Talk:Honey Mahogany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deadname

A user has recently removed the subjects name of Alpha Mulugeta, one with the rationale it is deadnaming the subject. There aren't any RS (that I can find at least) that state the subject isn't also using Mulugeta as well as Mahogany. In fact, in this source that states the subject has blended her own identity with that of her drag persona, it mentions both names. The subject has been written about with both names even since becoming well known, including here (2016), here (2018), and here (2019, and a queer source). So I don't think this falls under deadnaming (which I want to be sensitive of). What are others' thoughts? Pinging recent editor who is removing info, (@Funcrunch:). --Kbabej (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:DEADNAME and WP:GENDERID, we shouldn't call attention to a trans subject's deadname if they didn't gain notability under that name. Her deadname is still in the infobox, it really doesn't need to be elsewhere in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

But you don't know it's a deadname. That's my point. Do you have a RS stating it is? Because you're making an assumption just because she's trans. In fact, RS seem to use both, including interviews she's involved in. So they would point to the opposite. Kbabej (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm using "deadname" to refer to the name a trans person went by before their gender transition, whether or not they mind being referred to by it now. Just because a reliable source includes a trans person's deadname doesn't mean that the trans subject necessarily approves of this usage. The burden should not be on me (or the subject) to ask that the prior name not be used.

The MOS:DEADNAME guideline currently says "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." Deadnaming is harmful to trans people as a whole, and I argue that there is no compelling reason to include a trans person's deadname in a Wikipedia article at all if they were not known by that name prior to becoming notable. The current guideline does not mandate that we include it. I don't even feel comfortable seeing her deadname on this talk page, but I'm not going redact it from here or the infobox without consensus of other editors. Funcrunch (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I know exactly what "deadname" means. I understand your argument, and generally agree to with it. But I don't want to make broad generalizations about all trans people. You stated "whether or not they mind being referred to by it now"; if the subject doesn't mind it, and RS include it, then it's something that should be included. WP shouldn't erase part of someone's identity just because a user is making a broad generalization about trans people. There are no RS stating she only uses Mahogany now. For all we know, she uses both. --Kbabej (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should exclude deadnames by default. Not including a piece of information about a subject doesn't mean we're "erasing part of their identity". Users who want this information can find it elsewhere; we're not obligated to include it. Funcrunch (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW Honey Mahogany uses that name, not her deadname, for her day job. If you really want clarification on whether she's OK having her deadname on her Wikipedia page, you could contact her and ask her to post something on a verified social media profile (which would qualify as a reliable source for this purpose) clarifying the matter. Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would that be incumbent upon me to contact her and get clarification? You are the one not wanting sourced info included, including info from interviews in which she is participating (see links in my comment above). One could also make the argument she actually was notable under Alpha Mulugeta, as that name is used or at the least mentioned in most RS about her, including through her stint on RPDR and until 2019. --Kbabej (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no more to say on this issue as it seems we're going round in circles. I've alerted WT:LGBT to this discussion for further input. Funcrunch (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I’ve come around on this. You are completely right, @Funcrunch. Since I opened the header with the deadname here, can it be archived so that it won’t pop up? Thanks for removing! —Kbabej (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Kbabej. I don't have much experience with archiving sections of talk pages; if you know how to do it, feel free. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading for now, though obviously a section titled "Deadname" will still draw attention. If we really wanted to erase the name, WP:REVDEL seems like the way to go; it would be quite a large job given all the comments posted here, though. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  12:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that @Maddy from Celeste! --Kbabej (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I reached out to have the deadname mentions revdel-ed. Thanks! --Kbabej (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously a deadname. I would remove from infobox, as that info is then transmitted automatically by Google. And put it as the briefest mention in early life section. It’s clear it was her birth or former name but she is clearly using Mahogany now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1