Review changes — See recent changes on the project watchlist, or visit article alerts to discuss proposals for featured articles, deletions, moves, and more.
This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Draft for a proposed new MOS:Deadname RfC
Here is my draft so far, please comment on any needed changes before it’s started.
[see new draft in section below]
Please use the last section for discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MOS:Deadname only states: “In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".”
[Rfc note]
Should we add to this to address two main loopholes: per the dignity of the person and respect to their families, we should 1. minimize our deadnaming to the bare minimum of these people as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm; and 2. in the case where the person was not notable under their deadname, it should never be used in article space, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources.
So there are a couple of things here that bear discussion.
First is the question of using a loaded term in our official guidelines. Calling a birthname instead as a "deadname" prejudices people against it automatically and accepts a certain POV as correct and true. So we should think carefully about introducing POV terms into Wikipedia's own documentation and culture. At the present moment, the term "deadname" only exists in the shortcut, i.e. MOS:DEADNAME and nowhere else in the documentation (which might make it confusing for someone unfamiliar with the neologism.)
Secondly is the question of definition. This guideline is invoked for all "transgender and non-binary people". It is a fact that some such people do not consider their birthname to be a "deadname", or shameful or something to be suppressed. So are we content to continue defining "deadname" as the birth name of any transgender or non-binary person? Or should there be a certain threshold pertaining to the transition or naming itself? Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, we can rework how and if ‘deadname’ is incorporated—“so-called deadnaming”?, let’s see if anyone has ideas on that as well.
”some such people do not consider their birthname to be a "deadname"”; a deadname could also be a married name, but we could posit that idea although my hunch is that including a catch all—“case-by-case” exceptions—might solve that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether "deadname" is a loaded word in this specific case. It seems to be the most commonly accepted term for the birth name of someone who changed their name because they did not identify with their assigned gender. This is obviously different to people who change their name for non-gender-related reasons.
That said, I think the RfC itself would be less leading with pared down wording like: "If a transgender or non-binary subject was not notable under their birth name, should we avoid mentioning the birth name altogether in the article text?" Might also be worth citing the precautionary principle and the potential of the deadname to do harm. I could imagine some outcome like always omitting the birth name by default but being able to "opt in" if the subject is on record in RS saying they don't care if people mention it. Armadillopteryxtalk07:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support officially confirming that a trans person's birth name (often known as a "deadname") should be considered private information [and can be suppressed] unless the trans person in question was notable under that name or is publicly okay with people using it. (And I phrased my support with my preferred language.) If they were notable under that name, it should still be kept to a minimum, and substituting their current name for their birth name should constitute an exception to MOS:IDENTITY. Loki (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think since the target community benefiting from this has risen ‘deadnaming’ as the name for this concept I’m positive it should be in the final language, currently I’m at “usually a birth name, and usually misgendering— so-called deadnaming”. But it’s evolving. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! As far as the terminology is concerned, I am partial of saying something like "previous names of the incorrect gender" as opposed to 'deadname' or 'birthname'. It may be on the long side, but I feel like unlike 'deadname', it is not dismissed as a loaded/biased term by some AND unlike 'birthname', it makes it clear that the issue is about misgendering, and is specific of trans people, leaving little room for the all too common wikilawyering about "birth names being factual, basic information and therefore we absolutely must publish them". cave (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As we are serving trans folk, and deadnaming is their POV, I want to honor that, and educate the editors. How it’s done Best is tbd.I want to be open to *any* non-notable name, not just birth, and not just one that unquestionably misgenders. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "case-by-case" is simultaneously too broad and too limiting. Trans people, being individuals, have a variety of relationships to their pre-transition names; for some it is very much a dead name, for some, not so much. So I think this restriction should be specified apply to those who have not expressed an open connection to their former name, and that we default to assuming that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I had understood the "case-by-case" wording to be a part of the question in the RfC itself, not the language that would be added to MOS:DEADNAME. I think that the text to be added to the MOS needs to be explicit both about the default approach (i.e. adding or not adding the birth name to the article) and about what qualifies as an exception. Armadillopteryxtalk16:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MOS:Deadname only states: “In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".” (Followed with examples.) It only addresses deadnaming in the lead.
[RfC note]
Should we add to this to address loopholes: per the dignity of the person and respect to their families, we should by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and 1. minimize misgendering as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm; and 2. in the case where the subject was not notable under a former name, usually a birth name, and often misgendering—so-called deadnaming, should we avoid mentioning the name altogether in article space, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sourc?s.
I would recommend removing and respect to their families as unnecessary/understood as a part of the dignity phrase. Could the phrase usually a birth name, and often misgendering—so-called deadnaming be removed or changed as well? It seems like it interrupts, and since the proposed addition to the guideline would clearly be in a section concerning trans and non-binary people, I don't think removing the phrase would be confusing ("misgendering" is mentioned before in number 1 of the proposal, and we can add (deadnaming) in parentheses right after it to keep that word in. In number two, we have "former name" so there won't be a lack of clarity there). Other options would be "under a former name that misgenders them, should we avoid ..." I think the closer we can get to Armadillopteryx's "pared down" version, the better probably. Wording aside, this seems like it has been the default practice of well-meaning editors on these articles. It would be good to make it explicit in the MOS.--MattMauler (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about RfC wording like this?
Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to include the following text? "Per the precautionary principle, care should be exercised to avoid the possibility of deadnaming transgender and non-binary subjects. If such a subject was not notable under their birth name, then that name should not, by default, be included in our articles. An exception can be made for subjects on record in reliable sources stating that they do not consider mention of their birth name to be deadnaming."Armadillopteryxtalk21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409:Chelsea Manning was added as an example in 2015 (by User:-sche; and Laverne Cox was added at the same time). Before proposing new wording for the section, can you explain what problem you are trying to solve? Or in other words, what is wrong with the way it is now? Unless a clear case can be made for something wrong, or something missing in the current version, I think we should just leave it alone. Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that many transgender and non-binary people consider mention of their birth name to be deadnaming, even though some appear to not care if the name is mentioned so long as it is not used. There is a little background on that in our article on the subject. The current wording of MOS:DEADNAME addresses use of the birth name in the lead section of articles, but it does not address articles as a whole. Right now there are articles where the birth name is mentioned only in the Early life section, but the MOS does not clearly state whether or not that should be allowed. I think this RfC would be useful since BLP policy normally errs on the side of doing the least possible harm. Armadillopteryxtalk21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: The current wording is only about the lead, letting editors think they can birth names of trans people in the article just not in the lead (e.g., the early life section, personal life section, or infobox). See discussion in, say Talk:Peppermint (entertainer), where people have this interpretation. Umimmak (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a trans editor, I've been speaking out for a long time against the deadnaming of trans people anywhere in articles if they weren't notable by that name. See my profile page for some talks I've given on this issue. I'm all for a new RfC on this subject, and I would like the wording to be even more direct, though I'm fine using the term "birth name" before mentioning the less familiar term deadname.
So here's my preferred wording:
Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to read as follows? "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence article only when the person was notable under that name."
I like this wording a lot—in fact, it's my favorite so far.
I do think it would still be useful to include a clause about what to do with subjects that state publicly that they don't mind mention of what the birth name was so long as it is not used to refer to them in the present. That's probably a small minority of trans folk, but there are some, and they might as well be accounted for explicitly to remove doubt. Armadillopteryxtalk23:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of any examples of such cases off the top of your head, Armadillopteryx? I'd prefer Funcrunch's wording as the simplest but if there are cases where public figures really are this explicit about what they do and don't mind then I agree that it's worth taking into account. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not off the top of my head—I just thought to bring it up because most trans people in my circles don't care if you know what their birth name was and often share it openly if they're talking about their transition process; they're just clear that no one is to call them by that name in the present. I don't think it's that farfetched that some notable person could have the same view. I think that Funcrunch's suggestion should certainly be the default (and in practice will likely apply most of the time). I just think it couldn't hurt to bring it up in the RfC since it's probably a rare but realistic situation. Naturally, if most participants of the RfC object to adding this bit to the MOS, then we won't. Armadillopteryxtalk00:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree and will work to incorporate in the next draft.
@Funcrunch:, my hunch is to link to deadnaming, and improve that article to address real and perceived harm as we’re educating editors and the public.
Armadillopteryx, I have a hunch that any non-cisgender people who don’t mind their former names being used will have such names in a good percentage of reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. My point is that our default policy will probably be to omit the birth name even if it appears in RS, but an exception could be considered if the subject actually says they are okay with it being known/mentioned—otherwise, we should keep it out no matter how many RS include it. Armadillopteryxtalk00:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft 3 of proposed RfC
Please use the last section for discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[rfc note]
Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names, including birth names, should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).]
Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize misgendering—so-called deadnaming—as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm. Avoid using the name, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources.
——————-
Q: Why is this needed?
A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”.
Respectfully, this is difficult to read. Is there a reason the first part can't simply read as how I proposed in the Draft 2 section, requiring the modification of only two words in the original guideline:
Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to read as follows? "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence article only when the person was notable under that name."
The rest of the current guideline, with the examples of Chelsea Manning and Laverne Cox, seems fine as-is. As for the explanatory text (for the RfC only, not to be included in the MoS), I would simplify it to say something like:
It may also be more effective to limit the RFC question itself to the brief proposal to change the guideline, and post the explanatory text as a comment in response to the RFC. RFCs can easily be derailed by arguments over whether the question is neutrally phrased.--Trystan (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funcrunch, if I thought that a pared down version would end all the Wikilawyering done misgendering people I would leave it, but we need to cover a lot of ground.That’s Why it’s about all article space, not just the article, and any former name, not just an assumed birth name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good intentions noted, but I expect Wikilawyering will happen regardless. And it's unclear even to me, an editor for over 11 years, what you mean by article "space". Funcrunch (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the spirit should be obvious to help the many editors who probably aren’t educated on the nuances. We want to preempt as much edit-warring as possible. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s to help stop, for example, putting the deadname under a disambiguous page [John Foo (Mary Foo), American entertainer], or in any list article, or any article that mentions them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with Funcrunch's proposal to just update the one word/phrase, and with leaving the rationale as a comment rather than part of the RfC question. If you want to clarify that a non-notable deadname should not be used in any article (not just "the article"), I think it would read as more fluent to say ...should be included in the lead sentence any article only when.... -sche (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of transgender and non-binary people former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).]
Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize deadnaming as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm.[a]
^Avoid using the name, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources.
Q: Why is this needed?
A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”.
The cleavage article needs to be more gender inclusive, and have better sources for LGBT content
There are some parts in the article that deal with crossdressing. But, not being very oriented with LGBT studies, I really can't put those parts in order on my own. Seriously need some help, especially with sources. Aditya(talk • contribs)10:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At first reading through it I had no immediate concerns since I the content of the paragraph seemed to be accurate enough and neutral if a bit aggressively written. Then I looked at the sources. Obviously an unreliable unacceptable source right off the bat, one even appears to be an ad. Unfortunately I have no clue how we deal with unreliable sources outside of rewriting/resourcing it myself... the text itself has some merit.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a great help if somebody lent a hand in improving and editing/writing the section. May be it should not be about crossdressing at all, but cleavage for non-woman genders - men, trans and others. I have tried looking up reliable sources and failed. I hope someone here would have sources and stuff to share. If I get them, I can write it myself. Aditya(talk • contribs)02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP address keeps inserting claim a BLP subject is transgender without reliable source, not sure what to do
An IP address keeps re-inserting ([1], [2]) the text Lady Bunny identifies as a non-operative trans woman. In a 2013 interview with the HuffPost, she stated that she sees herself "part of that [trans] community. But I have no plans for the surgery".[5] Furthermore, she is almost never seen out of women's clothing. into the article for Lady Bunny. The source for this sentence is the following paragraph:
Another thing that I’m always interested in during your shows is your approach to trans issues. Talk to me about the connection you see between the trans community and the drag community.
A lot of drag performers go on to become trans... in the same way that gay people come out as gay and then you come out again as a drag queen when you’re ready to flex those muscles. For a transsexual, it’s even harder because some of them will become drag queens and then realize that they want to live in drag and they don’t want the illusion to disappear in the morning. And that’s really, really tough because it involves surgery and things that don’t wash off like cosmetics. So, I feel an affinity with both. People ask me, “How are you different out of drag?” and I say, “I’m really not! Not at all.” Everyone I know, including my mom, calls me Bunny. I definitely have tons of transgender friends and I do feel that gender is fluid, so I do feel as if I’m part of that community. But I have no plans for the surgery.
To me the quote doesn't say Lady Bunny "identifies as a non-operative trans woman", although I can see why someone might interpret it to say as such. But as this is a WP:BLP, this statement needs an unambiguous reliable source and since there is none, I've removed it. I don't want to get accused of edit warring after it's been re-added twice now, so I'm not sure what else do do. Do any of you have thoughts/opinions on this issue? Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the source doesn't say what the IP is claiming it says—that's OR. If you've already explained our policies to them and issued warnings on their talk page, I would say go to ANI if they aren't stopping. Armadillopteryxtalk04:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armadillopteryx: I haven't yet issued warnings on their talk page, yet; I wasn't sure if that was the next step or making sure there was a consensus one way or the other was. I think it would be best if a third party gave them the warning since that way it's from a neutral observer rather than a participant? (And also I don't really know what to say other than what I've said in my edit messages.)
I would certainly try to share and explain the relevant policies to them on their (or the article's) talk page first, then if they repeat the edits, I'd put a warning on their talk page. I added that page to my watchlist and will try to give input if they keep it up.
Those are two distinct IPs, though geolocating them puts them in the same US city, so there's a decent chance they're the same person. Let's see if they say anything further on the talk page for now. Armadillopteryxtalk04:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I can/should remove it from the article myself now for a third time or if that counts as edit warring a WP:3RR violation? Also the statement Lady Bunny once again stated that she will not transition is I guess technically accurate in that yeah cis people don't transition, but it seems misleading to have that phrasing in the article but I don't know on what grounds that can be removed other than just leading readers to have an incorrect inference. Thoughts? Umimmak (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should the activist Posie Parker known as Kellie-Jay Keen have a wikipedia article. I feel there is enough third person sources to justify an article. What are other people's thoughts?Dwanyewest (talk)
I'd lean towards delete based on only these sources if I saw such an article on AFD. The main issue for deletion is passing notability guidelines using WP:RS and I'm not sure the talk radio or the NR source would count. WP:RSP notes it is unclear if NR counts as an RS. The NYT source is an opinion source so that wouldn't be RS either. That leaves the BBC source which is mainly about one event and doesn't use the Posie Parker name directly. Different RS could help me change my mind. Can only speak for myself though and decisions at AFD may go down differently. Rab V (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Home
Talk
Collaboration
Editing
Resources
Showcase
