]), Option 5 is a bit better overall, so I won't pursue restoration of option 3. My rationale above also fits with this option, so I won't reiterate it here.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that you aren't within your rights to support more than one option, but did I make a mistake, Godsy? Was there some way other in which it was different from option 2? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The intention was to make pointing out the sex of a subject for clarity in an appropriate manner reasonable per the guideline.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 (use the gender/name at time of event) and Option 4 (move to WP:MOSBIO). We should continue with that longstanding practice of typically calling people by the names (and, by extension, genders) that the public knew them as at the time of the events in question (example: Muhammad Ali, formerly Cassius Clay). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 and 4 Let's keep up with the times. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 (use the gender/name at time of event) - Option 4 would also make sense in this case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, mostly. Overall, it provides a better guide, although there are cases where explaining context more in-depth are going to be necessary, and practice in the style of option 2 covers those better. In particular, I disfavor option 5 as appearing possibly unnecessarily difficult to maintain. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't want to strike my comment since I still substantially agree, but it's no longer strictly accurate. Many of the responses below put forward compelling arguments in favor of option 2, so I've moved myself firmly there. My secondary comment about option 5 remains. I continue to have absolutely no opinion with regard to option 4. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 and 4 per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and to remain consistent with WP:UCRN. To quote the latter: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 02:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to add that even if we decide to keep the current wording, that it should be tweaked to read "that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification as indicated in reliable sources". With Caitlyn Jenner, for example, there was a rush by certain members of the LGBTQ community who assume that all transgender people have the same preferences as them to change all the "he"s in the article to "she"s as soon as she revealed that she was transgender. However, at the time, Jenner had expressed a preference for male pronouns to be used until the name change was announced. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 But might need some tweaks to handle non-binary people. While we don't necessarily use the official name in cases where the common name is different we are talking about people here and we tend to afford BLP a higher degree of respect. "Misgendering" a trans individual can be seen as an denial of who they are and likewise for for any of our trans* editors and readers. While I have this page on my watchlist and saw it that way, I was also pointed to this discussion by a post to my talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. This is the only respectful way to handle individuals who transition. As PaleAqua says, misgendering - or "deadnaming" - an individual can be incredibly harmful. I don't care if the majority of sources say X or Y or Z, we refer to individuals by their self-expressed gender identity, and the fact that major newspapers didn't get the memo isn't a reason for us to tear it up. We rely on reliable sources to AVOID being shitty to living people; let's not use them as an excuse to be shitty. Ironholds (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Options 2 and 4 - My take is to favor historical accuracy tempered with sensitivity for subject's expressed preferences following the subject's public gender transition. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the subject's preferences should govern pre-transition events to the extent the subject was not notable pre-transition. As for persons who are notable for pre-transition events, such as Caitlyn Jenner (f.k.a. Bruce Jenner), we cannot re-write the history of the Olympic Games or major gender-based sports records, nor should we attempt to airbrush history. That's Orwellian and contrary to simple historical accuracy. As for placement of the revised TRANS guideline, this guideline should never have been placed within the Manual of Style, and should be firmly anchored within the biography article guidelines of WP:BIO, where we can expect the focus to be on WP:BLP and related policies and guidelines with an emphasis on high-quality reliable sources, not tabloid grist and pro- or anti-activist agendas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Going by the sources is usually fine, but the best source for personal details like gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious affiliation is the subject. If a reliable source said that the pope is a Protestant, I would like to think that we'd have the good sense to disregard it. Likewise, if a reliable source misgenders a person, we should ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Describing the pre-transition life events with post-transition name and adjectives would be misleading, in that it would imply the spouse of the earlier time was in a homosexual relationship, or that a unisex sports team or sporting competition was coed, or that a military unit was coed. It could make someone who served in the military in a male role "The first woman to win a Congressional Medal of Honor". It would have a man giving birth and a woman being a sperm donor. In many cases it will be possible to avoid gendered pronouns in the pre-transition phase, by simply using the person's last name instead of "he" or "his" or she" or "her," as in Alexander James Adams, where "he" and "his" are only used in the later male identity . For Caitlyn Jenner we might say "Jenner fathered children" rather than "She fathered children." We might alternatively say "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner) won an Olympic medal and fathered a child." The Christine Jorgenson article says "she" was drafted in 1945 and fought in World War Two, leading to the impression that US women were drafted into combat forces in 1945, replacing earlier versions of that article which used "he" for the WW2 experience. Edison (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Options 2 and 4—per Dirtlaywer1. I have complete respect for the issues and complexities, but at the same time, we can't change past history either. I understand that there are more emotional issues at stake, but this is very similar to any other name change. A biography of a woman should properly refer to her by her maiden name pre-marriage and her married name post-nuptials when dealing with past history in context. Edison's examples are also very illustrative of my position. Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Options 4 and not 5 - I'm sufficiently torn between 1 and 2 to yield to others. But I've read 5 three times, still don't follow it, and suspect many other well-intentioned editors won't either. And I agree, WP:MOSBIO is the natural home. Barte (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The basic intent of 5 is simply "follow the sources" all else is merely intended clarification. It was written on the spot when I saw this RfC didn't include any such option, and it didn't have the Pre-RFC polishing that others did. No doubt the wording could be improved. DES (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5. - So much for "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy." Carrite (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1; we should respect people's self-identification. One caveat, though: Not all individuals who transition define as having been one gender their entire life -- there are some people who legitimately see their transition as a decision to change gender (and therefore see their pre-transition selves as having been a different gender, rather than being misgendered.) In situations where that's unambiguously the case, respecting their self-identification means using different pronouns pre- and post-transition. I'm fine with the 'default' being to use the most recent pronoun throughout absent some clear otherwise from the article's subject, though. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1; though we could add some language indicating that the article should be clear, without undue emphasis, on the name and gender presentation in use at any given time. Looking at Brandon Teena as an example, it uses Teena (the post-transition surname) and "he" to refer to the subject throughout, while being clear on the name and gender presentation. Trying to adjust the subject's name and pronoun throughout the article to match the presentation at the time period being described would be extremely confusing; it would be "Brandon/she" for most of one paragraph, then switch to "Brandon/he" for a sentence and a few subsequent paragraphs, then "Teena/he" for the remainder of the article.--Trystan (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. I understand that this is a delicate issue, and I certainly respect a person's right to identify as whatever gender he or she wishes. However, I agree with the above comments that we can't simply rewrite history in order to be more sensitive to someone's feelings. Caitlyn Jenner was not the first woman to win an olympic medal in a men's event. Bruce Jenner won that medal as a man, and trying to imply in an article that it didn't happen that way is a blatant misrepresentation of fact. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 seems like the most straighforward and less likely to confuse readers. It presents a middle ground that makes sense to me, and avoids the absolutist approach of option 1. Option 5 is worded confusingly IMO, and that would make editors' jobs harder with little benefit. --Waldir talk 09:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 Following reliable sources is always a good idea. (In general, if you find yourself opposing reliable sources, you've probably taken a wrong turn somewhere.) I don't see any reason to limit it to articles about the subject, either; the wording of option 5 would work excellently for coverage of transgender people in any article. Sideways713 (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. The fact that sources (and society) are often dismissive of a person's identity or a person shares aspects of their identity judiciously - doesn't mean it isn't real or didn't exist. I don't think it has anything to do with historical accuracy - for example, Jenner competed in men's sports, but it doesn't mean she identified as a man. This can be stated rather simply without erasing the fact that her identity as a girl/woman actually existed from childhood. If a person had any other characteristic that was only publicly discussed later - we wouldn't make believe it didn't exist at the time because of "historical accuracy". This isn't just a matter of "feelings", it's a matter of de facto recognition that our traditional model of gender is being challenged by the lived experiences of actual people who cannot be sorted into these (quickly eroding) ideas of "man" and "woman". TMagen (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I don't really see any need to change things drastically. Disregarding the fact that most transgender people still subconsciously identify as their gender even if they haven't come out, using changes in pronouns would most likely confuse the reader. The reader might think we were talking about different people, and the first name change would just be bizarre. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5. This is how we deal will every other dispute about which names to use in an article, and adopting it will bring the instructions at MOS:IDENTITY into line with our other policy and guideline pages (rather than carving out an exception to those policies and guidelines, as is done now). Note that in most cases, adopting this will result in Wikipedia using the "new" names and pronouns (since modern sources tend to be sensitive to such things, and will use the "new" name and pronouns once a change has been announced). Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - The first option seems to be an attempt to re-write history, which appears to be contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. I understand what #5 is attempting to do, but as other editors have said, it is pretty confusing, #2, while less explicit, will basically accomplish the same thing, except in very particular sets of circumstances, which can be handled on those article's talk pages. But would not be adverst to #5 if more folks feel it is more specific and not confusing. Onel5969 TT me 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The basic intent of 5 is simply "follow the sources" all else is merely intended clarification. It was written on the spot when I saw this RfC didn't include any such option, and it didn't have the Pre-RFC polishing that others did. No doubt the wording could be improved. DES (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 for historical accuracy. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Follow reliable sources: as with religion and sexuality, the most reliable source for gender is the person. Current understanding, from brain studies etc, is that in most cases a trans man was never a woman; it is as inaccurate to write an article as if she had been one as to write an article as if "John was attracted to women until he came out as gay at 24" or "diseases were caused by miasma until circa the 1880s, when germs began to cause them". Second, referring to trans people by names or pronouns that disregard their identities causes harm (refs here), which is especially problematic with BLPs. Third, switching names is confusing, esp. if the surname changes as with e.g. Fallon Fox. Imagine a writer who transitioned in 2002 from Jane Doe to John Fox: "Jane Doe wrote the film after a fight with her sister.[ref: fight was in 2000] John Fox said later he considered it 'one of [his] best films in the genre'.[ref: said that in 2003] ... Doe won one Emmy in 2001 for her work on That Film, and Fox won a second Emmy in 2003 for his work on Another Film." Fourth: credit things to the people who did them, using the most up-to-date names for them; fixating on attributing things to whatever strings of letters sources at the time used, instead of to the flesh-and-blood people, is odd. (But I agree with Trystan: if we need to, we can be clear, without undue emphasis, on the name and gender presentation used at a given time.) -sche (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wary of option 4; centralizing biography style guidance in one place is desirable, but splitting trans style guidance into two places seems undesirable; we'd also have to be careful how we worded the identity-related guidance that remained in the MOS: currently, the MOS says "do X, except in trans cases do Y" (an appropriate exception — as Darkfrog notes, the world treats trans name changes differently from other name changes, so it's appropriate for us to); if we moved "do Y" to a subpage, we'd have to leave careful wording behind lest the MOS' claim that it trumps its subpages be used to say "well, 'do Y' doesn't count anymore". -sche (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5. We should follow the sources, per WP:V. Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 per WP:No original research. Use in Wikipedia should reflect the sources. Too often people in Wikipedia make assumptions about individual's preferences. It is best to leave the research to reliable sources rather than making new rules to permit crowdsourced original research, as in option 1. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about "crowdsourced original research"? Option 1 is the latest expressed desire around identity - in other words, the most recent statement from the subject. Your approach would say that someone tweeting their preferences, if used to justify a change, would constitute users "making assumptions", which is not the case. Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 (keep current rule) A person's own statement trumps all other sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 (keep current rule) Just as we accept people's self-identification when it comes to religion or sexual orientation, so we should do so when it comes to gender identity. Furthermore, any other practice would conflict with the "high degree of sensitivity" required by BLP. The claims about "rewriting history" are unconvincing and poorly reasoned. Saying that Caitlyn Jenner was a man when she won her Olympic medal is not a neutral or uncontroversial claim - it is one that relies on a contestable conception of gender, one that privileges biology and outward presentation over the person's feelings of being female (or male). On other conceptions of gender, Jenner may have always been female. (I am using Jenner as an example - I obviously cannot speak for whether she regards herself as having been female back then. But many trans people certainly do take that view.) Neljack (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 I agree with Dirtlawyer1 and Edison. When writing historically, it will likely be most clear to the reader if the article uses the person's publicly presented gender identification at the time; using a gender identification from later (sometimes much later) in the person's life smacks of historical revisionism and may inadvertently make or imply false statements about other people involved in that phase of the person's life. While the person may have privately identified in a manner different from their public presentation for some time before the change in public presentation, we normally cover public events rather than the individual's private life and thus should generally follow the public presentation. For portions of the article covering both time periods I'd say to use the latest public gender identification. I don't have issue with avoidance of gendered language entirely where that is possible without unusually awkward language, as long as it is clear on the name and presentation in use at the time. Anomie⚔ 01:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 (very strongly support).  I believe very strongly that in referring to such people we should use the pronouns, names, etc. which correspond to the time of the event being discussed.  I believe Edison  makes the best arguments against some of the other options, including the possibility of Wikipedia articles appearing to:
falsely imply that a heterosexual had been in a homosexual relationship
falsely imply that a unisex sports team or military unit was coed
incorrectly suggest that a man had given birth or a woman had been a sperm donor,    and
incorrectly suggest that women are or have ever been drafted into the US military.
I'm all for respecting the expressed wishes and feelings of people; but not at the cost of rewriting history.
I'm also against any option that calls for imitating the style used predominantly in reliable sources.  What will happen is some editor with an agenda will shop around until he finally comes up with two or three sources that use his preferred style.  Then another editor will locate four or five sources using a different style and "trump" the first editor.  Etc. etc. and the next thing you know we're having disputes, edit wars, and unnecessary RfC's.  Such an option would also undoubtedly result in some articles using one style and other articles using a different style, resulting in a total lack of uniformity and consistency within Wikipedia.  Option 2  would prevent all that, and it would do so without rewriting history.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 It appears to me that Option 2 is both the most respectful to the person (and good for WP:BLP reasons) and to history. As an example, it makes no sense to say that Caitlyn Jenner won the 1976 gold medal, because she was known as Bruce at the time, is (as far as I know) still listed as Bruce Jenner in the official IOC records, and as Caitlyn would have been ineligible to have joined the male field anyway. Therefore, it seems that using the pronoun that they were referred to before the transition is in no way wrong but historically and technically accurate, and using the pronoun that they now identify as after the transition is accurate. Vyselink (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 & 4 I would say that Wikipedia being a tertiary source, one that bases itself off of reliable secondary sources, should only reflect what we know. Not what people want. Wikipedia is not a place to change history in favor of how people feel. We don't remove sourced libelous information about people (no matter how much they want it changed), why would we change their historical public identity? Jcmcc (Talk) 20:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current rule. We shouldn't try to fix what isn't broken, and this is something that could lead to a raging mess of BLP violations very quickly if watered down. Options 2 and 4 basically take our BLP policy out and shoot it as applied to transgender people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • May possibly vary on an individual basis, but largely Option 2 and Option 5. This issue has come about because of Caitlyn, fka Bruce, Jenner. It is ridiculous and disorienting to say that "she" won such-and-such an award in Men's _______ (especially when his clearly male form and face is plastered all over the media and cereal boxes). It just doesn't make sense. I think it may possibly be acceptable to refer to, say, Wendy Carlos as "she" throughout his/her article (he didn't compete professionally in men's sports), but even then, Carlos's successful public career was almost entirely as Walter, so even then I'd go with "he" prior to transition. We should always go with what the person publicly identified themselves as at the time. If they don't change their public identity until late in life, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 There is no such thing as neutral ground here. This is basically the ideology of gender essentialism against the ideology of gender constructivism. I say go with the option that values an individual's choice over a doctor's assumption. To do otherwise would constitute cissexism. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 13:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Pursuant to discussion on WT:MOS, I have notified the two WikiProjects which are directly concerned with this topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies (diff) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style (diff). -sche (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, -sche!
Please note that Godsy's option 3, which I have removed for neutrality reasons, looked like this:
option 3, removed)
For any person whose gender might be questioned, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification when discussing events that took place after the individual's gender transition. Use the pronouns, adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that correspond to the individual's previous gender presentation when discussing events that took place before the individual's gender transition. This is a factual encyclopedia, it is not censored or politically correct; in order for that to remain true, and avoid revising history, a sex and gender distinction should be made. The birth sex of the subject of an article should be made clear, especially if it is known and relevant. Otherwise, the use of the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification interchangeably, for those of both physical sex (scientifically: male, sperm producing beings and female, ova producing beings), can be confusing and misrepresentative of the subject to readers.Template:Bottom
As you can see, it's just option 2 + ideology. In my experience, adding anything but instructions and straightforward, practical explanations to the MoS (and even those sparingly) causes trouble. As for option 4, the idea of whether MOS:IDENTITY should either be copied to or moved to MOSBIO is a separate issue and best treated on its own. The closing of the previous RfC said we should revisit what the rule should be, not where to put it. I think option 4 should come out too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a friendly reminder to whoever closes this discussion: there are really two separate issues here, whether there is consensus to keep the status quo, and which alternative to use if we don't keep the status quo. Make sure to weigh those two issues separately, so we don't end up with options 2, 4, and 5 splitting the !vote and making it appear there is no consensus for change if there really is. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There should be Option 6 which is that a gender-changed person would be described in a historical manner when the time frame is historically appropriate. Thus, a person such as Wendy Carlos would be discussed as Walter Carlos, a male, when the time frame is the 1968 album Switched-On Bach, which was released before Carlos underwent a gender change. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: How would such an option be different from option 2? —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I misread number 2 at first. You're right. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what I don't really understand is why is this being framed as a "style" issue in the first place? Which name to use in a given context is not a question of "style"... it's a question of fact. We have lots of policies and guidelines that deal with presenting factual information... WP:V (and WP:RS)... WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE)... WP:NOR (and WP:PSTS). ALL of them center on the idea that we should base what Wikipedia says on what the sources say. That is a fundamental concept for Wikipedia - We follow the sources. When sources disagree, we neutrally explain the disagreement. If doing so leads to a lack of uniformity and consistency in our articles... well... the real world is a messy, non-uniform and inconsistent place - our job isn't to attempt to make the real world less messy... our job is to help readers understand the mess. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily because that's where MOS:IDENTITY is located, probably because other identity issues have to do with small distinctions about spelling etc. (such as "Arab" vs "Arabic"). This discussion is about what the MOS:IDENTITY subsection on gender identity should say. Where those words should be located is a separate issue. If you want to start an RfC or other thread about moving this part of MOS:IDENTITY somewhere else, I'll gladly chime in, but I think it would be best to wait until these two threads are done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar:The name in use at any given time is a question of fact, but how to refer to someone once those facts are established is a question of style. For example, the article on Michelle Obama uses her married surname throughout without the least bit of confusion or anachronism as to what her name was at the time being discussed. We could also refer to her by her birth surname until her marriage, but there is no reason to read much meaning into which style happens to dominate in her biographies specifically.
For the gender of trans people, we should definitely have some sort of consistent approach. Tallying sources to try to figure out when the Brandon Teena article should switch from "she" to "he" would be difficult, and add no value to the reader. Looking at sources can verify that both Jane Smith and Jane Jones are trans women who publicly transitioned, and what their name and gender presentation was at any one time in their lives. But counting pronoun usage in those sources to conclude that Smith was always a trans woman, even before coming out, while Jones switched genders, isn't meaningful.--Trystan (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we refer to Michelle Obama by her married name through out most of her bio article (we do mention her maiden name) is that this is what sources do... not because we made a "style" choice to do so. Few (if any) sources refer to her as Michelle Robinson... except in passing. This is unlike what happens with say Muhammed Ali... where a significant majority of sources still refer to him as "Cassius Clay" when talking historically. So... we use "Clay" when talking about that period of his life. Different articles, different contexts, different source usage... so different end results.
As for the pronoun issue... I would agree that pronouns are a style issue. However, what pronoun to use is a distinct and separate question from what NAME to use... since a woman can be named "Bruce", and a man can be named "Caitlyn". Pronouns are gender specific... Names are not... Names are subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes (encyclopedia-writing), most English-language names are gender-specific. While it's possible for a man to be named Vivian, etc., that's going to rare enough to treat as a special case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree... I don't mean this as a personal attack, but it strikes me that the idea that names are gender specific is incredibly biased and non-neutral. It denies the self-assertion that Jenner was always a woman... even when she called herself "Bruce". Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Names are generally given based on the physical sex of a person at birth, so they're inherently bias and describe that, more than stating anything about the gender of a subject. It is traditionally this way because it was assumed they'd align, and their wasn't a distinction, which there now modernly is. The only way to fix that would be to disassociate all names with sex and gender, or to identify individuals by a different means until the age of majority. "The reason why we refer to Michelle Obama by her married name through out most of her bio article" is because she wasn't as notable before being the first lady or likely described in sources as often. This isn't the case with Jenner, as they were well known by their previous name and various sources commonly used it. I assume this is the case for Muhammed Ali as well, though I'm not as familiar with that case.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we're getting a little out there. "Gender" has about five different correct definitions and "state of being male or female, sex" is the most common one. It's also short for "gender role" and "gender identity," but when talking about the distinction between sex and gender, in the most common sense of the word, the two terms align so that there isn't one.
And let's not get too worked up about sex assignment either. It's called "assignment" but it's better described as drawing a conclusion. Jenner's parents weren't diabolically conspiring to disguise her as a boy; they took a gander at her body and came to the perfectly reasonable belief that she was one. In something like 99% of the population, the conclusion drawn about a baby's gender and gender role and gender identity at birth turns out to be correct. A system of giving children gender-neutral names until majority would be overkill.
As for names and bias, given your track record, Blueboar I find it very easy to not take that personally. Let me ask you this: If names weren't gendered in the sense we mean here, then why would so many trans men and trans women feel the need to change them as part of their transition? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I referred to "sex" above, I meant the scientific definition, which is: organisms that produce sperm carrying the XY chromosomes ("male") vs. organisms that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells) carrying the XX chromosomes ("female"). The link I provided to the sex article also describes it in this way. Even gender reassignment surgery cannot change this.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. That word is interchangeable with "gender" in most contexts. "What gender is that fruit fly?"/"It's male." Etc. The only real difference is that "gender" doesn't get a storm of giggles or stupid jokes.
However, if you're going to refer to gender in humans you must of course consider that it is generated not only by chromosomes. Biology, even the biology underlying gender in humans, is much bigger than that. It involves genes, gene expression, cell receptors, blood chemistry, brain chemistry, primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics, brain structure and brain function, many of which are affected by epigenetic factors and environmental conditions. It is rare but perfectly natural for a body have some male traits and some female traits. We may one day find that Jenner and Wachowski really are biologically female in some ways. That's why I don't personally find it appropriate to use "biologically male" to refer to Jenner because we have one clue that suggests that it may not be so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. "... really are biologically female in some ways. ... I don't personally find it appropriate to use "biologically male" to refer to Jenner." If those discoveries are made, then it would be incorrect, but why speculate until such a time? "Biologically male" is an accurate description based on current knowledge. Simply calling a spade a spade, rather than going to great lengths and jumping through hoops not to do so, seems reasonable to me. It also avoids historical revisionism.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an WP:UNDUE descriptor, though, if the article already deals with a person's gender transition adequately (which articles about transgendered people should, where the gender transition is part of their biography in an important way), it isn't necessary to hammer the point home repeatedly that they used to be a different gender; unless one is trying to highlight the point that their former gender is "more valid" or normative when compared to their current, preferred gender. The problem with using qualifiers and additions to an article like "biological male" or "genetic male" or whatever, even if such facts were verifiable and true, is not their verifiability or truthfulness, it's the way the phrasing clearly indicates a non-neutral stance, which is that the gender being so highlighted by phrases like "biologically male" is somehow a person's "real gender", and that the person's self-expressed identity isn't earnest or valid. --Jayron32 01:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to me, and I'd be alright with it, but I'm not advocating that (unless reliable sources commonly do it for the subject). If the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns match their preferred gender, not their biological sex (based on the sex and gender distinction), I'm okay with it as long as factual accuracy (i.e. their biological sex is made clear in the article in the manner you suggested above "deals with a person's gender transition adequately") is maintained in a clear way for readers. I think it should also be made clear if the individual has undergone gender reassignment surgery, assuming its known and relevant (which should generally be the case). Both the aforementioned details are useful when researching a subject.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why speculate? Probably the same reason you are. Oh I'm all for calling a spade a spade when you can actually tell. If you only looked at part of the handle, then it might be a spade but it might be a sledgehammer. And if its owner has been using it as a sledgehammer with some success...
It's great to care about factual accuracy, but then you must use actual facts and not just guesses. If you were to say "Jenner had male genitalia," then I'd say "Yes she did" because we know that "male" was put on her birth certificate and visible male genitalia are the usual reason why. But if you said "Jenner had male chromosomes" I'd ask "Was a karyotype done?" If you said "Jenner had male brain anatomy" I'd ask "Was an fMRI done?" The first of these things is a reasonable assumption but the other two are speculation, and all of them are important parts of a person's biology. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "style issue": "is this person trans?", like "is this person Muslim?", is a content question to be answered by sources (and in both cases, the most reliable source is the person, and Wikipedia requires self-identification). Once sources document that "A" and "B" denote the same person (whether trans or not), though, the question of whether to call them "A" or "B" is a style question. Even with Muhammed Ali, Wikipedia treats the question of whether to say "Clay" or "Ali" as a style rather than a content question, as can be seen from the fact that the article doesn't say "Clay did X in 1955 (ref: bio which uses Clay). Ali did Y in 1956 (ref: bio which calls him Ali throughout). Clay did Z in 1957 (ref: bio which uses Clay)." Instead, it changes sources that use "Ali" into "Clay" to obtain a consistent style. The decision to consistently use "Clay" rather than "Ali" in his early life was made because the fact that most sources use "Clay" was judged to outweigh factors that pushed in the direction of only using his current name; the crafting of MOS:IDENTITY indicates that for trans people, it has been felt that the factors pushing in the direction of "use the current name" (which are outlined above) outweigh the factors pushing for "use the previous name" or "normalize (Ali-style) on whichever name most sources use", etc. Perhaps this discussion will show that that feeling has changed, perhaps not. Note: a thing that is "just a question of style" is sometimes dismissed as unimportant with the implication that any answer is "fine"; it should be clear that isn't the case here; commenters above clearly feel this question is important and that not all answers to it are "fine".
Re names: as Darkfrog says, most names are gender-specific; in some countries such as Germany the law even requires names given at birth to indicate and match a baby's binary sex. Re "denies the self-assertion that Jenner was always a woman... even when she called herself 'Bruce'": Jenner also called herself a man at various times, e.g. when filling out forms, presumably including the ones that were necessary to get a driver's licence and the ones that were needed to enter the men's Olympics. Telling society that you are the person they think you are is a basic (not intrinsic, but common) part of being closeted and concealing who you really are because who you really are would be subjected to discrimination. -sche (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-sche, do you have a source for that law in Germany you mention? I find that curious especially as that country now allows parents of intersex children to leave the sex marker blank on their birth certificates (though I've heard that move was controversial in the intersex community). Regardless, agreed that in many (if not most) countries, names do strongly signify gender, though what is considered a "boy" vs a "girl" name is changing all the time. Funcrunch (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the subject (German name#Forenames) has sources. "The name must indicate the gender of the child." However, checking de.WP, it seems the situation may have changed recently. I'll look into it (and update the en.WP article if it's out-of-date) later. Btw, expanding on what Darkfrog asked — if names weren't gendered, why would so many trans people change names as part of transitioning? — I note that while German law in general does not like to allow name changes, it makes an exception specifically so that, as de.WP says, "transsexuelle Menschen [können] nach dem Transsexuellengesetz ihren Vornamen ändern lassen, so dass er der geschlechtlichen Identität (Gender) entspricht" = "transsexual people can, per the Transsexuality Law, change their first name so that it matches the sexual identity (gender)". (Oh, I notice we have an article on that law which mentions that German name#Forenames is indeed out of date.) -sche (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing

This discusses a clarification to MOS:IDENTITY as recommended in this recent proposal. Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subjects and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.

  • PREVIOUS ONLY: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question.
    Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Larry Wachowski wrote the script for his film in 1994.
  • CURRENT ONLY: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that correspond with their most recent publicly announced self-identification.
    Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; she won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
  • ALWAYS BOTH: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals by both names, concisely; use either name first, as needed.
    Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
  • BOTH IF RELEVANT: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to a transgender individual by both names, concisely, if the previous name is relevant in the context of the article where the reference is made; otherwise, use only the current name.
    Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.) (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
  • ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use the name and gender identity most relevant to the context of the passage in which the reference is made. When it is unclear which one is more suitable, default to the identity that would be used in the main biography.
    Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
  • OTHER (1) = DEPENDS ON CONTEXT: Use the name and gender identity that fits best in the context of the article where the reference is made (principle of least surprise for the reader). When it is unclear which one suits better, default to the identity as defined for the main biography. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.
    Examples: see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ninth draft (proposal 2)
  • OTHER (2): (please explain)

This does not apply to biographical articles about transgender individuals; that is covered here. 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Support ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY

  1. Support This would be consistent with the way any normal name change is treated. A newly married woman can choose whatever naming convention she wishes to use. We accept that from the point in time that she makes such a declaration. We don't go back and rewrite her name into childhood. Transgender people should not have a special exception to go back and rewrite history, particularly when it goes against the core wikipedia policy WP:V. If public records at the time present a particular name, that is the name embedded in history for that event. If our married woman gets divorced and wants to erase her ex-husband's name, there are means to cross reference to the appropriate person but the historical name on the documents remains. Wikipedia provides that cross reference in directing the proper name to the current article which can clearly discuss the reason for the change, whatever it is. Trackinfo (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except this is not consistent with the way any other name change is treated. We don't always keep the "previous" name... instead, we look and see how the majority of sources (written after the name change took place) handle the name change, and follow source usage. So... if the sources decide to "re-write" history, and use the "new" name in historical contexts, then we follow along and do so ourselves. If not, we don't either. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this as an example: List of Wimbledon ladies' singles champions#Open era where names evolve over time. Look at Evonne Goolagong in 1971 and 1972, Evonne Goolagong Cawley in 1976 and beyond. Chris Evert in 1978, Chris Evert-Lloyd in 1979. Those were their names of choice at the time they entered the tournament. Trackinfo (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these examples are cases where the person didn't drop any of their old name, they just added a new name. We definitely need, IMO, to allow us to explicitly link the old name to the new name when the person is better known by the new name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Trackinfo. I could write out an opinion myself, but I'd pointlessly reiterate a lot of what they've already stated.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Though I could certainly see adding a footnote stating current status on first mention in an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. When we are discussing an event, a person named Bruce competed. Nobody named "Caitlyn" competed in the event. Caitlyn won a Women of the Year award. Not "Bruce". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY

  1. Unacceptable Could almost live with it except that sometimes the context makes unavoidable to mention both, e.g. the lede of List of charges in United States v. Manning. For a tennis player comparison see the second paragraph of the lede of 2005 French Open, containing both Justine Henin-Hardenne and Justine Henin. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An excellent example. Henin is referred to without the hyphenated name in the portion referring to the longer term (including after she divorced Hardenne). A historical time reference. Trackinfo (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. strong oppose as completely contrary to BLP and multiple recent previous discussions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With the constant insertion of female pronouns and names we have Transgender women marrying women and fathering children. Those have to be clear, repeat WP:BLP violations for all those other affected people due to wikipedia mis-reporting the identity of who they married or who their "father" was. The current identity is not the person who represented at that time.Trackinfo (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We have transgender women marrying and having children with other women? It's almost like gender identity and biology are two entirely different things. We do not have a duty to falsely represent the subjects of our articles because representing those subjects accurately might require a bluelink. That is, in fact, the precise opposite of our expectations for how content treats human beings. Ironholds (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Totally unacceptable essentially per TRPoD. The idea that this is "just how we handle people" simply falls apart when you look at how content does, practically, handle name-changes - around noble titles, particularly - where we tend to consistently use either the title'd name or the non-title'd name and not switch halfway through. Ironholds (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Comment Per the "treat transgender individuals like everyone else" argument, both Wikipedia editors and the wider world treat transgender name changes like a special case, and there's nothing wrong with the MOS reflecting that reality. If that ever changes, we can update the MoS then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ALWAYS CURRENT ONLY

  1. Support I see this option as the best for getting in line with the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. It is also the best option for dealing with the issue of deadnaming. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 12:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MellowMurmur: Letting an advocacy organization influence how certain groups are described is highly inappropriate and against core policies.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: Can you be more specific? I do not see advocacy organizations mentioned in the article you linked. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 11:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MellowMurmur: WP:NPOV for example. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. GLAAD's own website states "Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture." WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: We can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aspiring to a NPOV involves representing disparate views, not excluding them. MOS:IDENTITY explicitly says that, when usage in reliable sources is mixed, use the terms that a group uses for itself. How could we do that without considering the recommendations of organizations like GLAAD on LGBT-related issues?--Trystan (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Trystan: Hopefully that wording will change with the two concurrent RfCs about MOS:IDENTITY (i.e. this one and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals). This issue shouldn't be treated differently from anything else, or made to be a drastic exception. However, you're correct, the current wording paints us in a corner regarding your last sentence.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To briefly clarify: "I see this option as the best for getting in line with the GLAAD Media Reference Guide." I'm objecting to getting "in line" (or in other words conforming) to an advocacy groups guidelines, as opposed to following reliable sources, as we do for everything else.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a native english speaker and feeling a bit under fire here. Allow me to elaborate that I choose to mention the GLAAD Media Reference Guide here because it comes from people who have been spending a lot of time and energy on something very similar to what Wikipedians seem to be trying to do here. Namely figuring out best practices for writing about transgender individuals. What Trystan wrote sums up the intention of my contribution. The WP links you are offering seem to be dealing with how to write articles more than setting guidelines for what to say or not say at the village pump. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 17:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The links I offered (because you requested that I be more specific) do indeed deal with how to write articles, as does your suggestion. I've offered above how I feel we should alternatively handle it. We simply disagree, there is no need "feel... under fire", because we hold different opinions. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: I believe these two proposals are only intended to deal with the gender identity subsection of MOS:IDENTITY. The text I am referring to, "if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses", is in the general part of the guideline, and applies to all groups. (It used to be followed by an example of choosing between Jew and Jewish person.)--Trystan (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Trystan: In those cases, that may be a reasonable place to turn, as long as preceding text of the guideline (i.e. "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources") has been followed. I was confused by your characterization of the guideline above "when usage in reliable sources is mixed" which isn't the same as what it actually states.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ALWAYS BOTH

  1. Support This seems like it would work reasonably well. It's not at all rare for an actor to have "John Smith (credited as John A. Smith)" after their names. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor example. We only do that when a name is credited differently from the commonly accepted stage name. When Marion Morrison started his career, he was credited as Duke Morrison. Once established, nobody every questioned him being credited as John Wayne. Trackinfo (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that if we cite one of Wayne's earliest movies, we'd say "John Wayne (credited as Duke Morrison)." You know, I think the ALWAYS BOTH option should be a plan B. We should go with BOTH IF RELEVANT and then only switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights over when it's relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I would support this for any case were someone has become widely known by more than one name, in the interests of clear writing. It is much clearer to let readers know they may know of Lew Alcindor as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or that Leningrad is the same city as modern day St. Petersburg. While I don't think it is an egregious anachronism to say that Cary Grant was born in Bristol or that Michelle Obama attended Princeton, we should write in a way that both clarifies the name in use at the time and informs the reader they may know of the individual by another name.--Trystan (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Not just for transgendered people but for any proper name changes, where entity A is now know as entity B but at the time of point of coverage they were known as A. This option helps the reader in two ways: if they need to search for more sources beyond WP they will know what term to search for as at the time of the point of coverage, and when we are linking to the article on this entity, this will prepare the reader to recognize that they will be landing on a page with a different name but it is the same entity they clicked on. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I would think this only is when the sources or event is before the name change. For events/coverage well after the name change, the current name is sufficient by itself. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. acceptable (second choice) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support; acceptable as an alternative, but I feel that under some circumstances (especially if they're more famous under their new name or their change is well-publicized) it isn't necessary to include the old name. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support (second choice). Sometimes the former name isn't relevant (this is true in both trans and non-trans cases, e.g. Princeton University lists "Michelle Obama" as a graduate, it doesn't use her previous name because it isn't notable/ relevant), so my first choice is "both if relevant (otherwise, only current)". Listing both names strikes a balance, a compromise, between listing only one name or only the other: it provides the benefits of the current name (crediting accomplishments to people under their most up-to-date names rather than fixating on old strings of letters; being recognizable to people who know only the new name; acknowledging the name change and thus avoiding misgendering the person and rejecting their identity; etc), and the benefits of the old name (reproducing whatever sources at the time said about a given event; being recognizable to anyone who knows only the old name). And as Masem notes, it avoids easter-egg links as would result if we used only former names in text (since in almost all cases the articles themselves are at current names). -sche (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as a compromise Not my first choice, but acceptable. This option avoids confusion, and doesn't assume that a reader knows facts which in fact some readers may not know. DES (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support in all cases of name change (not just transgendered people) except where the change is merely adding a new part to the old name (e.g Evonne Goolagong/Evonne Goolagong Cawley) and/or removal of previously added parts (Justine Henin-Hardenne/Justine Henin). This shouldn't apply, however, in a list of then-unnotable people who come from a specific place or graduated from a specific educational institution, etc., such as the Michelle Obama example above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. this is acceptable, though not my first choice. I don't like the MOS pushing us to add clutter to articles, and there are plenty of places where including both may not be the most reasonable option. However, there are many scenarios where this would work fine and not contribute to misunderstandings + it's better than many of the other options. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support (as my first choice).  For articles where the person is not the primary subject of the article, I believe both names should be used.  This would give the reader the maximum amount of information, and without attempting to rewrite history.  (My second choice would be "PREVIOUS ONLY.")
    Richard27182 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support BOTH IF RELEVANT

  1. Support This seems to be the best option to me. EDIT: We should use this rule on a provisional basis. If there are too many fights over what's relevant and what's not, then we auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support under the proviso, ALWAYS includes the current with previous if relevant/necessary-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, with caveat I would put the current name first, as in "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner)", and use the person's currently-preferred pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, with different caveat - it will rarely be relevant, so care should be taken to avoid presuming relevancy where there was none as seen by reliable sources at the time. For example, in an article about the 1976 Olympic Games, there is no obvious relevance to referring to the decathlon winner as any name other than Bruce Jenner or as any gender other than male. Had the events happened 30 years later, there might have been some relevance since, by then, the international sporting community was actively dealing with the issue of transgender athletes who were born male and wanted to compete as female. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You do understand that this option means "always use the current name and only use both if the previous name is relevant," right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, somehow I missed that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That actually is what should be done. The current name should be the default, with clarification using the previous name only if there is a public reason for it (like, everyone pretty much knows what Jenner's name was when she won her gold, anyway, and the media and olympic records reflect it, etc.). TMagen (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are transgender people that have done notable things prior to their transition and abandoned that life and name. Connecting them by this policy would be problematic. "John Smith invents widget, quietly leaves that life and transitions to Jane Doe. Wikipedia updates the widget article to reflect inventors new name/transition even though inventor left that life and name behind." Wikipedia should not be in the business of blindly connecting pre and post transition identities. Suicides have been attributed to such carelessness. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an edge case I worry about. However, every option on this RFC is problematic with regard to that edge case: if the pre- and post-transition names aren't connected in visible text, there'll still be an (easter-eggy) wikilink (if the person is notable enough to have their own article). The question, for me at least, is thus: what's better as the general rule? And I think the answer is: acknowledging the current name visibly. The top of the MOS notes that there may be occasional exceptions to any of its rules. And on the talk page of an article of a widget company where someone was notable enough to be mentioned, but not notable enough to have their own article, you could make a compelling argument that the current name should be handled as one of those exceptions and excluded as WP:UNDUE. -sche (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @-sche: Context matters which is why I chose it. My concern is that there are dogmatic crusaders that care less about the individuals wishes than they do about their agenda. There will be persons that care less about what the individual wants and choose their own dogmatic view. Some of those will argue for pre-transition name only. Others will argue post-transition name always. The truth is that individual choices matter far more than ideology. If Caitlyn Jenner wants her children to call her "dad," we are in no position to oppose this. If she is aware of the infobox picture and chooses not to update it based on her business and personal goals, we shouldn't listen to ideologues that are furious when she is not. If she wants all present day references to use "Caitlyn" we shouldn't say "Bruce" where "Caitlyn" is preferred. We must be sensitive to context over ideologues because there is no universal response that is always correct. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support (first choice), preferably with Funcrunch's caveat. (1) This attributes things to people who did them using the most up-to-date names, rather than fixating on what strings of letters period sources used. Editors seem to find this intuitive in non-trans cases, e.g. Princeton University says "Michelle Obama" graduated from there in 1985 even though her surname wasn't "Obama" until 1992. (2) It avoids unnecessarily misgendering people, which jars many readers/ editors and is incorrect because scientific understanding from brain studies etc. is that e.g. a trans man was never a woman and one cannot accurately say "she did X" or "he was a woman until he came out at 23" any more than "John was attracted to women until he came out as gay at 24" or "diseases were caused by miasma until about the 1880s, when germs began to cause them". (3) Where a previous name is relevant/notable, this allows for it, so as to inform people who expect the previous name either based on their knowledge or the context (as in the Olpymic example, where the inclusion of the previous name clarifies why Jenner was participating in the men's competition), while also having the current name for the reasons above and because (especially younger) readers who know only a new name (especially of someone who transitioned further in the past than Jenner) will not recognize the old name and may not think to click a wikilink, if the person is even notable enough that one is possible (such links are easter eggs, anyway). Reasons 1 and 2 are why I prefer this to "always both". -sche (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support This places things into historical context but respects the person's current status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Funcrunch, although in the given example and related situations, I would retain "(credited as Larry Wachowski)" since the name a credit appears under is generally going to be relevant. —烏Γ (kaw), 02:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, although I would say that in the second case, the former name (but not the former gender) is relevant because readers might be surprised to see that Lana wrote the movie when the credits say Larry. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems the best option, though I agree with Funcrunch's caveat. While I have this page on my watchlist and saw it that way, I was also pointed to this discussion by a post to my talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. They're all problematic in some way, but this seems like the least problematic. Some kind of note is probably required to explain non-intuitive situations, such as sportspeople. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, although with several caveats. I would always give their current name precedence, so it would be eg. "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner)" or something similar rather than the reverse. On the other hand, I would want to define "relevant" somewhat broadly -- generally, if people are likely to be reading this section of an article or parsing a list looking for a specific name, then we should have the name there somewhere to avoid confusion. The main questions to me are "are there likely to be significant numbers of people who will read this looking for a specific name, and only know that name, even if it's out of date?" And, more generally, "are there significant numbers of people likely to be confused by this, whether because they're only familiar with the old name or whatever?" If so, we should generally have both names. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support, without pronouns - I would suggest the name in use at the time is usually relevant - including how a writing credit for Lana Wachowski would have appeared in the work. I suppose there are a few cases where it wouldn't be, along the lines of "Lana Wachowski attended Oxbridge", where you don't really need to know the name in use at the time. I would remove the pronouns from the examples; it is trivially easy to avoid them when mentioning someone in passing. While it is an historical fact that Jenner was named Bruce at the time, the issue of whether she was always a trans woman or only became one when she transitioned will be highly contested.--Trystan (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support I believe this option and "only the more relevant" are the most reasonable, but I'm more inclined to support the latter, since this one produces potentially unnecessary clutter, and redirect links would make the disambiguation clear in the latter. --Waldir talk 09:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. The current name should be the default, and the previous name should be used for clarification, context, or any other reason that is important to understanding the content (for example, if all the sources are from the time, and refer to the person by the previous name). TMagen (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, provided "current only" is the preferred option & 'relevance' is a higher standard than 'this is the name sources used at the time'. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, in that I think my cavaets on the previous option (the USE BOTH ALWAYS) amount to this at the basic level, or at least my opinion sits somewhere between these at a high level. I do stress that relevancy should be based on sources at the time if we are talking a date event, as to make sure the reader has a good awareness of search terms to do their own research as well, and common sense does come into play (ala the Michelle Obama example). --MASEM (t) 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support As others have pointed out, it will not always be necessary to use both names. When it is, the current name should be put first. I would write it thus: "Caitlyn Jenner (then known as Bruce Jenner). I include the "known as" because it's not that she was a different person then; she was just known by a different name. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support parenthetical dual-naming as an appropriate style when readers' might otherwise be confused or draw false inference. Vannie227 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT

  1. This option seems more in line with WP:Trans?, already in use. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as long as the name is wiki-linked, this seems to be the most useful for readers, since it avoids cluttering the text while providing proper disambiguation to the current gender (either by using a redirect or a piped link). --Waldir talk 09:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support OTHER (1) = DEPENDS ON CONTEXT

  1. Support, for reasons explained at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support using the most relevant names depending on the context. This is how we deal with choosing historical vs modern names in other articles... I see no reason why we should handle name changes that are due to gender identity any differently. Sometimes (mostly in list articles) we only mention one name (because only one name is relevant in that context)... but at other times (mostly in more sentence based articles) we give multiple names (because both names may be relevant in that context). In other words... this simply isn't an issue that can be resolved by one-size-fits-all ALWAYS THIS or ONLY THAT "rules" - It's a SOMETIMES THIS BUT SOMETIMES THAT issue, that can only be resolved by giving editors flexibility to reach a consensus. Which names to use (whether the "former" name, the "new" name, or both) should be determined on a case by case basis. I Oppose framing this as a one-size-fits-all "rule" with ALWAYS and ONLY "rules", because different solutions will be appropriate in different contexts. Context and source usage drive which names are used, not our own biases. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tx! I knew this proposal wasn't too difficult to grasp. Tx again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support a variant: Use #1:PREVIOUS ONLY unless context dictates otherwise "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question" unless context demands using both names or conceivably, in rare cases, the other name. In an article about the 1976 Olympics, the winner of the decathlon is Bruce Jenner, and the pronoun-gender is male. In an article or about famous transgender people, it could go either "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn) won the decathlon" or "Caitlyn (then Bruce) Jenner won the male decathlon" with a pronoun gender of male or female respectively. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support essentially for the same reasons as Blueboar plus the additional caveat that always- and only-types of rules sometimes result in absurdities. An article about the 1976 Olympics needn't go beyond mentioning the name (then) of the winner of a particular event. This is the name that will be in contemporary sources, and this is the name that someone familiar with the subject would expect to see. An article about transgender athletes would be an appropriate place to mention both names. An article about some recent event (post-change) where the same individual made an appearance or was presented an award needn't mention any but the current name of the individual who attended and, if relevant, the individual's gender (one place it is usually relevant is when an appropriate pronoun is used, at which point the gender is implied rather than stated). It might be a good idea to have a default option when it isn't completely clear from the context which option to use. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as a matter of historical accuracy balanced with common sense. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for historical accuracy. The historical achievement was made using a certain name, and that name should always be connected with the achievement. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as sources are likely to identify contextual relevance. There are no hard and fast rules and the individual will have different levels of difference to dead names. We should not presume hat someone wishes to be linked to the accomplishments of their dead name so context matters. If a person was previously a male athlete record holder and transitions, we should not presume that they wish to be known as a male athlete record holder. PC police are not the BLP police. --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Just as usage in reliable sources (which we should follow without good reasons not to) will vary from case to case, so our usage should vary. In sports articles (excepting special ones like LGBT Olympians) it's enough to call Jenner simply "Bruce Jenner"; Jenner being transgender or her later name Caitlyn are not in any way relevant (indeed, repeatedly noting them would give them undue weight) and only serve to confuse things. (When she publicly announced her new name Caitlyn and identity as a woman, there were very unfortunate attempts by at least one editor to credit Jenner with records in women's athletics, sources not required.) In other articles it may be appropriate to use Bruce, Bruce (later Caitlyn), Caitlyn (then Bruce) or simply Caitlyn, depending on how relevant each name is. Sideways713 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Similar to option 5 above, we should generally follow the reliable sources. If there is any plausible confusion, we should give both names, putting the one favored by reliable sources in the context involved first. I mostly agree with Sideways713 above. DES (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Context is always more important than maintaining a single dogma. It would be ludicrous to say that Caitlyn Jenner won a medal in an article about the event in which the medal was won. Caitlyn Jenner didn't; Bruce Jenner did. This is making no comment on Jenner's gender identity at the time. It is simply stating a fact. The same with Lana Wachowski. Lana Wachowski did not make films before 2012; Larry Wachowski did. Again, that is making no comment on Wachowski's gender identity at the time. It is simply stating a fact. We do not practise revisionism on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support This does not happen enough to justify making hard rules. Check context and build precedents for more time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support There are obviously times when a new name is not relevant, such as in an article about a television series that ended 30 years ago. What has happened to anyone since then has little relevance to the series so there is no need to include the new name. What is important in such a case is what happened at the time. On the other hand, there may be cases where inluding both the old name and new name may be necessary. What to do in any case should be determined based on context. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Context matters. In the case of the historical record of Olympic results, "Bruce Jenner" is relevant and making note of the decades later change to her current identity/name as Caitlyn is not. I view this in similar vein to athletes who compete under one name and later got married. The record is rarely changed retroactively. But this is only one example, and it is foolish to tie ourselves down to an all or none situation. There will undoubtedly be cases where such individuals are mentioned in passing, but for which the use of both names, a later name or a footnote will be important. But as a general rule, articles or lists that document the historical record should be left as-is. Anachronisms are unencyclopedic. Resolute 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support From a historian's standpoint, all names are relevant to building the profile of a person; however, that being said, privacy issues must be taken into consideration, especially on BLP. We don't re-write history nor push POV. Name changes happen often with women in certain cultures and knowing all of the links becomes essential for building their timeline. On the other hand, there are times when people have chosen to disassociate with a prior life and those choices must be respected. There is no rule for all contingencies. Common sense, when the notability in life occurred, whether a prior identity is relevant or disclosure might cause harm must all be weighed. If one doesn't have the ability to analyze, mayhaps they need to leave that article for someone else to write, rather than creating a hard and fast rule. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please give a better description to the option described as "Other 1". Georgia guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to do so yourself; add it as "OTHER (2)" – I might like it and change my !vote. Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to discussion on WT:MOS, I have notified the two WikiProjects which are directly concerned with this topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies (diff) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style (diff). -sche (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of using appropriate historical names impacts a lot of projects... so please alert more than just those two. For example, as can be seen from our using the choice of Bruce vs Caitlyn Jenner as an example, I think you should have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports (I have corrected the omission). We should give this as wide an audience as possible, so if anyone thinks a project should be notified, please do so. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea, BB. I also plan to hit up the bio noticeboard, and if anyone wants to get started on notifying the participants in the previous discussion, that'd be great. Just do it on their personal talk pages so we don't get any double-alerts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The more comments I see on this the more I come to believe that BOTH IF RELEVANT would be the best choice, but ALWAYS BOTH is less likely to cause fights. I think we should adopt BOTH IF RELEVANT on a six-month provisional basis and then auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights or too much trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Question, suppose the person does not want to have explained about his or her transgender, has this been discussed before? Lotje (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I don't know. But MOS:IDENTITY has included the words "unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise" for a long time. I don't see that it would be a big problem to add those words to this part of the rule too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored... if reliable sources discuss someone's transgender, so can we. While we try to respect the desires of the subject of an article, we are not limited by them. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar has it exactly, though I'd add that it's fine to use the person's preferences where they do not contradict this. On transgender issues, the fact that it is polite to refer to someone by his or her preferred gender pronoun ordinarily wouldn't hold much weight, but because the jury is so far from being in on things like reliable sources, the biological realities underlying transgenderism, and whether this is a correction or a change, then it serves as a pretty good tiebreaker. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Darkfrog24.  I agree with you when you write that "ALWAYS BOTH is less likely [than BOTH IF RELEVANT] to cause fights."  But I'm not so sure about your proposed solution of "adopt[ing] BOTH IF RELEVANT on a six-month provisional basis and then auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights or too much trouble."  After six months, who or what criterion would be making that decision?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We look around and observe whether anyone's been fighting over it. I guess we could also ask the participants here to keep their eyes open. The good thing about hosting MOS:IDENTITY at the MoS is that a lot of the time, people post notices of disputes at WT:MOS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of the "Oppose ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY" category.  All the other categories are "support" categories; why does "ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY" have its own "oppose" category?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, no option had an 'oppose' section. However, enough people posted explicit objections / comments on the problems of that option that someone thought it would improve the readability of the thread to put those objections in a subsection. -sche (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I know I'm not the first person to bring this up, but it's important and I think it deserves more attention than it's getting.  One of the problems with using the current identity only is potential conflicts with WP:BLP.  Suppose a female trans (while still biologically male and still publicly identifying as a man) had married a woman (let's say the fictitious Mary Smith).  If we must always use the current name only, then we would have to write "[trans current name] married Mary Smith."  Mary Smith may feel this implies that she is a lesbian, and if so, may feel insulted, maybe even libeled.  Our only real option would be to make no mention of the marriage at all!  How would the proponents of CURRENT ONLY propose to handle this kind of situation?
Richard27182 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a current-only supporter, but I do feel we should make a presumption in favour of current pronouns, so issue does come up. I'd say: "Prior to coming out as a trans woman, she married Mary Smith."--Trystan (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A LOT depends on which article we are talking about... and who the subject of the sentence is. Is the "she" referring to the trans-gender person, or to the non-transgender spouse? In an article about the non-transgender spouse (Let's call her "Susan"), it is both inaccurate, and potentially harmful to say "In 1993, she married Mary Smith". Saying that implies that Susan is lesbian. I think we should say "In 1993, she married Joe Smith".
Now... if Mary is notable in her own right (and also has an article)... I think it appropriate to link the name "Joe Smith" to the Mary Smith article (where the transition from "Joe" to "Mary" should be explained). If Joe/Mary isn't notable (and thus does not have an article to link to)... then we have another question to ask... is the issue of Mary's current trans-gender identity relevant to Susan's life. It may not be... and if not, then there is no reason to mention it in the article on Susan. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Trystan has it right. While generally it is not necessary to go into detail that a person is trans, briefly referring to it to prevent confusion is fine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We actually did raise the issue of contacting transgender organizations (or at least transgender Wikipedians) when working out the wording of these two threads, but it was determined that the possible votestacking effect would outweigh the benefits of the insight that they could provide. At least one transgender Wikipedian has volunteered an opinion here anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of articles about ethnic groups of the United States

WP:PLURAL and WP:NCET have been used in Talk:Korean Americans, Talk:African American, Talk:Tamil American, Talk:Japanese Americans, and other related discussions about ethnic groups of the United States. Inconsistency remains the problem here. I was advised to do a central discussion. I tried that in Proposals page, but only a couple editors participated. Some argue that "(something) American(s)" should be singularized or pluralized.

In articles about ethnic groups of Americans, which form should be used for the article title?

  1. xyz American
  2. xyz Americans

Credit goes to Mandruss for this version underlined. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of RfC statement. Place "vote" in section: RfC survey: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups.
I have done move requests on certain titles of ethnic groups articles, but I've seen conflict that should have resolved more quickly than it had not. I still am in favor of pluralizing "(something) Americans", but the matter is either article content, such as of Tamil American, African American and Korean Americans, or guidelines and policies related to titling and ethnic groups. Thoughts and/or proposals? Regarding titles named after ethnic groups of Americans, go for "[XYZ] American" or "[XYZ] Americans"? George Ho (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a proposal yet, User:Filpro. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, I do want to see if anyone doesn't support it and for what reasons.Filpro (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Actually, Filpro, I didn't properly read your first response, so now it can be a proposed if you want to interpret it that way. I'll allow votes, so you can add back yours. At first I didn't intend it as proposal, but this might be another proposal attempt. --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Consistency is marked inactive. I believe you want WP:NC. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • George, how does this get us anywhere? You haven't made any actual proposal, just rambled a bit. Replace it with something like, for ethnicity articles of Americans, should the format be "[XYZ] American" or "[XYZ] Americans"? As it stands, this discussion is destined to go nowhere and end with no community decision being made. Jenks24 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do it right? George Ho (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: See User:Mandruss/sandbox. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drcrazy102: There is no proposal, only a question. It is stated above, underscored, and followed by two possible answers. As seen below, it's possible to !vote with something else as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Ok, that is confusing then with the extra text below it. Would you mind if I used the {{cot}}/{{cob}} templates to hide the visual text and put in a line to place "votes" in the survey area to clarify? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drcrazy102: It wouldn't bother me, and I know of no rule that would preclude you doing that. If someone disagrees that it's an improvement, they can revert you. However, the survey section is very common and so I don't think it needs explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss ... and ...  Done. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Much clearer now. Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC survey: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups

RfC discussion: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups

My reaction to the "Editorial choice" !vote is that it pretty much presumes that a small group of that class is representative of the entire class when it comes to this preference. That seems fairly error-prone and not a good use of editorial choice. The class did not elect these people to represent them at Wikipedia. It also means we could well be doing a move every few years as the mix changes. Finally, how do we go about verifying that the editors involved in the editorial choice are in fact members of the class? If they are not members, why should their preference have any weight per this argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Mandruss. My reaction to your reaction is that it pretty much presumes that a small group of that class (the writters) is representative of the entire class when it comes to this preference. That seems fairly error-prone and not a good use of user's choice. The class did not elect these people to represent them at the MOS board. It also means we could well be doing a move every few years as the mix changes. Finally, how do we go about verifying that the people involved in the style choice are in fact members of the writtting class? If they are not members, why should their preference have any weight per this argument? Pldx1 (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1: Sorry, could you rephrase? I don't see what you're saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone checked to see what the various style guides (AP, etc.) say about this issue? Seems likely they would have some guidelines.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? We're talking about a highly-Wikipedia-specific issue, which is "what do we title our articles here at Wikipedia" and not "what should we call people groups". In normal text, normal English grammar would apply, no one is disputing any of that. This is a specific-to-Wikipedia issue dependent on our own conventions for titling articles. --Jayron32 03:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of "deadnaming" in discussions

Related to the MOS:IDENTITY revision in progress, I've seen editors strongly criticize other editors for "deadnaming". See this User_talk:Checkingfax#Warning discussion for an example. The very use of the word seems to be a presumptuous accusation of bad faith. Clarification on how to deal with style guideline violations along with our policies of BLP and AGF should be made. Choor monster (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choor - could you explain what "deadnaming" is. I have never seen the term used before, and I am not quite sure what it refers to. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deadnaming is referring to a trans person by the name they were assigned at birth after they have changed their name. This term is used whether the action was deliberate or not, as the birth-assigned name is "dead" to that person, and potential harm is caused by the action regardless of intent. Funcrunch (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the mere use of the word amounts to an accusation of bad faith. It's certainly debatable whether and how the concept applies to our work in building an encyclopedia, but let's not shut down that discussion by outlawing vocabulary. If an editor is clearly making accusations of bad faith or otherwise behaving problematically, we can respond to them as always: shrug off what you can, try to engage constructively where possible, report when necessary.--Trystan (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have only seen it used as a pejorative. It certainly sounds like a pejorative in my uninvolved experience, and I presume many others would take it the same way.
I'm not calling for any outlawing. I just think it should be handled like "troll" or "sock" or other accusations. Very carefully, and never in a shoot-first-ask-questions-later manner, per AGF. In the linked-to discussion I gave above, the use of "deadnaming" seems to have poisoned the discussion immediately, and it is this that I am objecting to. Choor monster (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, you have "uninvolved experience." I am a trans person and I have direct experience with this. Saying that "deadnaming" is a "pejorative" in the way that "troll" is implies that there is some value judgment on the person taking the action, rather than on the action itself. The point is that regardless of the intent, deadnaming a trans person can cause them significant harm. Funcrunch (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my point entirely. I am not discussing the issue of editors using birth names—that's the discussion going higher up on this page. I am discussing the question of editors being criticized in a manner that can and will easily be taken as an accusation of bad faith harm-causing. You are speaking as someone familiar with the word and its nuances. I am speaking as someone not familiar. I expect the majority of uses here on WP will be by someone familiar against someone unfamiliar. Choor monster (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Some words/phrases (Troll, Kike, Fag) are of such a nature that any reasonable person would know that they are offensive. Others (Oriental, Dwarf, calling a trangendered person by their former name, calling a member of the Nation of Islam by their former name) are offensive, but there are a lot of people who don't yet know that the words/phrases are offensive. In such cases, we should AGF and gently let them know that another words/phrase is preferred rather than firing up the flamethrower first thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel discussion on transgender authors in citations

There is a discussion I started here on the question of how we should refer to transgendered authors in citations. Citations are different, they serve a reference purpose. I see no particular reason why they should have the same policy as MOS:IDENTITY, nor a reason to apply different criteria based on which article the citation is made in. I think it would be a good idea to have some agreement on this before whatever conclusion is reached regarding MOS:IDENTITY gets applied willy-nilly to citations. Choor monster (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MOS:IDENTITY does not apply to citations. A citation should always use the name that appears on the cited source itself. This is so readers can find the source should they wish to review it. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated at the link, there are more questions, related to the fact that often enough, multiple works are cited under different names of the same author. Or a book is reprinted using the changed name. How helpful do we want to be? Choor monster (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's permitted by the arbitration committee, you could use |first1=|last1=|first2=|last2=| or |author1=|author2=| tags in the same citation to include their live name and their dead name. I assume this is only an issue for periodicals that are republished using a new live name? Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's ArbCom have to do with this? Author 1 and Author 2 is really bad, it gives the impression there are two authors, say husband and wife. Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherr issue is tracking down further works by a given author. A work by "John Doe", includes references to forthcoming work, which turns out is published by "Jane Doe", but not that you would know from a fully accurate citation or from the John Doe work. MathSciNet provides great "authority control", so if you are looking things up in mathematics, it really doesn't matter, multiple names are automatically linked. But JSTOR apparently does not link names, so if you look things up there and don't know about the name change, you miss out on finding what you're looking for. Choor monster (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which version of the book do you have open in your lap while you are citing? Take the name from that version. --Jayron32 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what good is that when the version that is easily available to some of our readers is the other version, and they can't figure out what's going on? And if someone modifies the citation to include both versions, is this or is this not appropriate? Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name used in the publication should be retained, even if the author's name has changed. This is important because the "dead" name may well be entrenched in citations and in the text of other works. There is a precedence in the use of the maiden name of a woman who changes her name on marriage. For books, if there is a new edition that uses the living name, then that edition should be used if possible.
The middle name is often given as an initial and the first initial is sometimes used in place of a first name. In the case of an author known to be transgender, perhaps it would be suitable to use the "dead" initial when that is the name used in the paper. For example, if Alice B. Smith's dead name is Bob B. Smith, you could use "Smith, B. B." even if other citations use the whole first name. Another advantage is that initials don't suggest a gender, and in some cases the initial might remain the same.
We should also consider whether it is appropriate to state both names. Should a citation under the dead name mention the author's name? Should a citation under the living name mention the dead name? On one hand, mentioning both names ensures that the author as a person receives recognition for all their work. On the other, it draws attention to the fact that the person is transgender.
The guideline should not make editors work on a case-by-case basis, and it should not generate frequent objections. Even if the intentions are good, adding a barrier for citing transgender authors may cause editors to avoid citing them. Roches (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point of any guideline here is to preempt edit wars. It will not force any editor to give an ultra-complete citation and it will not create any barrier to anyone just entering the obvious data. But it could allow, possibly encourage, wikignomes to add alternative names if the original editor did not, just like they currently add ISBN or JSTOR links at times. Or consensus would be to discourage or disallow such editing. That's why there ought to be a discussion. Reasonable arguments can be made for various views, and if there is no clear guideline, there will be edit wars.
The point of including both names when a book has been republished under a new name is to enable our readers to have a slightly easier time finding the sources. Some databases do a good job of linking multiple names, some do a poor job or none whatsoever. If someone entered "Bob B Smith" in a cite with no indication that the book also exists in an edition authored by "Alice B Smith", some people are not going to be able to find the book.
Considering that these names are buried in a citation, the impact on transgendered authors will be no worse than already exists in academic citations. Choor monster (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=685946206"