Talk:Isla Bryson case

Response from the LGBT community

Would it be appropriate to include a section on this? (testing testing 123) - the response has been either indifference or support for the Scottish Govs decision on the matter. Of course I refer to reliable sources issuing a response, such as Stonewall. SinoDevonian (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If there's anything available then I think it would be worth including. This is Paul (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns

I know that we usually refer to people by the pronouns they prefer, but should we make an exception in this case? PatGallacher (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do here. I've referred to Bryson as "he" when discussing the subject's pre-trans life and "she" everywhere else. I don't know if that's correct though. This is Paul (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID requires we respect self-identification when it comes to pronouns. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What about WP:IAR? PatGallacher (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be a tough case to make when all sources use “she”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want a exception in this case? Per MOS:DEADNAME Bryson should not have her previous identity mentioned or male pronouns. Dougal18 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As this is an unusual situation, and one I suspect we haven't had to address before now, I wonder if it's worth getting some wider feedback. I'll add a few thoughts here though after consulting the guidelines. The article discusses an individual in the context of a legal case rather than being a biography, and her actions (including her decision to change gender) have had a bearing on some of the events. I wonder if her previous identity is relevant here because she committed the offences and was charged under that identity, and had not legally changed her gender. It appears all she had to do was tell the prison authorities she self-identified as female. From a descriptive point of view though, using the same pronoun throughout the article works better and is less confusing. She had self-identified as female so we should reflect that in the article, but do be aware that male pronouns are still used when using direct quotes (that is relevant because we're quoting someone's words and should stay faithful to what is said). This is Paul (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME encourages editors to either paraphrase or redact pronouns that reflect pretransition gender identity, following a widely-participared RfC specifically about such quotations. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, reflecting on the use/mention distinction - there is no policy-based reason not to mention the subject's sex assignment or prior gender identity. However, the article should not use that identity by including pronouns etc. reflecting their pre-transition status. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Birth name

In "Background", I've changed the opening sentence from "Originally a male named Adam Graham" to "Previously a male named Adam Graham" as it appears "Adam Graham" may not be his birth name. Someone changed the text earlier but I've changed it back as unsourced. The discussion thread at the end of this article makes reference to a different birth name, however. The source wouldn't be regarded as reliable, and there's no way to verify it, but in case of any doubt I've altered the opening sentence in the interests of reflecting the situation as accurately as possible. This is Paul (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't seen any policy-compliant reason to introduce the Isla's deadname to this article, nor have I seen a consensus established anywhere to Ignore All Rules. Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You have seen a policy compliant reason. You are just ignoring it because you don't like it. I repeat, the very page you linked me to said this:

"In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name"

That is obviously the case here. This rapist was known as Adam Graham both when he was raping women and when he was initially appearing in court for those offences. I look forward to seeing your argument as to why, in those circumstances, the fact that his name, at that time, was Adam Graham, is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said in one of my prior edit sunmaries, you don't seem to understand how notability is used to assess deadnames of trans people on Wikipedia. What matters is when the coverage was published, in relation to the name change. I have tried, and failed, to find any coverage of this case that included the former name that is dated prior to the name change.

Also, please stop misgendering this person. You can feel as hostile towards them as you want, but by misgendering them you are communicating - wittingly or unwittingly - hostility towards all trans editors, in violation of WP:CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I note you still offer no coherent argument as to why Adam Graham is not notable under that name, even though sources confirm that that was his name at the relevant. I struggle to see how the dates of those sources are remotely relevant.

Also, perhaps realising that you are losing the argument, you are now trying to obfuscate by attacking me for 'misgendering'. Stop it. It won't work. Firstly, you do not speak for all trans editors, so please don't act as if you do. Secondly, I think all objective editors - whether trans or not - would realise that there is a clear and obvious distinction between being hostile to rapists (which I freely admit I am) and being hostile to trans people generally. Id you cannot see that distinction, that is your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

On your last point, please read what I actually wrote, q.v., You can feel as hostile towards them as you want. My point is that by misgendering them, you create a hostile environment for trans editors in contravention of WP:CIVIL. I do not pretend to speak for any trans editors apart from myself, when it comes to feelings about this, but the fact that misgendering (and the tolerance of misgendering by a community) contributes to a hostile environment is something that many other editors have pointed out before, notably in this ANI discussion and its sequels. There are ways to express your hostility to rapists, even as BLP subjects, without misgendering them or contravening WP:CIVIL.

There is an on-wiki distinction between verifiability and notability. There is no doubt that this person's former name is verifiable, and has been frequently mentioned. However, this isn't a policy-based reason to include the former name of a trans person in a WP article: the threshold is, was this person written about in multiple reliable sources, using their former name, before the name change based on their gender identity? I haven't seen any evidence presented showing that this test had been met in this case, nor have I seen any consensus to ignore all rules because they are a convicted rapist. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Lets look at the sources shall we. We have the source in the article itself (which you keep trying to censor). In addition, we have the following:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-two-rapes-scamming-courts-says-wife/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23302287.confusion-sturgeon-refers-double-rapist-she-her/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/four-of-five-trans-inmates-in-womens-prisons-are-murderers-pbfvdqqft

As you can clearly see, mainstream respectable sources consistently mention Adam Graham's original name. Why? Because it is so obviously and patently relevant. Because - as everyone but you seems to understand - where a man rapes women as a man, and appears in court as a man, and then sudden;y claims (without evidence) to be a woman (raising the completely obvious suspicion, which even the First Minister has articulated, that he is simply faking it to get access to vulnerable women - it is vital that his original identity is remembered and acknowledged.

And whinge about 'misgendering' all you want, but when someone rapes people, their subjective stance about what gender they suddenly are doesn't mean very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether multiple respectable sources mention the subject's pretransition name, according to WP policy, if they only do so in reports published after their transition (which all these reports you have linked seem to be). The current article version most certainly does "remember and acknowlege" the convicted rapist's prior gender identity, it simply does so without violating WP policy (by using male pronouns or mentioning the former name).

Also, I'd advise you not to accuse other editors of "whinging about 'misgendering'", especially trans editors: that is clearly a CIVIL violation and probably a reliable WP:NOTHERE indicator as well. But if you have edited Wikipedia previously, you should know this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that 'previously known as Adam Graham' should be included in the first sentence because that is what the person was known as when they did their most notable act (the rapes). It is therefore similar to the examples of Chelsea Manning and Elliot Page which is mentioned in MOS:DEADNAME Munci (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not similar because the subject was not notable under their previous name, unlike Chelsea Manning and Elliot Page who both had notoriety/fame under their previous names. The only rationale I can see for including the previous name would be if reliable sources adopt the stance that the subject’s transgender identity was faked (cf. Sturgeon’s comment). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out in time if that's the case, but it's worth noting that the name everyone is using here doesn't appear to be the person's birth name (see here for example). This is Paul (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As of right now, the article is not neutral and unbiased

Could there be an active effort to provide both sides of the debate? JDBauby (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

An accused person isn't under obligation to declare the information to a college or university if they enrol at that institution, so this is one area where both sides of the argument can be included, but I doubt we'll find anything supporting the decision to send a convicted rapist to a women's prison. This is Paul (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"The prospect of a convicted rapist serving a sentence in a women's prison sparked heated political debate"

If there is a debate, I do not see those who don't oppose it in the article, only those who oppose Bryson in a women's prison. JDBauby (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "strong criticism from a number of sources" would be better, as that's basically what's happened. This is Paul (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! So far I haven't seen anything defending the decision to send her to Cornton Vale, if anyone knows of it please bring it to our attention. The college was hardly in a position to search through court rolls about cases pending, point taken, although some might question if a transwoman should have been allowed on a course like this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite. The only thing the LGBT community+allies and trans groups have had to say about this is "this is the correct decision, case by case, but don't let this become a blanket rule" etc.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Further information

I haven't edited this article for a while, because instinct told me it was possibly wise not to do so since any topic involving transgender people appears to be quite divisive these days. But I shall be doing more work on it once the sentencing hearing takes place. In addition to that information I think we'll also need to reflect Sturgeon's comments here and possibly find a rebuttal to them (if there is one). I'll copyedit a couple of the sections as well, but don't propose to take anything out other than some repetitive stuff (for example, the 10 Downing Street spokesman's comments are also reflected by Dominic Raab, so that could be merged). When I've finished I'll submit it for a WP:COPYEDIT as I'm sure it could do with an experienced copyeditor taking a look at it. This is Paul (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

When was she first arrested?

I know she started transitioning in 2020, but the page doesn't say if that was before or after she was accused of rape. I think that detail is relevant to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.152.110 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe she was arrested and charged before she started transitioning. Certainly the crimes were committed before she started transitioning. This is Paul (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

People can be curious about various things, but what matters in terms of possible inclusion of a former name is whether the BLP subject met Wikipedia's notability standards pre-(social)transition. Neither committing a crime nor being arrested for it matters in that determination; only the publication of sources does. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot of sources mention the previous name, so it's a matter of public record. It seems quite strange that we can discuss the history of someone like David Carrick, but can't do the same in this case. This is Paul (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Conservatives' statement

As I noted in an edit summary, false statements about the law should not be included even with good sources, when other sources - as good or better - exist contradicting them. This is a WP:BLP, which raises the threshold for inclusion. If this is to be re-added, sources clarifying the law should also be added.

Also, This is Paul, the article text you re-added[1] makes the additional error of attributing to Police Scotland - as a factual statement - what is actually prented in the source as a political demand by the Scottish Conservatives. Newimpartial (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Police Scotland did say they would record this crime as having been committed by a man (see here). Indeed, the Scotsman says A police spokesman confirmed Bryson was arrested and charged as a man and the crimes would be recorded as such. So what is wrong with including that? The law also states that only a man can commit rape (find me a law book that doesn't say that). Also, with regard to your statement that sources clarifying the law should also be added, those sources would need to be discussing that in the context of this case, otherwise it would constitute original research, which we must leave to the academics and the media.

One of the problems with this article is that people are so busy trying to be politically correct and/or worrying about offending someone that it now ignores the basic facts of the case. This person was a man when they committed their crimes. This person was charged as a man, and initially appeared in court as a man. This person only chose to undergo transgender therapy after they were charged. The very controversy of this case is that a person with male genitalia, who had committed a violent sexual crime against two women, was sent to a women's prison, prompting a political storm. Had Bryson not been sent to a women's prison (and just gone straight to Barlinnie or somewhere similar) then this article wouldn't exist because there would have been no reason to write it. Now let's turn to the question of when anonymity should apply. While transgender people deserve anonymity and the respect of us all, should we really be extending that to criminals, especially when the crime they committed was committed before they transitioned. If the answer is yes, then the article cannot be impartial because it doesn't reflect what actually happened and can't faithfully report the events in an impartial way. In fact, we appear to be getting to the situation where it can't reflect what happened because there's a danger of someone kicking off about it. It's also worth mentioning that our gender policy suggests that a previous identity should only be mentioned if the person was famous before they underwent transitioning. I'd argue that we should extend that to people who commit serious crime, where the crime was committed before the person transitioned. I've no doubt this will come up again at a future point with a future article, and it needs to be addressed. This is Paul (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage the participation of other editors, so I have tried to concentrate on key points:

• Concerning Police Scotland did say they would record this crime as having been committed by a man - yes, and the article text on this was untouched by my edit.
• Concerning The law also states that only a man can commit rape - For purposes of Wikipedia, a non-opinion source on Scottish law would be required so this is not simply original research - for instance, Police Scotland says something different: The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 states that rape occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly penetrates another person’s vagina, anus or mouth with their penis, where the victim does not consent and the person responsible has no reasonable belief that the victim is giving consent.
• Concerning This person was a man when they committed their crimes. This person was charged as a man, and initially appeared in court as a man. This person only chose to undergo transgender therapy after they were charged. The very controversy of this case is that a person with male genitalia, who had committed a violent sexual crime against two women, was sent to a women's prison, prompting a political storm. - yes, and both the current version of this article and all previous versions I've looked at communicate this clearly, as far as I can tell.
• Concerning It's also worth mentioning that our gender policy suggests that a previous identity should only be mentioned if the person was famous before they underwent transitioning. I'd argue that we should extend that to people who commit serious crime, where the crime was committed before the person transitioned. I've no doubt this will come up again at a future point with a future article, and it needs to be addressed. - This was discussed recently at the relevant policy page with respect to a different case (of a convicted sex offender) that raised related issues. The proposal to change MOS:GENDERID was in that instance WP:SNOW closed in the discussion found here (closed but not yet archived). That Talk page would be the preferred location to seek a change to the relevant guideline (as a new discussion).

Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the discussion and look at opening a new one. I'm concerned you think the Scotsman article is an opinion piece. Is it not a piece of journalism reporting what somebody said, which is slightly different. An opinion piece would be if someone wrote an op-ed discussing the case. There are plenty of those to be found, but this isn't one of them. This is Paul (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my writing wasn't clear. The piece that I removed is WP:RS journalism, but the claim it was used for, that the crime was recorded as it was because "in law, rape can only be committed by a male" does not appear as a statement of fact in the source. We don't have a non-opinion source presenting this as fact.

The assertion also does not appear, as it did in the version you re-added,[2] as a statement by Police Scotland. Rather, it is a statement by the Scottish Conservatives: But the Tories said SNP ministers must give the police “unequivocal direction” that rapists must always be recorded as male criminals because “in law, rape can only be committed by a male”. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

While The Scotsman's article is reporting, the "in law, rape can only be committed by a male" quotation seems to be from the Scottish Tory party, or possibly from Russell Findlay who is quoted in the following paragraph. That would therefore be the opinion of either the anonymous party spokesperson or Findlay, depending on who actually said it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m fairly sure when I wrote this article I found something supporting the statement as it appears here, but I don’t recall the title now. I probably thought the Scotsman the more credible of the two sources, so should double check in future. It may be the other article was amended because it was misinterpreting what was said, but I guess the original text is lost now. I did spend some time Googling some key words, but without success. Having said that, the Scotsman source does say that Bryson's crimes would be recorded as having been committed by a male, so it should be a legitimate source to support that statement. At the moment there's no reference to support that sentence, and there should be one in an article like this. This is Paul (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; I have added the ref for the relevant statement. Newimpartial (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of her former name

I edited the article to include her former name in two locations, as I believe its inclusion is required under WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE for the first instance, and WP:NOTCENSORED for the second. However, Sideswipe9th reverted the edit, so I am opening a discussion here.

For the first location I believe WP:NPOV requires the name due to how widely reported it is, including in WP:HQRS. This includes the BBC, Sky News, The Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, and many others.

Reliable sources consider it a sufficiently important piece of information to mention; as we are required to reflect all significant views in reliable sources in this case MOS:DEADNAME is overruled by NPOV, because of WP:POLCON which tells us that when a guideline and a policy conflict the policy takes precedence, and because of NPOV itself which tells us that it is non-negotiable and cannot be overruled by consensus.

The dispute over her name is also a key part of her notability and thus by excluding it we are failing to fully explain the story; the disconnect between the name she was charged under and the name she adopted allowed her to get access to women as young as 16 in sensitive settings.

For the second location, we should not be modifying quotes to censor them. The original quote is "He was charged under his original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew him by his new name, so they (fellow students) probably wouldn’t have been able to find out anything about this person. It’s absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."; in our article it is "[She] was charged under [her] original name, ..., and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

This is an improvement over the previous version, where we were silently censoring the name, but it is still a violation of policy and given how obvious the censorship is will leave the reader questioning why we are omitting the name and generally make the article harder to read and understand. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to NPOV, this is a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. Bryson changed her name prior to becoming notable, with her only achieving notability due to the media frenzy that occurred after her sentencing at the end of January 2023. The second paragraph of MOS:GENDERID is crystal clear on this, if a living trans or non-binary person was not notable under their prior name, it should not be included on any page, and we should treat the former name as a privacy interest. That we can verify the name through reliable sources is immaterial.

On the elipsis on the quote, this is compliant with the fifth paragraph of GENDERID, which tells us to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. Even if we come to a consensus for including Bryson's name elsewhere in the article, this paragraph will still apply to the quotation from Smith. In this circumstance I chose to use an elilpsis, but I could have easily put Bryson's surname into square brackets. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The standard set by BLPPRIVACY, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, has clearly been met; there are hundreds of reliable sources that include the name. You're correct that MOS:GENDERID is against the inclusion but WP:BLP is not.

Regarding the elipsis on the quote, because WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy while MOS:GENDERID is part of the MOS, NOTCENSORED is controlling per WP:POLCON. To change that would require modifying NOTCENSORED, a change that I doubt would get consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't trample MOS:GENDERID, as much as you want it to. And WP:GNG doesn't trample WP:GEOROAD, but that's another story for another day. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

And in this case, we include Bryson's current name. Former names however are treated as a privacy interest greater than their current name, and the criteria for inclusion of the former name of a living trans or non-binary person excludes those who were not notable prior to changing their name. This application of GENDERID has been discussed many, many times, most recently in January 2023, and each time the consensus has been that it is a privacy issue regardless of sourcing.

On the NOTCENSORED point, I will direct you to the RfC that added that paragraph to GENDERID. Opposition to that paragraph was made on NOTCENSORED grounds, and resoundingly rejected by community consensus. The current consensus is that inclusion non-notable former names of living trans or non-binary people creates a BLPPRIVACY violation, and that includes quotations. Paraphrasing, eliding, or square brackets are all accepted options to avoid the privacy violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Former names however are treated as a privacy interest greater than their current name, and the criteria for inclusion of the former name of a living trans or non-binary person excludes those who were not notable prior to changing their name. Unless I'm missing something, that's part of MOS:GENDERID, not WP:BLP. While whether BLP or NPOV is controlling can be argued given they are both core policies (although NPOV should always "win" that debate, per This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.), the same cannot be said about whether GENDERID or NPOV is controlling.

Sometimes we can exclude the name without engaging in censorship; in this case, however, we cannot - excluding that name requires us to literally censor that quote. BilledMammal (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

GENDERID is an application of the BLP policy that has broad community consensus. As I said in my last reply, this application of GENDERID has been discussed a great many times, and each time the consensus has been that it is a BLPPRIVACY issue. You are welcome to take this to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN if you desire, but I am confident that the response will be the same. I would suggest you review the previous discussions on this before doing so however, you can find a list of all of the major discussions at MOS:GIDINFO.

On the quotation point, the second paragraph of NOTCENSORED clearly states that content can and will be removed if it is judged to violate other content policies, especially those involving BLP. During the discussion for the RfC that added the fifth paragraph, NOTCENSORED concerns were raised by some and refuted by the consensus. Again, this wording and interpretation has broad community consensus. As with the other issue, you are welcome to take this to BLPN or NPOVN if you desire, but I am confident that the response there will also be the same. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll open an RfC on the topic; I believe in this case there are some policies that are directly applicable and in doing so override the manual of style.

Regarding NOTCENSORED and other content policies; the MOS is a style guideline, not a content policy. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name

This RfC consists of two questions related to the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name.

Question One: Should Isla Bryson's former name be included in the lede?
Yes: The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition when she was known as Adam Graham.
No: The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition.

Question Two: How should the quote from Susan Smith be included in the article?

A:

"[She] was charged under [her] original name, ..., and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

B:

"[She] was charged under [her] original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes and B.

For question one, while MOS:GENDERID is possibly against the inclusion (while the rapes that she became notable for committing were committed before transitioning, the coverage of those rapes occurred after transitioning), GENDERID is not controlling in this instance as WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, tells us to include it. This is because of how many high quality reliable sources consider it important information to include, including The BBC, Sky News, The Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, and many others.

Per NPOV, we must follow the sources; we cannot make our own determination that the sources are wrong and this isn't important information to include. We also cannot choose to override NPOV; WP:POLCON tells us that when a guideline and a policy conflict we must follow the policy, while NPOV tells us that it is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It is also important contextual information to include; a significant part of her notability comes from the disconnect between her former name and her adopted name allowing her to get access to very young women in sensitive situations.

For question two, option A would require us to censor the quote; as this is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, another policy, we cannot do that regardless of what the MOS says. Further, to censor it in this manner will confuse the reader and make the article less usable; it will be obvious that we are excluding the name and the reader will wonder why. BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• No and A. MOS:GENDERID is pretty clear: If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists (emphasis mine). I don't need to say anything else. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Faulty premise, but still no and A. Starting with the faulty premise, the issue at hand with MOS:GENDERID is not what name Bryson used when she committed the rapes, or even what name she was using when she was on trial and convicted. The issue is what name she was using when she became notable. Those are entirely separate concepts. Looking at the timeline and available sources, she became notable on or around 26 January 2023, approximately two years after she had changed her name. No reliable sourcing for her exists prior to 19 January 2023, though one unreliable source was published (The Scottish Sun) on 17 January. According to reliable sources published after the conviction, Bryson changed her name some time in 2020. In this situation, the second paragraph of GENDERID unambiguously applies. Bryson was not notable under her former name, and it should not be included in any page. We are required to treat it as a privacy issue that is both separate from and greater than Bryson's current name.
  With respect to the quotation, and irregardless of whether we include or exclude Bryson's name elsewhere in the article, the fifth paragraph of GENDERID applies. That paragraph tells us to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. This is not one of the rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided. There is no pun involving the former name, nor is understanding of what Susan Smith said impeded by excluding the name. Currently the quotation is elided with ellipses, as I think that's better than using square brackets in this situation. We could also paraphrase and summarise it, however I would be wary of summarising this as it blurs the line somewhat between what is and is not in Wikivoice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and B. The subject’s change of gender is an important factor in this article, because Bryson herself is only notable as a result of the offences she committed, which occurred before she changed gender. While the deadname principle rightly applies to a public figure if they were unknown before transitioning, I would question whether this should be extended to someone convicted of a violent crime such as rape, especially when those offences were committed while the subject was male and identified as such. Because of these offences, Bryson's former name is a matter of public record, whereas this would not not necessarily be the case with a public figure. Our task is to report the facts of the case as they are. This is Paul (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to single you out in this, but While the deadname principle rightly applies to a public figure if they were unknown before transitioning, I would question whether this should be extended to someone convicted of a violent crime such as rape, especially when those offences were committed while the subject was male and identified as such. is a pretty horrific argument to make. It's akin to saying that if a person is the wrong type of trans or non-binary (in this case convicted of a terrible crime, but could equally be used to justify any manner of other categories that we deem less than worthy), we don't need to follow the clear and unambiguously guidance that states that because they were not a public figure prior to changing their name we should exclude the former name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• No and A. MOS:GENDERID is clear on this – Bryson was clearly not notable prior to transition – and a local consensus cannot override our policies and guidelines. The community has typically also been rather reticent to allow any exceptions to GENDERID – as typified with the RfCs as of late – and the assertion that Bryson is somehow different and isn't covered by BLPPRIVACY isn't one that stands up to scrutiny; after all, if we can't say the name of a man who shot unarmed children in the back because of BLPPRIVACY, then the bar on who we can name when considering BLPPRIVACY is clearly very high. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC you are referring to was based on WP:BLPNAME; WP:BLPPRIVACY, given that it discusses what information should be provided about an identified individual, doesn't make sense to refer to and indeed it wasn't referred to. BLPNAME doesn't apply here because it relates to identifying individuals and we have already identified Isla Bryson.

  Further, BLPPRIVACY is in favor of us including the name; Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Isla Bryson's former name is reported in hundreds of reliable sources, a number that easily meets the requirement of "widely published". At this point it makes little sense to consider her former name a privacy interest. BilledMammal (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weakly leaning yes and strong neither (came from neutral notice on WP:BLPN). GENDERID is a strong guideline and should be followed in the overwhelming majority of cases, but occasional exceptions may apply, and the case of "someone becoming notable after transitioning, but entirely for something that occurred before transitioning" is not well-covered by it. BM persuasively notes that for this specific article, a substantial amount of coverage revolves around the name we would not usually use and the role that namechanging played in this situation. The quote, however, is not a question of presenting names -- it is a question of writing a good article, and neither way of presenting this quote is in service to it. This sort of giant block quote for a statement of opinion is poor encyclopedism at the best of times, and especially so when combined with the pronoun-changing (rightfully) required by both presentations of it. I am also unsold on the neutrality of "highlighted the ease". Susan Smith from For Women Scotland, a campaign group that opposes proposed changes to allow individuals to self-declare their legal sex, said she found the ease through which Bryson changed her legal name "absolutely terrifying"; she claimed that this allowed people to "hide their identities and gain access to young women". (Did Bryson legally change her name by that point? It's not clear from the article, because we present this as a huge quote with no meaningful context.) Vaticidalprophet 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• No and A but with the following logic. 1) Person was not notable by their original name. 2) Person's orginal name is only notable because they transitioned. There are thousands/millions of rapists in the world without Wikipedia articles, the only reason for this one has an article is because of the unusual facts of the case. 3) Does including the name add any encyclopaedic value? No. 4) Does option A cover the important parts of the quote, without violating MOS:GENDERID, highlighting Susan Smith's concerns? Yes. So it's the best option. Red Fiona (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Soft No and B (also came from neutral notice on WP:BLPN)

I don't think the name needs to be in the lead; or at least not in the first sentence of the lede, but I do believe it should be included in the article.

For terminology, I am going to use "Given Name" and "Chosen Name".

I agree with MOS:GENDERID that someone is well known under more than one name, both names should be included in the article. I'm not convinced it needs to be in the first sentence in every scenario; however, it makes sense for a few individuals whose transition has garnered much media attention - like Jenner and Paige.

However - out of curiosity I pulled a list of celebrities known by a stage name, and every one I looked up - we're using their Given Name in the lead. For example, see Brad Pitt, Reese Witherspoon, and Alicia Keyes. I didn't dig, but I never see these public figures being referred to by their given names, why is that the first thing you see on Wikipedia?

If we really want to be fair and consistent, then in this case - we should use both names in the lead, and there is a real case for that. But I honestly don't think we should even put someone's maiden name in the lead of an article while they are alive and going by a different name.

I would put Given Names and Maiden Names in an info box, or reference it in the article (If it's a biography article, X was born Y is fine, mention name changes when they happen mentioned in the article).

I do think that this individuals name change is a significant piece of why the case has drawn media attention, and should be included in the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead, it could be, but not the first sentence at least. For the quote - I don't like the idea of changing quotes in general, and this individual's given name is well known, should be in the article, and therefore the quote should stay as-is.

Ultimately: We shouldn't go out of our way to hide well known names, but we should refer to people using the name they are notable for at least in the first sentence, but I feel that should be across all articles for living people... but that's not how we're currently handling names across Wikipedia and we should consider changing that across the board. Denaar (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Having read through comments; I did want to push a little bit on the "not notable under their given name" comments. I disagree.

Think of people who weren't covered in the news during their lifetime, but historians research and write about them. They weren't notable for coverage in wikipedia during their lifetime, but now they are. That doesn't mean "only stuff that happened after they died is notable"... the things they did were notable once they were written about.

The argument that "this person did nothing notable under their given name" is following that pattern of argument, that because it wasn't written about in the moment, that makes it non-notable - but that's not how notability works.

In this case, it's the combination of events and continued coverage that makes it a notable case - which includes the original crime, and the arrest, and the court case, and the conviction - it's a series of events that ultimately make it worthy of notice to people so that they write about it, thus making it notable for wikipedia.

So while it's true the case wasn't "notable for coverage in wikipedia" when it first happened, the events that happened ARE one of the pieces, that later on, make it a notable event. And that even happened under a previous name, and should be included.

It might be different if the person was notable, and this was a small blip in their life story barely worth a mention. But we've got the opposite: the event, the arrest, the case, the sentencing - that's what people are writing about, it's all notable. Denaar (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If I have understood correctly, you would support including the name elsewhere in the article in Wikivoice, just not in the lede? Perhaps in Isla Bryson case#Background? I have no objection to including it there rather than in the lede; it isn't the placement but the inclusion that is important in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to agree with this. Vaticidalprophet 21:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the given name should be included somewhere in this article where it fits and makes sense. It seems reasonable on this article. Denaar (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• No and neither -- Much of the point of allowing notable names in the cases of people who were notable before transition is so that they can be associated with older references and coverage using that name. There seems to be a lack of such previous discussion; the fact that anything that uses the old name also uses the new name makes the older name unnecessary for those purposes. And in my mind, any time we need more than a couple [rephrasings] and [...]s to make a quote, we're probably better off not using that part of the quote at all, but summarizing it in text; the impact and the flow are just too disrupted by those constructs. Better to summarize at least the start of the quote. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and B — as much as I appreciate the guidance of MOS:GENDERID, WP:NPOV is policy, and her former name is a significant view that has been widely published by reliable sources on this topic. And the topic of this article is her "case", evidenced by the name of the article. And it also appears to me her notability derives from this "case", or otherwise we wouldn't have a BIO article on Isla Bryson, as she wasn't notable under that name until this "case". But now, she is notable because of both names, connected to this "case". And BTW, it's Graham, not Grayson. Independent — Reuters — The Guardian — The Times — Telegraph — Glasgow Times — The Scotsman — Barrons — The Herald — BBC — Euronews.— Isaidnoway (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@This is Paul, Munci, and Barnards.tar.gz: Ping editors involved in a prior related discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Question for clarification for @BilledMammal: Above you wrote: The dispute over her name is also a key part of her notability and thus by excluding it we are failing to fully explain the story; the disconnect between the name she was charged under and the name she adopted allowed her to get access to women as young as 16 in sensitive settings. As far as I understand it it is relevant that she used a different name. Is that all you meant or are you going further and saying that it is relevant what name she used? If so, why do you consider it relevant what name she used? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I consider it relevant what name she used because of the emphasis that reliable sources place on that name, and because a significant part of her story is how she used different names to get access to teenagers in a sensitive setting; while it is possible to explain this without providing the reader with the name it leaves the story incomplete. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Follow-up question: You have argued that WP:NPOV dictates including the name. Can you elaborate on why you believe that NPOV is relevant to the issue? The opening sentence of NPOV says: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (Emphasis added by me.) In what sense are we talking about a point of view here? Prima facie we seem to be dealing with a statement of fact, not opinion. I don't think that NPOV says anything that would rule out leaving facts out of an article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE speaks to this, but perhaps WP:BALASP speaks to it best; An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Given how many reliable sources choose to include her former name we must do the same if we are to treat that aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

  I'll add that I would consider "all the significant views" to include significant views about what facts are relevant. For example, excluding the fact that Henry Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize would be counter to NPOV as much as excluding the significant views around that award would be. In the end we shouldn't be arbitrators of what facts are relevant; if we allowed ourselves to do that we would introduce the ability to engage in lies of omission. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Notified WikiProjects LGBT studies and Biography Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Notified the rest of the relevant WikiProjects WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Women. BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I'd gotten distracted by someone at my front door, and had completely forgotten to do the rest by the time I got back to my PC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)