Talk:Jennell Jaquays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Complaint of excessive focus on former gender by subject of this article[edit]

Jennell Jaquays has complained about the excessive focus on her former gender (instead of things that she is notable for, like painting and creating games).

I edited the lede of the article to remove a mention of her former name and that edit was reverted by User:Sangrolu. Her former name does not need to be in the lede, as the information is contained elsewhere and a redirect goes from the old name to her current name. I'm putting that back now under the following grounds: "contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately". Please do not revert the edit again as I now believe that to be against the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY. Big Mac (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Gender_Identity_-_proposal_on_names_used Rhialto (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not contentious because she feels it shouldn't be here. It's a fact, and the article should indicate it. It's not in anyway claiming this is who she still is, it's pointing out that this is who she was born as. - Floydian τ ¢ 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is contentious as it serves only to embarrass a living person who has stated the pain it causes her. Trans* people, and trans women, in particular, and trans women of color, more than anyone else are targeted for abuse and have their old gender identity weaponized again them. We should avoid doing more harm, it just doesn't make the article any better or inform a reader any more than to state she had transitioned, that should be plenty. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Pain? That's ridiculous and melodramatic. We aren't doing harm, we are providing factual information. This is an encyclopedia, not a human interest story. Not including her birth name is omitting factual information that is sourced, verified, and real to pander to one's self-esteem issues. You also seem to have the definition of contentious off. Contentious means controversial, and there is no controversy that this woman's name was Paul at birth. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The very core of BLP is to avoid doing harm, there is no reason we can't keep information that the subject has deemed harmful to her, to a bare minimum. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I concur with with Floydian. It is not contentious ("not contentious" is this context does not mean "doesn't make someone uncomfortable"; it means that the facts are not disputed.) That Ms. Jaquays was born as Paul is not a fact that is disputed. To try to downplay that fact smacks to me of negationism. Take a look at WP:ASFAQ. WP takes a dim view of changing articles about oneself (or by ones' representatives) for good reason; we can't go erasing facts from articles because the subjects don't like it. The article follows MOS in that it refers to Ms. Jaquays by her preferred name and gender identification, and I concur that we should not use her birth name to refer to her. That does not and should not prevent us from referring to the historical name in the article. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
To be clear no one has suggested erasing facts, just minimizing how many times we repeat the same fact over and over. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is standard practise in all biographical articles to include the birth name and date as it is currently presented in this article in the lede. The infobox for a person has a similar parameter; like the lede, it summarizes the facts in a quick easy to take in way. In order for a fact to be contained in either, it must be mentioned in the body of the article, per WP:LEDE, WP:LAYOUT, and probably half a dozen other annoying WP:LINKS. The personal life section is the obvious place for this. Again, in no way does the article claim that this is who she still is, but even she cannot deny that it is who she was born as and known as for 90% of her life. Heck, it's even in the DYK fact that we listed a few years before she reidentified herself. Not to mention that the majority of her published work is under the name Paul Jaquays! - Floydian τ ¢ 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Per BLP we should avoid doing harm. It should be minimized. If the small print on Wikipedia dictates we must do harm then the small print should be changed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Per what in WP:BLP? See WP:HARM. The only relevant line in BLP is:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
We are not being sensational, spreading titillating claims, or acting like a tabloid. Further, where is any proof that Ms. Jaquays is personally dismayed and that someone is not pushing a politically-correct agenda in her name? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Take a quick look at WP:HARM. As you can see there, the idea of "doing no harm" was ultimately rejected as central principle of BLP because it was inconsistent with NPOV. However, as a litmus test for editorial discretion, I submit to you the "inclusion test" mentioned there is fairly reasonable: 1) is the information already widely known? 2) Is the information definitive and factual? 3) Is the information given due weight given the subject's notability? Applied in this case: 1) The birth name and gender of Ms. Jaquays is already widely known; 2) that Ms. Jaquays was born as Paul and widely published under her that name is relevant and factual, and 3) the mention of the original name only occurs once in the body. As readers of Ms. Jaquays RPG work may well be seeking out information under her birth name means that including it in the summaries is at least worthy of the minimal weight that it is given. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We actually do have some commentary from the subject, on a Facebook post. I don't know why David Shepheard did not post it here, but he did post it at another thread. As I read through the post, I was dismayed by Jennell's responses that her article here "as written, seems written with the intent of sensationalizing my being trans, as opposed to everything else in my career", and wondered if we were reading the same article. Take out her birth name mention in the lead and infobox, the single trans-related category, and less than half of the five-sentence personal life section, and you have a pretty lengthy, perfectly ordinary article about a game designer and artist. Then I read further and gathered that from her comments maybe it was the fact that the personal life section, short as it is, mentions her transition in two of those five sentences. It really is a minimal mention to my eyes (no lurid detail, nothing over-the-top, just noting it happened), but maybe the problem is that it seems imbalanced because that section is so short. So, I have to wonder if we could find some more information to fill that out so that is not the sum total of her life outside of her career? Would that help to alleviate some of her concerns? BOZ (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for improving Wikipedia instead of trying to make it worse. That said, how much is notable about Ms. Jaquays personal life? Delving more into her personal life seems like it is getting more tabloid-like, not less. I'm certainly willing to add more substance to the career section. Would moving the personal life section to the end (as is done for many other biographies) alleviate any concerns? - Sangrolu (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I had considered moving the personal life section to under the career section as well - I think that is a step in the right direction. As for the rest, I suppose it would depend on whatever can be found in any interviews or other reliable sources; might be things like discovering fantasy books as a child or inspirations or that sort of thing, which I have seen in (and added to) other bio articles when I can. Makes for more interesting reading, too. :) BOZ (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course we should not remove Jaquays' birth name, under which she is overwhelmingly known in the industry, from the lead. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this information is not only encyclopaedic but vital to her entire notability. What has she written under the name Jennell Jaquays? And what has she written under the name Paul Jaquays? The answer is obvious. Deciding after 50-odd years that one no longer wishes to be known by one's birth name is not a good reason for an encyclopaedia to erase all mention of that birth name except one brief mention in the body of the article. This is common sense, not discrimination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is another thought, as to whether we have an appropriate level of mentioning the name "Paul" or referring to transsexualism in general. For a comparison, do you remember the rather large controversy over Chelsea Manning last year? After all that, the article currently begins: "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is..." If I could think of any article about a transwoman where the birth name would have been removed from the lead, that's the big one, and they still have it. Is that a bad example or a good one? Additionally, we have the full birth name in the infobox and the first sentence of the "Early life" section of Manning's article, at least two pictures of Manning presenting as male, at least two trans-related categories (and more if you count LBGT cats), and if I do a search for the total number of uses of "Bradley", I count 94. So if what we have on Jennell's article is "excessive", then Manning's is mind-boggling, and that is what it looks like after a great deal of controversy and discussion. Manning, also, was not known as Bradley (or even alive) as long as Jennell was known as Paul. Either we have a very big problem on that article and a much smaller problem here, or we are doing what could be considered standard practice with Jennell. BOZ (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The Chelsea Manning is not an apt example as she was known internationally under her former name, then made international news when she publicly came out as transgender. We do have articles on trans women where their names and even gender transition are not discussed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually its more than apt, as Jennell is far more notable for the things she did under the name Paul Jaquays, and not for making her personal transition into a media spectacle, as was the case with Manning. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a "former" gender. Most trans folk assert they have always been their gender, but had difficulty expressing it. Moving right past: this isn't a biography of Mark Twain. There is nothing informative about including her birth name, her dead name, in the lede to the article. This article fails to adhere to the guidelines for biographies of living persons on multiple counts. Jenell isn't a "celebrity," she is known for her work and that's it. If there is some practical need to directly reference her dead name at all, which I rather doubt, it should be buried in her list of works in the manner of a pen name. Certainly not in her infobox, and unquestionably not in the lede. Talk about the encyclopedic value of reciting her dead name after she is dead. Pawsplay (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I afraid I have to disagree. She IS a celebrity, minor one in a small industry, but for us RPGers she still is. Heck, her work was even translated into Japanese[1], and I had that book. What keeps happening here seems to be a fight between RPG fans most of which recognize only her former name vs. people only interested in political aspect of this whole thing, isn't it? Reference to Paul Jaquays name is vital in this article, otherwise readers who searched for the author of Dark Tower, RPG hero book etc. will be left confused. In this YouTube interview she is introduced "formerly known as Paul..." and seems perfectly fine and open with it. ( --Yk49 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you are implying but I am familiar with Ms. Jacquays from her RPG work. This is not a fight between rpg fans and people who are political, whatever that means, but people people who are respectful and encyclopedic versus people who are acting thoughtlessly. Pawsplay (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not adhering to guidelines for biographies of living persons[edit]

Editors continue to include the subject of this article's dead name in several points of violation of BLP.

  • First, the dead name is given as the subject's birth name. This is never sourced. It is a clear violation of BLP to include information that is not verified by a trusted source.
  • Second, the subject of the article is not a public celebrity. She is known primarily for her body of work, and BLP makes a presumption of privacy. If her name were simply Tanya at one point and she changed it, we would be obliged to respect this choice. In this case, taking into account a profound personal change and a change in gender representation, an editor's responsibility is all the more salient. If indeed you have correctly identified the subject's birth name, that is still private information and you don't get to decide in a cavalier way whether that information should be featured prominently in the article. Again, this is a living person. Due consideration must be made.
  • Third, there is a question of undue weight. Why, I would like to know, is it so important to identify what exactly someone's birth name is? It seems to me the only clear agenda here is to disregard this living person's wishes, and to focus on a small biographic matter at the expense of the work for which she is known. If it turned out the subject's birth name was actually Terry, would that change the content or significance of the article in any way?
  • Fourth, the deadnaming is not needed for finding information. The article already redirects from that other name, and the subject's identity as the author, developer, and artist of a number of works is more than clear. For clarity, I have added a previous name to the Works section.
  • Fifth, while much of the work was published under a previous name, she is still active in the field and uses her current name exclusively. There is no demarcation of work under one name versus later work under another name; the only time works would list her previous name would be if the work was published before she adopted that name and physically bears her old name.

As another matter, there are stylistic objections to listing the deadname. The manual of style says explicitly, "The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first." Thus a claim that biographies always list birth names in a certain way is wrong. It may be habit or custom in many cases but it is not policy, and you may not fairly assert otherwise. The policy does state, "Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent)." I don't see how casual references to a male name is going to do anything but confuse. It is only relevant when listing a name as an author of a work, or in directly referencing someone's biography. I hope it goes without saying that this article is not a good candidate for an exhaustive biography of someone's early life and gender identity. The references to her trans identity are already clear and sufficient for anyone interested in that aspect. In conclusion, stop doing this because you think you are some great crusader of truth exposing facts to the world. It is not Wikipedia policy that because someone is fairly well known for some gaming stuff, you may exhaustively list and draw attention to personal details and history. Pawsplay (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So, you are honestly suggesting that the name given throughout the references and bibliography is "unsourced"? That strikes me as disingenuous to say the least. The subject's birth name is not false or libelous; it is not inconsistent with WP:BLP to include factual information. MOS:IDENTITY suggests that the proper pronouns be used; that has been adhered to. Both WP:HARM and prior noticeboard discussions suggest it is appropriate to use the subject's birth names when they were known as a public figure under that name, as Ms. Jaquays clearly was. - Sangrolu (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Chaz Bono and Caitlyn Jenner both have the birth names in the lead and infobox, for example, so I do not see why the birth name in this case - which was used in print in the credits of works for more than 30 years - could be seen as inappropriate in this case. It is misleading to suggest that the birth name is private or secret, when Jaquays' own website (see citation in infobox) says right at the top: "Most of her fans and peers know Jennell Jaquays for the body of work she created using the name "Paul Jaquays" through-out the course of her career as an artist and game developer working on role play gaming and computer and video game development projects." Given that we have three attempts by three different accounts to remove the name "Paul" from the article so far in this young month, I've got to think someone somewhere has pointed this out as a campaign to try to have it removed for some kind of WP:POINT. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
And, I don't have a list of video game work, but the body of tabletop RPG work was not small: 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
People keep saying "birth name" but that is not sourced. The reference given only indicates that the subject of the article was known professionally by that name at one point. This person could very well have gone by their middle name, or simply used a pen name. You will need to find a source for birth name. I see also that an editor scrubbed the mention of the previous name from Works. Why would you do that? That would actually be relevant. Pawsplay (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What was scrubbed is your attempt to bury your reversion. I'm happy to change it to "formerly Paul Jaquays", but you are pulling at straws with your argument. Why aren't you removing the unsourced birth date and year? Quake3world is not a reliable source. Could it be that you're pushing a point? - Floydian τ ¢ 17:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Setting aside whether you want to assume good faith, or the suitability of Quake3World as a source, there is no source given at all that establishes the subject's birth name. Pawsplay (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Now you're just being flat-out ridiculous, to be honest. Jaquays came out in 2011 on her Facebook page, and directly references her past name; TheValeyard (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
A past name is not a birth name. People are specifically trying to say the individual was born with that name. I say, you don't know that. Maybe they took a step-parent's last name. Maybe they go by a middle name. If you want to say that's the individual's birth name, just find me a source, any reliable source, that has shared that information. You are simply inferring something you don't know to be true. And since this article must adhere to BLP, that is doubly irresponsible.If you are so absolutely convinced this person's birth name must be correctly listed in this article, then you better make sure you have that information correct. Otherwise it is clear the goal here is not accuracy. Pawsplay (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You'll be hard pressed to find a source that says "birth name". And again, the solution is simple: "formerly Paul Jaquays". It is clear you are going to continue to revert numerous editors until you get your way, so I'm tempted to bring this to WP:AN and the BLP noticeboard. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course you are invited to join the discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Pawsplay (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh right, the one you informed us of here as opposed to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Well done, I'm sure as per usual a blind eye will be turned to this total misappropriation. A trout for you. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Albeit I agree with you, to be fair to Pawsplay, it does say right there on the top of the page that the noticeboard is preferable to edit warring. - Sangrolu (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by forum shopping. First I tried to edit in good faith, and attempted to engage other editors on the talk page. As it became clear it was difficult to reach consensus, I then made an entry on the noticeboard, as recommended by BLP. Now, as the issue is still being debated, admin action has been taken, though not at my request. I have followed protocol precisely, AFAIK. Pawsplay (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing the birth name is actually contentious, but I don't think it's worth "going to the mat" for. I think it's acceptable to replace it with "formerly known as", as was done in the case of Caitlyn Jenner. - Sangrolu (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how contentious even enters into it, an unsourced statement has been made about a living person and I have simply pointed that out. I honestly don't know why it is being tolerated by the admins to leave those factual claims in place without any source of any kind even making that claim. Pawsplay (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
At this point, it is safe to say that you are purposefully stonewalling the debate in order to apply an extremely, extremely narrow personal point-of-view in regards to a trans persons birth name being used in their Wikipedia article. You know very well that this person was born Paul Jaquays, the article was titled that until 2012, we have her own bio to certify that. That that link is no longer live and has to be accessed via does not affect its veracity in the slightest. Keep in mind that several editors, including myself, came into this discussion because you posted a request at the BLP board. Requests for a wider input doesn't mean that those who come by are gong to agree with you, and it may be time to acknowledge that, rather than edit-war continuously. TheValeyard (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you please copy and paste the text from that source that establishes the subject's name at birth? It is not edit-warring to request that you provide a source for a factual claim. I feel like I am turning blue in the face here, but I have yet to see a single source that says Jennell Jaquays was born Paul Jaquays. I do not know that. You do not know that. It is an inference you are making, and hence, qualifies at best as original research and at worst as simply making an unsourced statement because it pleases you to do so. The article on Albert Einstein never says what he was named at birth. Elton John does say what his name was birth, and a source is provided to back up this claim, eg. né Reginald Kenneth Dwight; changed name to Elton Hercules John. If you want to provide a birth name for this subject, you must provide an appropriate source, similar to the one for Elton John. If that sort of text exists in one of the existing sources, please point it out to me so we can end this back-and-forth. Pawsplay (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I am frustrated that we are even at this point, but I would like to draw attention to this text from WP:V All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Pawsplay (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Subject's DOB[edit]

I am going to suggest the subject's DOB be removed. Quake3world is not a trusted source. That this comes from an archived page suggests this information is not widely available and is not intended to be. Unless an appropriate source can be found, I think this qualifies as original research. In consideration of BLP, I will note that while Britney Spears probably does not have to worry much about identity theft, someone with a narrower notability like Jennell does. Pawsplay (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what constitutes WP:OR. It's coming up with things that aren't in the sources, not finding obscure sources. I can't really comment on Quake3World as a source, but you may want to run it past the RS noticeboard if that's a concern. But it being an archived link is not typically a problem on Wikipedia. Many articles rely on them. All that being said, I'm not that sure the DOB is that important to the article. -Sangrolu (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a trusted third party to me, and its acceptability as a primary source for a biography seems questionable to me. Pawsplay (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The operative phrase there is "to me", i.e. you. TheValeyard (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
So what do you think? Pawsplay (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth name[edit]

I would like to set aside issues of larger context and focus on one specific point. Several editors have inserted a "born as" statement, even though there is no source given for what name the subject of this article was given at birth. What are your thoughts on including this unsourced material in the biography of a living person? Pawsplay (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please remove the material about name at birth. It is quite simply unsourced. At best it is WP:OR. There is no source at all for "born Paul J". In the "Early life" section, a source is given, but it says nothing about Jennell Jaquays having been born with the name Paul Jaquays. It is quite concerning to see an admin revert unsourced material into the article and then protect it. Per WP:BLP, this challenged material should remain out of the article until the situation is resolved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

minus Removed This should not be restored without consensus to do so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss the suitability of the following references in establishing the birth name of the subject. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "Jennell Jaquays: The Reinvented Girl". Retrieved March 22, 2012.
  • "Paul Jaquays: What's the Story?". Archived from the original on October 10, 2009. Retrieved March 22, 2012.

Those sources, both written by (or at least attributed to) the subject of this article, claim many of the same things as each other, and therefore from my reading they appear to establish that "Paul Jaquays" and "Jennell Jaquays" are at least the same person. On the other hand, you removed the name Paul from the body of the article entirely, so unless we can accept that these two links establish them as the same person, how can we know that they actually are the same person? If we can't establish that Jennell used to be Paul, then we should remove everything from the article that can only be attributed to Paul, which is nearly everything in the article.

If the question is, do either of those sources establish Paul as the "birth name", then my question is, how do we actually establish what someone's birth name actually is? Do we need a birth certificate? Should we remove the birth name from all BLP articles that have not somehow established that through a reliable source? Should we not assume that the name a person has gone from my their childhood into their adulthood is not a name they were born with? Does a subject have to prove one way or another that the name they use is their actual name? Does the subject of this article actually dispute that her parents chose the name "Paul" for her when she was born? (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

How exactly is it proper for one admin to restore the article to its pre-edit-warred-by-Pawsplay state, lock it to prevent further disruption, and then for another admin to bypass the protection and remove content? How is that not an abuse of admin privilege? Spare the WP:CRYBLP, please. Courtesy ping to @BOZ: as well. TheValeyard (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I had noticed that, but I did not want a WP:WHEEL situation so I left it. BOZ (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"If the question is, do either of those sources establish Paul as the "birth name", then my question is, how do we actually establish what someone's birth name actually is?" You're not supposed to. Per BLP, you are only supposed to include information that is widely available from public sources, or that the subject has decided to share publicly. Neither is currently true of the birth name of the subject of this article. Conducting original research on a BLP is a violation of the subject's privacy, aside from being a poor editing practice in general. Pawsplay (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue of sourcing[edit]

I've been involved in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard, and I think it's fair to say that discussion has tended to agree with Pawsplay's and Nomoskedasticity's contention that listing Paul as a birth name is not directly sourced, but is merely inferred because the previous name was Paul (unarguably). As Pawsplay has put it, it's perfectly reasonable to presume Jaquays' birth name might be "Samuel Clemens", but presumption is not the business we're in, not in BLP articles. Based on WP:V, we are compelled to have reliable sourcing in order to assert that Paul is the birth name. Further, I believe in order to honor BLP policies it's best to use multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Using Jaquays' personal website to source her own biography is poor BLP practice. (Inside the realm, but not the ideal choice.) I have suggested the Varney interview is a strong source; Varney is a well-established if well-connected writer. The Escapist seems to meet RS insomuch as the interview subject's name at the time of the interview is concerned. There was an Ed Greenwood quote offered directly detailing Jaquays' current and previous first names. This also seems a good verification source. Neither makes a birth name assertion, and so we shouldn't either, at least until we find such a source (which to me seems inevitable, Jaquays's career seeming a fascinating subject for college-level research). BusterD (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Former name[edit]

Based on multiple largely concluded discussions it seems now apparent that using the previous name as a birth name is not supported by policy or consensus. That said, most editors who weighed in on the subject agree that some mention of the subject's previous name is unavoidable when trying to describe a trans BLP subject. I've done some searching through Wikipediaspace and have found little guidance about deadnaming other than some discussions in Village Pump (policy). (I'd like to add that all the definitions, including the wiktionary one, I've found on "deadnaming" refer to the deadname as the birth name.) In order to do the mildest harm, I believe editors have suggested mentioning the name as little as possible, but where appropriate. If I've mis-characterized previous discussion at all, someone please correct me in the discussion section provided below.

I'd like this thread to help conclude disagreement between positions of policy, guideline and best practice. I'll put forward suggestions brought by at least two editors in the BLP/N discussion on this subject. I'll add one of my own.

1) The previous name is used in the opening sentence of the article, using a parenthetical statement something like "previously published as..." with two citations from multiple RS independent of the subject. This has the advantage of not asserting birth name or even previous use, but correctly and factually describing the previous name as one associated with Jaquays' published work. I'd contend that choosing NOT to include the previous name in the lede makes the rest of the page very confusing. Putting it in the lede also gives the advantage of NOT NEEDING to explain it later if such an explanation is undesirable, not fully necessary, or cannot be well sourced.
2) The previous name is NOT used in the early life section unless RS can be used to document the use, not calculate or infer the use.
3) The previous name might be (and likely should be) mentioned in the LGBT advocacy section where documentation is strong in order to make clear that Jaquays' transition has left the deadname behind. It would be awesome, and perhaps a teachable moment, if a quote from RS could be found and included where the subject specifically addresses deadnaming and/or makes it clear how she expected to be addressed in the future. (for my part, I've been part of the LGBT family for almost 40 years and I'd never heard the term deadnaming until seeing the thread on BLP/N; color me not current)
4) The previous name should be mentioned in the Works section, because virtually all published works were credited to the previous name.
5) (my suggestion) The Ed Greenwood quote or part thereof "Does Paul Jaquays becoming Jennell Jaquays rob his, now her, artwork or game design or prose of one iota of its richness and the enjoyment it gives me? NO! And how by the Nine flaming Hells does one human being made happier by being the gender they prefer to be lessen my own security, or happiness, or make my life the less?" [2] be included in a quote box located close to the advocacy section.

For my part, I'd be happy with the inclusion in the lede and the works section. I've put forth options for discussion. IMHO, we have a responsibility to educate and enlighten. Until deadnaming has a place in BLP policy or guideline, our responsibility to follow pillar one is paramount. BusterD (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(Pinging all previous participants on this talk page who have edited within the last six months, and those from the BLP noticeboard discussion, to hopefully generate a final consensus: User:Sangrolu, User:Mira, User:David Shepheard, User:Sceptre, User:Rhialto, User:Floydian, User:Necrothesp, User:Yk49, User:TheValeyard, User:Nomoskedasticity, User:MSGJ, User:Masem, User:Galobtter BOZ (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC))


I believe the spirit of the BLP would be to avoid deadnaming a subject, except where unavoidable. However, as that is not an explicit policy, I am putting out some discussion on the BLP talk page. Pawsplay (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the policy was introduced for the sole reason of preventing the introduction of libelous information into biographies. It was created due to the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. Stickee (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED requires us to include the previous name, so long as other policies are followed. What we are discussing in this thread is how much and where the previous name should be used, not if. BusterD (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Quoting WP:NOTCENSORED: Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) . So that's a non-argument. Not being censored has no bearing on where and how the information should be presented. That's an undue weight issue, also privacy, also respect for living persons, all cornerstones of BLP, which by the way covers "the privacy of names" and not just libelous material. Pawsplay (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not suggesting otherwise. I am objecting to including the name in the lede. Surely for a BLP we can avoid gratuitous mentions that are harmful and traumatizing to the subject of the article. It is not "just a previous name" as another editor suggested, and of course the redirect for the article has always been there. I think the previous name belongs under Works, the only sense in which "Paul" is and ever will be notable.Pawsplay (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on following the discussion on the noticeboard, I have to concur with all of BusterD's points. I think the name "Paul" should be mentioned once in the lead, and once under the "works" section, and possibly once in the advocacy section - although I think there it should only as part of the Greenwood quote if that quote is used. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:D007:916C:8274:D8B1 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with IP2600 and BusterD's suggestions, which appear to be consistent with the MOS and the relevant sources on the matter. Stickee (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

When somebody was already well-known under one name and changes their name (for whatever reason) it is ludicrous not to list that name prominently in the lead. As a roleplayer, I have known of Paul Jaquays for many years. For that name to not be listed is doing a complete disservice to Wikipedia and its users. The name should be listed as "...previously known as Paul Jaquays..." as per usual practice. It's just a previous name, for crying out loud, just like any other previous name, which we would also list. It hasn't ceased to exist in human consciousness just because of the circumstances of the name change. A name is just a name; it isn't an insult. Anyone can call themselves whatever they choose, but an encyclopaedia owes it to its users to prominently list any name by which a person has been well-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

So what is owed to the subject of the article? I'll offer some considerations from BLP:
  • Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies...
  • Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.
  • The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.
  • With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. 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. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.
  • Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see #Using the subject as a self-published source.

So I don't really accept that there are no limitations on what information can be included. Pawsplay (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No matter what one's (or wikipedia's) position on deadnaming, it seems bizarre that there is not at least a redirect for Paul Jaquays, particularly as the name is used in reliable secondary sources such as Designers & Dragons. Newimpartial (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Paul Jaquays already covered. :) 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:D007:916C:8274:D8B1 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for mentioning Paul Jaquays (as "previously named" rather than "born as") in the lead and in the infobox. Does anyone want to draft the wording, otherwise I will have a go at this later today. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"Jennell Jaquays (born October 14, 1956), previously known as Paul Jaquays, is an..." is fine by me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll restate my approval on this... from over a week ago. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I quote: The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first. So being consistent with the MOS is a fallacious and disingenuous invocation. Pawsplay (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your point. We are not bound by the MOS in this matter. When wikipedians disagree (as we often do), we discuss on the talk page, build consensus and make editing decisions based on those outcomes. I see lots of support here for using the previous name in the most respectful manner possible. We are now discussing how to do so. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
"Jennell Jaquays (born October 14, 1956), previously published as Paul Jaquays, is an..." is my preference. BusterD (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I support inclusion under Necrothesp's proposed wording (previously known as). Clearest way of expressing it and taking into the account the concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur with Necrothesp's wording. (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    plus Added. Is there an appropriate infobox field? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
| pseudonym        = 

? (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It's entirely possible we're done here. I don't see any compelling reason to use the name elsewhere without better sourcing. Would still love the Greenwood quote used somewhere. Its wording doesn't meet the standard for political correctness, but there's an authenticity, the source being Greenwood, that rings. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • One concern I have remains - shouldn't we mention under "Works" that they were published under Jennell's former name prior to 2011? - Floydian τ ¢ 18:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you mind taking a crack at it here on page talk? I believe this forum has helped calm the waters, because we were talking calmly. I'd love to see a someone suggest wording respectfully explaining that fact. BusterD (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)