Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people

RfC to limit the inclusion of the deadname of deceased transgender or non-binary persons

Should the following be added to MOS:DEADNAME?

For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their former name (birth name, professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

For pre-RFC discussions on this proposal, see:

1. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Deadnames of the deceased – yet again
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#WP:BOLD restrictions on the use of deceased transgender or non-binary persons birth name or former name

This text was added boldly by different editors, originally in July and again in October, but was removed in December. 18:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey (MOS:DEADNAME)

• Support, to hopefully settle this and end the seemingly endless discussions; this proposal is intended to be an acceptable compromise between the editors who want to include the name and those who want to exclude it, while also being in alignment with all relevant policies - It will prevent the name being included when doing so would have no encyclopedic merit, for example when the name is obscure and only found in primary sources, and it will support the name being included when usage in reliable sources and secondary sources suggests it does have encyclopedic merit. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support, although I would recommend changing "the former name" to "any former names", as the current phrasing suggests that each such person has exactly one such name, while there are ones who have multiple (say, a birth name and a married name or stage name) and some who have none (I've a friend who changed public gender identification without any change of name.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear to whoever tallies, my support is not dependent on the wording change. The perfect is the frenemy of the good. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support and support Nat Gertler's suggestion of any former names. Mgp28 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite repeated protests in the discussions of this before it became an official RFC, absolutely nothing has been done about adjusting the proposal to handle the problem of transgender people who are notable under their former names through WP:PROF (which does not require in-depth coverage in secondary sources), some of whom could be excluded from being covered at all under this proposal. We should not "fix" the issue of how to discuss transgender people by forbidding them from being the topics of certain kinds of articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. There is clearly a general consensus in support of this, down to the exact wording [except, I guess for "the former name" singular], despite filibustering by a few editors who want to see even more stringent requirements imposed (meanwhile, the previous RfCs already repeatedly rejected that idea). We need to get past this roadblock. Put a clear, basic, general rule about this in place now, and revisit it later iff there proves to be some recurrent conflict. (Also the way to deal with David Eppstein's concern; see more detail in discussion section).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  PS: Responding to NatGertler's syntatical concern, I would rather support a change to "any pre-transition name" or something more specific. "Any former names", like the original "the former name", is too vague. Someone might have been post-transition their entire notable life and using multiple names professionally, none of which are deadnames, but only one of which is their current one, and we would not mean to be excluding them all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  On the technical point, I would avoid "any pre-transition name" simply because it would mean my friend, whose pre- and post-transition names are the same, could not be named at all. Perhaps "any name abandoned at or before transition"... but even then, I think that names that were not abandoned but are not significantly referenced aren't particularly needed (a concept that holds true for anyone who changed their names for any reason, gender-related or not.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think simply saying deadname(s) (perhaps with an article link or a parenthetical explanation) would to most accurately convey our intent here. We already use MOS:DEADNAME as the de facto redirect to this section. Otherwise I think "former names" is acceptable, and probably not too likely to be misunderstood. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support but ideally with a tweak. I suggest changing should be included to may be included. This is because the "should" language mandates inclusion when the criteria are met, and in my opinion that goes against the consensus of one of our other recent RfCs on this guideline. That RfC left us with the consensus that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. (emphasis from original close). In the discussions prior to this RfC, BilledMammal raised the point that "encyclopedic interest" is established by the use in "multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person", but unfortunately that's not really codified in any policy or guideline, or even an essay. Encyclopaedic interest is one of those terms that we don't really define on enwiki. The closest we get is the paragraph at WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This point from BilledMammal also runs counter to another part of of the close of the recent RfC that I linked above, which states Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS. That part of the close, in my opinion, requires that whatever guidance we add, it does not compel inclusion when the criteria is met.
  Overall this guidance is both necessary and needed, primarily because deceased trans and non-binary persons are the only folks we don't have deadname/former name guidance for. And we should be setting an inclusion floor for their specific circumstances. Secondarily because, in the lack guidance, we have scenarios where editors almost immediately add (WP:BDP notwithstanding) the former name of a trans or non-binary person shortly after they die. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I think both interpretations are valid; there isn't always a one-to-one correspondence between natural English and formal logic. By my reading of the responses to this RFC, various editors have likely interpreted it in different ways. Ordinarily, I would suggest clarifying it one way or the other ("...may only be included..." or "...should be included if and only if...") to remove the ambiguity, but I worry doing so in this case would cause a fragile consensus to fracture entirely.--Trystan (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Supporters have given no reasons to go beyond WP:V for this subset of people (BLP doesn't apply by definition). Nobody is trying to add unverifiable names cited only to primary sources, and where the name is verifiable, the normal editing process can decide each case on its own merits, so this proposed policy is completely unnecessary. For the avoidance of doubt, I would strongly oppose 'more stringent requirements' for the same reasons. Iffy★Chat -- 21:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but would oppose Sideswipe9th's tweak above, which relies on an easily disprovable point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29 if the point is so easy to disprove, perhaps you could disprove it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A digression on logic, definitions, and NOTEVERYTHING.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING clearly defines encyclopedic interest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC) No, it really doesn't. At best, the remainder of that section (eg WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, etc.) gives us a non-exhaustive set of definitions for what what encyclopaedic interest is not, but there's no positive definition of what it is in there. NOTEVERYTHING even acknowledges this lack of a positive definition where it says Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. (emphasis mine). Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) You seem to have missed the two sentences the shortcut WP:NOTEVERYTHING actually applies to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) NOTEVERYTHING has five sentences in total. The final two I've already referred to. The first three read Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Which of these three sentences would you say provides a positive definition for encyclopaedic interest? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC) That is Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedic interest, as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC) That is not a definition of encyclopaedic interest. The first sentence is paraphrasing WP:VNOT, the second is referring to WP:SUMMARY, and the third tells us to follow WP:DUEWEIGHT. None of those actually define what encyclopaedic interest is. And because the following sentence states there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, it's pretty clear that this is not a definition of what encyclopaedic interest is. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having debates over what is or is not of encyclopaedic interest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC) The first sentence is paraphrasing WP:VNOT, the second is referring to WP:SUMMARY, and the third tells us to follow WP:DUEWEIGHT. And the whole is a definition of encyclopedic interest. I'm sure you've noticed many policies and guidelines overlap. Being a definition, incidentally, does not prohibit discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC) I fundamentally disagree that NOTEVERYTHING is a positive definition of encyclopaedic interest, much less a whole one. But it's clear that you and I aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this, so it's probably best to agree-to-disagree on it, and let others make up their own minds in relation to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Sounds good, thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I could have some quibbles with the wording, but perfection is the enemy of good and such. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support: seems uncontroversial and quite limited in scope. BLP only applies for a short time after a person's death (WP:BDP), after which deadnaming can still be upsetting to family, friends and others (particularly in the case of people murdered because they were transgender). If the information is what we consider historically important then it is in multiple reliable secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support per BilledMammal. Cremastra (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support, Sideswipe9th's tweak is not required. "should... only if" is clear enough that it's not mandatory. Deadnaming of people who are no longer living continues to be unencylopedic compared to the harm it causes. As per WP:NPROF, if this were a problem for academics who have passed away, it seems like the way we address it today for living academics by linking to their papers without noting the name incongruity is likely sufficient, without needing to lean on the "secondary sources" aspect to support continuing to do that. lizthegrey (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support with the understandings that (a) inclusion is not mandatory, and (b) this applies to any pre-transition name (that is different to a post-transition name). Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is reasonable as policy. No reason to start including non-notable BLP restricted material just because an individual has died. Any minor issues with wording seem unlikely to cause issues that can't be handled case-by-case. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• comment - could the final clause be changed to “nontrivial coverage of the subject’s life using a former name”? I feel that finding a few sources that only mention the former name a single time each is still pretty trivial. --awkwafaba (📥) 01:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support the principle (that we don't include deadnames if there's no clear, reliable sourced usage of it prior to the choice to use a new name. (I would argue this same principle should apply equally to all other name changes, like names before marriage or changes due to immigration, if they are not covered by RSes, but that's not something to argue to block this from being used) --Masem (t) 01:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a sensible way to address this issue. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is how I would have expected reasonable editors to work prior to this discussion, but I understand how it being laid out is likely helpful. I would also support Nat Gertler’s change, which seems straightforward, and easily applicable by editors using common sense.
  I would like to see the word ‘multiple’ struck (…documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person) to keep the implication that multiple sources are desired, but without the strict necessity. Only because I can imagine strong sources (a major news agency feature, or a significant book or similar) would suffice alone. I don’t oppose it without those changes, but I do think it is likely easier to remove strict language now than it might be later, while keeping the spirit of it largely equivalent. — HTGS (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  At that point it's just WP:V, though, isn't it? Cremastra (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t see that the intent of the rule is to set a higher bar, but instead to put on record that we have a bar (via WP:V, WP:UNDUE, etc) and this is the community’s consensus for its application. Of course I still find it odd that this is being hashed out at the style guide, given that it is a content guideline. But that’s a bygone question. — HTGS (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support, although a bit confused by "their former name (birth name, professional name, stage name, or pseudonym)". This seems to suggest multiple former names rather than a singular one, and presumably trans and non-binary people could have multiple names/pseudonyms in use as can anyone. At the core though, not using names that are absent from secondary reliable sources is a good general principle for all names in all situations, and if it needs to be spelt out in this specific case then I don't see a reason to oppose. CMD (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support. IMO mostly a reasonable proposal that strikes a better balance compared to the proposal in October, which I felt was overly restrictive in that it required secondary reliable and non-trivial coverage of the name change itself (which was an exceedingly high bar from my perspective). This proposal's requirement that should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person is much more reasonable. VickKiang (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Per BilledMammal, as well as the second paragraph of Sideswipe9th's !vote. This proposal strikes a good balance, where it encourages us to be sensitive to article subjects without also obstructing the building of the encyclopedia. The proposed edits to the phrasing (e.g. from Nat Gertler and Sideswipe9th) are also acceptable to me, but are not in my opinion necessary. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Eppstein. Would support if the requirement for "secondary" sources were struck, but as it is, we'd have articles about academics where it would be impossible for a reader to find that academic's work. It also makes no allowance for trans people who do not mind their prior name being used, but have only stated such in primary sources. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support, especially explicit inclusion when the requirements are met, as it removes any ambiguity as to whether it should be included or not. I have a strong suspicion that if Sideswipe's tweak were made, a considerable number of editors would bludgeon the "may". There might be extraordinary circumstances where this shouldn't apply, but that's why we have WP:IAR. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in general I oppose special rules about "former names" that don't apply to all deceased subjects. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Cremastra (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Because I don't think that making niche policies is improving the encyclopedia. I think prior names should or should not be included based on their encyclopedic value, not dependent on other components of a deceased subject's identify. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. If that's the underlying concept, shouldn't all previous names of all people listed in Wikipedia be excluded from mention? And should we exclude biographical information that is factual but that a deceased celebrity's family or publicist or partner disagrees with or disputes? That Wikipedia has a page for a person makes that person sufficiently of interest to include whatever information about them is available. And a deadname is a link in a person's history. Not doing so defeats an encyclopedia's. It also indicates, though no one seems interested in saying it outright, kowtowing to a group based on that group's wants rather than including information based on its research and historical value, especially (because I'm always willing to show sensitivity) if the person is deceased (because if there were somehow an emotional basis for inclusion/exclusion of facts, that alone should invalidate it rather than enhance it).

  Acknowledging in advance the howls that will result, it should also be noted that the argument against including deadnames is a bit specious because the person of interest chose their "true" name (I prefer "animal spirit" for mine, but whatev); if the deadname was so distasteful to, say, multiple Olympic gold-medal-winning decathletes and such, it seems like they'd have changed their names as soon as they legally could. The validity of that name was something THEY chose. And the encyclopedic value of it is something that should be decided outside of that vacuum. Stealthmouse (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for several reasons: 1) Content restrictions do not belong in the MOS, 2) This is a significant deviation from WP:NOTCENSORED and would require some form of new policy, 3) WP:BDP already provides a justification for removing content for recently deceased individuals, based on lingering privacy concerns, 4) WP:IAR covers the edge cases that have been brought up. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as this rule is pointless. It is identical to "do not include information unless covered by reliable sources", which is the most basic rule of wikipeda. i also agree with more indepth points by all previous oppose voters. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  @बिनोद थारू The multiple is key. Otherwise, yes, it would just be WP:V. But this creates a slightly higher bar. Usually one source for something is fine – here you need more than that, and they have to be WP:SECONDARY. Cremastra (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  🤣🤣 बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  ? Cremastra (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose What बिनोद थारू said. Also are we still continuing this discussion? Didn't this start in like...June? GMG^talk 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: see my comment in reply to बिनोद थारू. Cremastra (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sure. But we favor secondary sourcing as a rule. Primary sourcing is the exception. We also prefer the average of the preponderance of sources, again, giving preference to those of higher quality in our calculation. So I guess, on average, I have a little bit of faith in a community that if there is one source that is a clear outlier, we would just routinely weigh that against the preponderance of extant sources as we would with anything. GMG^talk 12:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  So if you think that, wouldn't it make sense to write it down as a guideline? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  See WP: NPOV (and especially its WP:UNDUE section)… it’s already in a policy. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Stops people from dredging up sources to deadname people while allowing for inclusion where relevant. Galobtter (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose putting this in the Manual of Style because it's more than just a stylistic preference. It's a content decision. It belongs in policy, and if this were a proposal to add it to policy, I'd likely support.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I know I'm going to look like a dick for this, but if the former name is known, I think it would be plain unencyclopedic to refuse to include it on the grounds of deadnaming. We aren't using the name, we're mentioning it like we would any other information about the person. AryKun (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  @AryKun: Something that is "known" but not mentioned in a WP:RS would already not be included. I don't see the difference here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal clearly says "documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person" (emphasis mine). This a much higher bar than simple verifiability, and I oppose it on that reason. If the proposal was just requiring an RS, it would already be covered by policy and the proposal is redundant. AryKun (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  The current community consensus in relation to former names of deceased trans and non-binary individuals is that mere verifiability alone is not enough, as there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. The community consensus barrier for inclusion is already high as the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. What this proposal does is give guidance on the conditions where the name becomes of encyclopaedic interest, reflecting the already existing consensus on this point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cunado: policy implications. ——Serial 15:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as worded. A person's deadname should not be used unless the person was notable under that name, and that notability is evidenced by multiple reliable sources. Just being documented by reliable sources is not sufficient. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support(Brought here from WP:RFC/A) Seems the most WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC way to go about it. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per both Cuñado and AryKun above ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per xaosflux's reply, and also per Cuñado. Should be decided case-by-case based on encyclopedic value rather than have a blanket rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  We've had two RfCs (August/September 2021, and May/June 2023) that have left us with a consensus that guidance is necessary. The most recent of those RfCs had a subquestion, and the consensus from that is that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. What this proposal does is set the criteria where the name can be used. In effect, this proposal is fulfilling the already existing community consensus on this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support, ideally but not necessarily with Sideswipe's change to "may" instead of "should". I don't think it's a huge deal either way but the main intent here is to restrict the use of a name, not mandate the use of one. (I also agree this guideline should be spun out of the MOS but that's clearly a separate discussion: MOS:GENDERID already has much more significant content implications than this.) Loki (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per David Eppstein and Cuñado. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly per Cuñado. I spoke in favor of heightened sourcing requirements in the May/June 2023 RfC; I've changed my mind and feel that such a standard would be too troublesome to implement in practice, also bearing in mind what AryKun said above. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Implementing the very large community consensus on this from past discussions. It took long enough. I see the usual suspects are trying to relitigate even the basics that the community thoroughly rebuked them for previously. What a waste of time. Silverseren^C 04:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. I would support adding "mentioned in one or more reliable sources" to avoid the concern raised above that someone might dredge up an old high school newspaper or equally bad source for an otherwise unmentioned name. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is that not just ordinary WP:V? Cremastra (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  Probably so. I only propose adding "mentioned in one or more reliable sources" as a compromise because even if it is just repeating advice given elsewhere, some editors clearly think this is a problem area for bad faith actors: so maybe a short reiteration of WP:V and WP:NOTEVERYTHING is necessary here. My main issue is with requiring multiple sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This is in line with WP:DUE. While in most cases a single high-quality source would be sufficient to justify an inclusion of a former name, a higher bar is appropriate with deadnames, because the act of sharing the name is itself contentious. We shouldn't default to following a few sources that share a deadname over many sources that do not. The standard as written ensures that content widely covered in reliable sources (i.e., of high encyclopedic interest) will be reflected in the article.--Trystan (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support with no preference between "their former name" and "their former names" (otherwise endorsing wording as proposed, including use of "should... only if". Any subject whose notability justifies an article will have multiple secondary sources documenting their life, including any former names that the subject used in a meaningful capacity. For subjects that declare that the use of their former name or deadname is appropriate in a primary source, secondary sources will duly report on that declaration. TROPtastic (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia does not recognize a privacy interest for deceased persons, and the remaining motivation for this restriction seems to be some sort of signal of political allyship, which Wikipedia should avoid. --Trovatore (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOS:DEADNAME already covers the issue for BLP, which is where deadnaming can be a serious issue. I see no reason to make a niche policy for deceased people that overcomplicates article-writing. This doesn't belong in the MOS. Regular inclusion criteria should apply like any other information in an article. Dan • ✉ 17:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. But we should aim higher. Including deadnames in articles should be avoided and done so sensitively and only when important to the article, but this specific policy to set a higher sourcing bar for including a prior name of a trans person doesn't seem like the best way to decide such importance. It adds to bureaucratic complexity, but it isn't totally clear that it creates more problems than it solves. The concerns around may vs should language illustrate the challenges with this policy. If it says should then this creates an impetus to include the deadname even when it doesn't make the article better. May seems better, but it is conceivable that a former name is important even when not covered in multiple secondary sources. Although we use coverage in sources to establish that a subject is notable, such coverage isn't always a sufficient indication that information is encyclopedic. This is a case where I think a policy for this should provide concrete guidance about making such determinations instead of creating a simple rule. Sourcing seems like a useful part of making such determinations, but maybe should not be the only part. I hear people saying that this debate has gone on long enough and not to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Then let's just systematically think through what other criterion would indicate using a deadname to (in)appropriate. Groceryheist (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's covered sufficiently by WP:ver which requires solid sourcing. IMO we should not go beyond that by excluding (including by making inclusion unusually difficult) common relevant public information such as their birth name. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  We already have a consensus that the former names of deceased trans and non-binary individuals are not automatically of encyclopaedic relevance, and by implication can be excluded per WP:NOT and WP:VNOT. What this proposal does is give guidance on the criteria where the former name becomes encyclopaedically relevant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support, for the many good reasons above, and the many discussions endorsing this principle. As well, we don't treat WP:BLP as meaning "Wait until they're dead so we can use crappier sources!"—I would think that a similar philosophical approach should apply here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with lowering the standard of sources after death. BLP allows for censorship of well-sourced information when there is a privacy concern, and after death the privacy concern goes away (with lingering extension up to two years). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I quite understand that. Privacy isn't the only concern, though, nor is our treatment of each individual subject in isolation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support, as it is clear that this guideline is consistent with previous guidelines on trans issues. Of course, what is "trivial" is difficult. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:DEADNAME)

I support despite some concerns raised by a few (but attracting little buy-in about those concerns). This re-re-re-rehash has been interminable, yet there is clearly already a general consensus in support of this [other than the minor syntactical quibbling above]. The WP:FILIBUSTER point has been an insistence by certain parties that this should be changed to discourage all inclusion of such names no matter what and only very grudingly permit one in a few rare cases of the "only if the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage" condition being met, plus additional unclear hurdles. But there is no general support for this idea, and we need to get past this roadblock.

Let us finally have some basic rule about this, and revisit it later (hopefully much later) if and only if some intractable problem arises. In the ultra-rare event that something like that David Eppstein's NPROF scenario might come up, it is clear from WP:LAWYER, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:P&G, etc., that we are not to interpret our rules as if they were designed to be in conflict and pitted against each other, but only as a working synergistic system. If one rule says a subject should be included because they are encyclopedically notable (i.e. coverage of them will be objectively an improvement to the encyclopedia), then obviously they cannot be completely excluded on a wikilawyering technicality about what character strings might be used to refer to them. That would be a hair on the tail wagging the entire dog. If some advocacy faction tries to get the daft result of excluding them anyway, we should WP:IAR to keep the article for the short term, then codify a specific new line-item to prevent that from ever coming up again (but not go there if we don't have to; see also WP:MOSBLOAT).

It has become crystal clear that no progress is going to be made, for "perfect is the enemy of good" reasons, as long as we keep trying to make every single editor 100% happy with the wording. We need to implement something that most editors can live with, and iron out any kinks later. This has gone on for far too long, producing a massive drain on editorial productivity and good will.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 20:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Specifically on David's NPROF point, I really don't think this is an issue. In the previous discussion at WT:MOSBIO a point was raised about us relying on databases like IEEE Fellows, when establishing notability per WP:NPROF criteria 1. Now within the last couple of years, the IEEE, along with many other major academic publishing bodies, changed their policies surrounding personal names to allow for names to be changed and updated easily. For many bodies, including the IEEE, this update will see the person's name, pronouns, and email addresses not only being updated in their author profile metadata, but also when they are mentioned in their works, and optionally (if it is desired by the academic) within the works of others.

Because of this, it is entirely possible that where a trans or non-binary academic has changed their name after publishing research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, we may never know, because all citations to that person that are verifiable online will only contain that person's current name. Now while there may still be offline citations to that person's work, for example in papers that were never digitised or otherwise released online, those will be in the minority, particularly for works published in the last 30-40 years. As someone who helps author, and patrols trans and non-binary biographical articles including those for academics, I just can't see this being an issue in practice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

They allow names to be changed, if the subject takes the effort to ask them to. They do not require them to be changed, in all cases. This draft policy does not make that distinction; it merely says that all past names be forbidden without significant sourcing. So in cases where the past name does not match the current name we would be out of luck. I have been going through lists of IEEE Fellows for other reasons recently and have encountered many cases of mismatch between listed and current names (although not to my knowledge involving trans people). It would be completely unsurprising to me for something similar to come up with a trans person, where through some oversight or mere lack of interest in asking them to change it, nothing happened. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

They do not require them to be changed, in all cases. I never said that a name change was mandatory. Just that it is now easy. Getting the IEEE to update your own articles with updated name and pronouns simply requires listing their DOIs followed by a checkbox asking how the author biography within articles should be updated on an online webform. Getting the IEEE to cascade update works that cite yours with a new name is quite literally a yes/no checkbox on the same form. It is however very, very common for a trans or non-binary person to change their name, because names are typically gendered (eg John vs Jane). In my experience, the vast majority of trans and non-binary academics will likely request a name change on their prior published works, because for the majority deadnaming is psychologically harmful.

This draft policy does not make that distinction; it merely says that all past names be forbidden without significant sourcing Regardless of whether they're alive or dead, if a person hasn't changed their name, then by definition they don't have a past name. They just have a name. If a trans or non-binary person (academic or otherwise) choses not to change their name, and only their pronouns, then we will continue to use their only name, in the same manner as we do currently, and just update their pronouns and gendered terminology where appropriate. If however they are in the minority of cases, where they change their names and are happy to be referred to by their former name for works and activities prior to changing their name, like Caitlyn Jenner, then that is something we handle largely through the current fourth paragraph of GENDERID and an application of WP:IAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant to the change related to extending what is in essence a BLP protection after death due to HARM concerns. If the person was notable enough under their former name it would be in the article alive or dead under current MOS. We can do this entirely case by case for an individual author of academic papers and in practice we handle this concern ALL the time since academic publishing names are highly pseudonymous, being often explicitly differentiated with middle names/extended initials that the author is otherwise not identified by. Any attempt at searching papers by academic John Smith and you already have to deal with ambiguity of publication name. This is why we use citations that cite the actual paper. Arguably the academics name is at it's LEAST relevant with respect to their publications for that reason. It would be more relevant with respect as to any personal publicity or celebrity they have. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Lots of academic papers only exist online as static PDFs, lots of readers may be accessing paper/microfiche version of these journals if they cannot afford the exorbitant fees charged to access them online, and if completely ignores the cases of trans/non-binary academics who do not mind old papers being listed under a previous name and who do not go to the effort to have them changed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Most static PDFs only appear static from journal publishers, and are actually procedurally generated at the time you access the URL to download them. I've already acknowledged that there are offline, like microfilm, that naturally would not be updated in this same manner.

As for the minority of trans and non-binary academics who don't mind using their former name when referring to past works and activities, that is something we already handle through the current fourth paragraph of GENDERID, and an application of WP:IAR. But this is very rare, with the most notable non-academic exception being Caitlyn Jenner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RECENT. Lots of older articles are PDFs that contain physical scans of pages, not something that can be procedurally generated. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Websites programmatically generating PDFs on-demand is something that's been available for at least 23 years. That isn't recentism by any meaningful definition of the word (see WP:10YT). Journals have been accepting LaTeX submissions more or less from when that standard was first released in the 1980s, with some even going so far as to mandate it until relatively recently (last 5 to 10 years) when they also began accepting submissions in Microsoft Word. And yes, you are correct that there are older PDFs that consist of scans of papers that were only published in print, but again those are in the minority of sources published within the last thirty to forty years. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• The following pages have been notified of this RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject LGBT studies Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This again? Additional further reading:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 185#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames.

Are we going to have this re-proposed every few months until everyone is worn down and lets it through? That seems to be the MO in this topic area. Anomie⚔ 23:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Why is this proposal for a change to the Manual of Style rather than BLP? Surely the central thrust of this proposal is about managing harm to living people; and surely we'd think differently about people who're long-deceased and past the possibility of harm from their Wikipedia article.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's being discussed as a change to MOS as it is an expansion on material that is already in MOS. It is not a matter for BLP because we are specifically discussing the deceased, as living persons are already similarly covered in MOS:DEADNAME. And it is in part a recognition of the stress we can cause the living by having it policy that when they die, we will likely start using their deadname here even when not encylopediacally necessary. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  We are not using the deadname, we are mentioning it. AryKun (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I am in favor of continuing all BLP protections to the “recently deceased”, so I am not opposed to this proposal.

However, I do think that we are making some unfounded assumptions when basing this on “respecting the wishes of the family”. What if the family actually prefers the subject’s deadname? (It happens). In such a situation, it could be argued that we should immediately mention the deadname “out of respect for the family”? Deadnaming, as with most Transgender related issues, is a very personal thing, and does not lend itself to a “one-size-fits-all” solution. The closest we can come to one-size is “follow the sources”. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"follow the sources" is in my reading the essence of the proposed MOS modification, and I supported on that basis. CMD (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• [The following commment thread was originally in the Survey section under Sideswipe9th's Support !vote.] Loki (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment The language should be...only when is already limitative; it does not imply the converse. Your concern would make sense if the proposal said "when and only when", but it doesn't, it just says "only when". --Trovatore (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    So the way I parse should be included...only if <condition> is when the condition is met, the content must be included. This is because in my WP:ENGVAR (British English), should and must are synonyms. Now yes this is limitative because the condition has to be met before inclusion can happen, however I don't like that we're mandating inclusion once that criteria is met. That doesn't allow for editorial discretion, beyond the exceedingly high barrier of WP:IAR, where the condition might be met, but inclusion might not be mandated due to the circumstances of the article. A typical example of this would be a trans or non-binary person who was killed, and several sensationalistic but otherwise reliable sources include their former name. By making this may be included...only if <condition>, we explicitly allowing for editorial discretion at a local basis to determine whether inclusion is warranted, taking into account due weight of all other sources published about a person posthumously. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    That all said, my support of this proposed addition is not conditional on this tweak being made. Even if we're mandating inclusion when the criteria is met, I still think this is an overall improvement when considering the lack of guidance for handling the former names of deceased trans and non-binary individuals. The perfect is the enemy of the good after all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    No, that's not the way English semantics works. When you have A only when B, that means that A cannot happen without B, but it does not mean that A necessarily happens when B does. --Trovatore (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    It is absolutely the way semantics work, when you're using a word, should, that mandates inclusion because that word is a synonym of must. In dyadic deontic logic this is the difference between $O(A\mid B)$ versus $P(A\mid B)$, where A is including the former name, and B is the sourcing requirement. The version of the guideline that has been proposed is $O(A\mid B)$ because the word should obliges inclusion when the condition B is met. If you want $P(A\mid B)$, where inclusion is permissible when the condition B is met, then you need to use a different word than a synonym of must. Hence, my proposal to change this to use may. The word may does not oblige inclusion when the condition B, it only permits it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    You're focusing on should/must, when you should be focusing on "only". "A only when B" means "B is a necessary condition for A"; it does not entail "B is a sufficient condition for A". --Trovatore (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    I looked up the interesting article you linked; it does help me make my point more clearly. "Only" is a negative polarity word. The correct rendering of "you should A only when B" is $\lnot P(A|\lnot B)$. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    $\lnot P(A|\lnot B)$ is a negation for both both $O(A\mid B)$ and $P(A\mid B)$. This is because when $\lnot B$ (not $B$), both $P(\lnot A)$ ($A$ is not permitted) and $O(\lnot A)$ ($A$ is not obliged) are satisfied. It's easy to get confused here because $P$ in dyadic deontic logic (where $P$ means permitted) has a different meaning than in classical negation (where $P$ means proposition). Classical logic has no concept for obligation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    I understood that you were using $P$ to mean "permitted". That's not the point. The point is that the statement using "only when B" has no implications whatsoever in the case that $B$ holds. The only time it gives you any information is in the case that $\lnot B$ holds. And in that case it implies that $A$ is not permitted. If $B$ holds, then "you should A only when B" tells you nothing at all about whether you should A. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    It is true that "only when $B$" no implications for whether $A$ is obliged or permitted, but that is only because it is the conditional for $A$. The "you should $A$" language earlier in the proposition is what tells us that this proposition is an obligation, and not a permission. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    Sentences of the form "A only when B" carry no information whatsoever when B is true. It doesn't matter at all whether there are deontic operators on top of it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    Except the sentence is not in the form "A only when B", it's in the form "you should A only when B". Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    The "only when" part is still dispositive. That means that B is a necessary condition; it says nothing whatsoever about whether it's a sufficient condition. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    I love how this started out as a discussion on proposed policy, then got into grammar and semantics, and has somehow ended up in logic arguments involving a lot of special symbols and "deontic operators". If you keep going, you should be able to get into math, then invent and develop the various sciences from that to a point where a hypothetical "Wikipedia" could exist in a thought experiment world. Then, given social forces at play in your sociology thought experiment, you could intuit the existence of this policy discussion, and the inevitable argument on the phrasing of the proposed policy... Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I agree, and this ultimately may be a philosophical argument based on the semantics of the words, but let me ask you this. With the prosed guideline above, what circumstances would make B insufficient for the inclusion of A? How does this proposed guideline allow for editorial discretion to not include a former name when it is documented in multiple secondary RS? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    Well, that which is not forbidden is permitted. "Editorial discretion" is always the default. If a former name is not documented in multiple secondary RS, then the proposed guideline says nothing, and therefore the situation defaults to editorial discretion unless some other policy or guideline applies. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    I think you misunderstood my question, let me rephrase. With the proposed guideline above in mind, if $B$ is met, and $A$ is not an obligation, what circumstances would allow for $\lnot A$? If a name is documented in multiple reliable sources, can editorial discretion still form around excluding the name because of other considerations? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    I went back and edited my comment before I saw your response — clearer now? -Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    No, your clarification doesn't address my question I'm afraid. I'm not asking about the situation where $\lnot B$ ($B$ is not met), I'm asking about the situation where $B$ is met. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    That's specifically the situation I addressed. If $B$ is met, then the proposed guideline says nothing, so you revert to the default condition, which is editorial discretion (unless of course some other policy or guideline applies).

    Oh, actually I did make a counting-negations mistake in my comment of 21:48 UTC -- fixed now; hope that's clearer. --Trovatore (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, that fix makes it clearer. I don't think I agree with the proposed guideline saying nothing when the condition is met. But I also think maybe Trystan has it right below, in that perhaps both interpretations are equally valid.

    Seeing as we've gotten pretty far off the RfC question in this diversion, and to make it easier for the closer to assess the overall consensus, would you mind if I collapsed everything starting at your reply at 17:45 (UTC), inclusive of that comment? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

    I mean, honestly, I think it would be better if you collapsed starting with your comment of 17:19. That way we have on record your claim and my objection to it, and then the argument section is there for people to view it. But I won't fight about it. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

    I'd like to avoid a collapse that includes Trystan's comment, where possible, as it addresses both of our arguments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)