Talk:Murder of Maxwell Confait

Untitled

I've inserted a heading designed to separate out the material on Harry Fisher, but this really deserves its own article. This piece also needs more detail regarding Douglas Franklin, and perhaps also the fates of Lattimore, Leighton, and Salih.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Maxwell Confait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927085236/http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bopall/ref19168.html to http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bopall/ref19168.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to bring this page up to standards

Hey, I've taken this page under my wing and am working on refining the structure and adding citations currently. However, I'm wondering whether the far-reaching ramifications of this case and the miscarriage of justice surrounding the prosecution should be under a different page altogether? Let me know if anyone has opinions. Strunk and Right (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Change Page Name

Her name is Michelle, as we know is the name she identified with. She deserves the name of the page fitting her identity. May we please discuss this, maybe take votes? Please mention me so I get notices if you reply. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree! I'm new to this, so I don't know how to change the page name. How would one do that? Lm95035679 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You would post the following text on this talk page: {{subst:requested move|Murder of Michelle Confait|reason=}} --Pokelova (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for missing all the action giving attention to Michelle’s page! My argument, if this helps, is she was known as Michelle with her friends, so arguably her identity being molded by her lifestyle highly implies she has a nonconforming gender identity naturally, but she wouldn’t most everyone express her identity. Being ace and having hoping to transition to female since I was 16, I know from myself and other people there are many ways to come into one’s own, in addition to steps we all take and lives and perspectives we want to lead. Simply for Michelle, she could identify more through her casual and social life being more representative of her. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Article was not moved. Despite some arguments why it should be, the issues raised by opposers were not addressed, particularly around sourcing of the subject's gender identity. (non-admin closure) — Czello 08:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Murder of Maxwell Confait → Murder of Michelle Confait – Per MOS:DEADNAME, we should respect subject's last preferred name. As far as I can tell nobody disputes that she preferred Michelle. 2603:6011:2443:AE00:D904:923E:E767:4A51 (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom --John B123 (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Courtesy pings to @ContributingHelperOnTheSide, Lm95035679, and Pokelova: who commented in the above discussion about the page name. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Lm95035679 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Skynxnex (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like it or not, the victim was invariably referred to as Maxwell Confait. Every source cited in the article uses that name. It has gone down in the annals of British murder. It is the very clear WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia is not in the business of revisionism. We report facts and only facts. How it was, not how modern sensibilities would like it to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I should also point out that not a single reliable source refers to Confait as "a trans woman". This is no more than putting a 21st-century interpretation on the life of someone who died fifty years ago. Confait was described at the time as a transvestite and some modern commentators (including, obviously, some Wikipedia editors) have assumed that means a trans woman. However, even today, not everyone by a long shot who identifies as a transvestite identifies as a trans woman (see Grayson Perry for a particularly well-known example). It appears that because an editor has added "trans woman" to the article (with no supporting sources) the above editors have automatically assumed this is correct because in the 21st century that's what many would assume. But as with many other things, you simply cannot apply 21st-century assumptions to the past and we do not make assumptions on Wikipedia without supporting evidence from reliable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. Is there any evidence that Confait identified as a woman? Searching Google News, only two sources comment on their gender identify; The Telegraph, which describes them as a "homosexual transvestite", and The Daily Mail, which says they "preferred to live as a woman named Michelle". The Daily Mail is very unreliable so we need to rely on the Telegraph unless there are other sources supporting this claim. BilledMammal (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Searching Google Scholar finds a few more results; two refer to Confait as transgender; one is reliable, but the other is a student newspaper and is not.

  Several others refer to him as a "homosexual transvestite", many of which are recent. The issue with all of these sources, including the book that refers to Confait as transgender, are that they focus on policing and the justice system, and refer to Confait in that context, rather than in the context of consider who they actually were, and what they identified as.

  There was one source that is not from that field, but it isn't very helpful either; it is from 1990, and it doesn't state what Confait was but instead uses headlines about them as examples of evolving language about cross-dressers. I would interpret this as leaning towards Confait being a cross-dresser, and not transgender, but it isn't conclusive.

  Based on this I've replaced the claim that Confait was transgender with one that they were a cross-dresser; with only one reliable source referring to them as the former compared to a dozen referring to them as the latter I don't believe the claim is WP:DUE. However, if other editors can find additional sources to support the claim, particularly if those sources are from a relevant field, please revert and ping me so I can reconsider my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: RM relisted per consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 March after a previous close of "moved". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:DEADNAME should not be used in this way. This is a person who died decades ago and who was notable only under their birth name. Additionally, the evidence that they were actually transgender and viewed their birth name as a dead name is scant. Changing this person's name so many decades after death seems less likely to be about actually respecting this person's wishes and more about using this person's tragic death and memory to push a particular political agenda. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support - I was the original closer of the RM, and I thought the consensus in this case (both local and global) was so blindingly obvious that the closure didn’t even need to be explained. Does GENDERID apply to Confait? Unambiguously yes; one can argue whether they were transgender or not – we'll never know either way – but the proposition that their "gender might be questioned" cannot be seriously argued against; this is the criteria for when GENDERID applies. So, we ask, what was Confait’s preferred name? All of the sources – both reliable and not! – say that they preferred to be called "Michelle". Again, this seriously cannot be argued against.
  The long-standing consensus on Wikipedia, affirmed time and time again, is that GENDERID provides one of the exceptions allowed in for COMMONNAME, regardless of whether the subject is alive or not. Any argument to the contrary shows a lack of proper understanding – hopefully through ignorance rather than malice - of either Wikipedia policy or the subject matter. If you have a problem with GENDERID, then take it up at the appropriate forum, but it's clear it applies, and the logical conclusion is equally clear; an RM cannot override that. Sceptre (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:GENDERID (the first paragraph) doesn't cover names; instead, MOS:DEADNAME does (the second paragraph), which does not apply here as it only applies to living individuals.

  However, even if your interpretation was correct, your conclusion that the only result is to overrule COMMONNAME is incorrect - when two guidelines conflict, and editors disagree on which one takes precedence, consensus is determined by which guideline the majority of contributing editors believe to take precedence in the specific case.

  In general, I'll add that while it would be nice if we could always use an individuals preferred name that would negatively impact the reader in the cases where we override WP:COMMONNAME, and so instead we create exceptions for when people would be harmed. I don't believe it would be in the interest of the reader to expand that exception to cases where people cannot be harmed, although as I can think of a few cases beyond deadnaming where the use of a birth name would harm a living individual I believe we should expand this guideline to cover all such cases. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I’ve already said this in the MRV, but I disagree with your argument that the first paragraph of GENDERID doesn’t cover names; I think it’s a common-sense reading, as misgendering and deadnaming are two sides of the same coin.

  And like I said, the second paragraph of MOS:GENDERID – which I agree, doesn’t apply to Confait as they’re dead – doesn’t apply for the additional reason that it only talks about the issue of inclusion of deadnames in an article. Nobody is arguing to remove the name "Maxwell" from the article.

  COMMONNAME is a guiding principle that we should, in most cases, follow, but it’s not a suicide pact where we are strictly required to use the common name. It recognises there are cases where the most common name is problematic and says, if possible, to use an alternative name.

  There is a long-standing precedent that deadnames nearly always fall into the "most common name has problems" clause of COMMONNAME, whether the subject is living or dead. When Elliot Page came out, we didn’t wait a few weeks or months for RS usage to change to using his new name; we moved it within the hour.

  The Wikipedia community has, in general, recognised that – where a person has indicated a specific gender expression – that misgendering them risks unnecessary harm or distress beyond just the subject. I honestly don’t see how it can be argued that the exact same reasons don’t apply to deadnaming beyond what is editorially justified. Sceptre (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  That interpretation doesn't align with any of the provided examples and if true would result in an inconsistent approach - we would use the deadname of deceased individuals with gender neutral names, but not use it for deceased individuals with gendered names.

  Elliot Page is still alive, and so is covered by MOS:DEADNAME.

  I support our sensitivity around BLP's to avoid harming the individual, but attempting to go beyond that would quickly violate WP:NOTCENSORED. For example, the same justification you give here could be applied to support removing images of Muhammad. I understand the feeling in this case, and am sympathetic to your argument and the reasons behind it, but there is no reasonable justification for why the argument would only apply to cases like this, and if we made an exception solely on the basis of our personal feelings we would open ourselves up to reasonable and accurate accusations of bias. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think we’re in danger of running afoul of NOTCENSORED, and having been around for the Muhammad images bunfight many moons ago, I recall the general feeling then was basically “Wikipedia isn’t censored, but at the same time, use your common sense and exercise decent editorial judgment”. After all, the article of Muhammad, I think, squares that balance quite well through its use of various portraitures from around the past fifteen centuries and throughout the Old World. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not think that the wishes of an individual who died fifty years ago, and whose wishes are not actually recorded in any case, can be said to overrule WP:COMMONNAME. Confait, who is only notable for being murdered, was referred to as Maxwell Confait at the time and has almost universally been referred to as Maxwell Confait ever since. The tiny handful of sources that refer to Michelle Confait are for the most part specifically concerned with transgender issues and even they mostly use Maxwell Confait throughout the text, even though they may mention Michelle Confait. As I have already said, this is a very well-known case in British criminal history and is invariably referred to as the Murder of Maxwell Confait. If we entitle our article the Murder of Michelle Confait we are a) going against the vast majority of sources and b) using a name with which most Wikipedia users and even experts in the field will be unfamiliar. Unbending GENDERID dogma is not helpful in cases like this. COMMONNAME has to be preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a dispute over the facts of the case, not applicable policies IMO. If the claim that Confait was a "trans woman" is ever substantiated in more "neutral" sources, then sure, move the article. This does not appear to be clearly established, though, nor is the fact that Confait considered themselves "Michelle" rather than using that as a name while cross-dressing. 1960s/70s categories don't always neatly map onto modern conceptions, and it appears as if Confait was at least considered a cross-dresser at the time, a category which still exists today and does not necessarily imply DEADNAME applies. There's no shame in reflecting the majority of the sources. If scholarship later changes to consider Confait a trans woman rather than a cross-dresser, the article title can be revisited. SnowFire (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Necrothesp (disclaimer: voted "overturn" in the MR). I took some time to actually read the whole article, and the whole case is barely about Confait, and much more about ordeal of the boys accused of the murder and subsequent legal proceedings. That's a reason more to give COMMONNAME and RECOGNIZABLE more weight. No such user (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There is a discussion about whether DEADNAME should apply to dead people. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment. @Maddy from Celeste: I can't speak for other opposers, but I don't agree with this presentation of the debate. DEADNAME certainly does apply to dead people. The question is not whether deadname applies to dead people - it does - but rather the more basic, factual question of whether Confait was trans or not. Was Michelle just a "show" name similar to drag queens or was it their new name? The edit claiming they were trans was unsourced and has since been reverted. But maybe other sources will adjust the picture. SnowFire (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categorization as low-importance

This seems like a pretty historically significant case and an article with many problems. Shouldn't it be categorized as something other than low-importance to get it more attention? 2603:6011:2443:AE00:D904:923E:E767:4A51 (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The effects on criminal procedure were profound and long-lasting. If it wasn't for this murder, for example, the appropriate adult rule would not exist. Marnanel (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No Consensus rectified per MRV here The primary issue with this proposal came down to sourcing of the preferred name of the person. It is further complicate by the fact that the person is dead, and did not explicitly state a self identification prior to death. The section that is quoted in the discussion from MOS:GENDERID states Refer to any person ... with the name ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification. It was pointed out by those opposing the move that the person used "Michelle" as part of their work as a sex worker, during which they dressed as a woman, and it was not an identity that was shown to be a self-identification from the person themself. It was also stated that reliable sources, including modern ones, identify them as a transvestite, not a transgender. There was a secondary opposition regarding the name "Michelle Confait", arguing that the surname was not used by the person. Owing to a lack of consensus regarding these issues, the RM is closed as not moved No Consensus. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Murder of Maxwell Confait → Murder of Michelle Confait – accurate transgender representation 71.142.7.131 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely nothing has changed in the two months since the last RM and Move Review. All the arguments refuting the three-word nomination have been made above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, possibly even suggest a procedural close (I voted in the previous RM so it shouldn't be from me). This is a drive-by IP with few edits who isn't adding anything new from a very, very recently closed RM. While that RM was indeed closed "no consensus", it's expected to do at least a bare minimum of "homework" here. Anyway, for the record, per above, transgender people should usually be under their new names, but it is not at all clear that Confait was transgender and no sources have been added that indicate they were. If 71.142 wants to help their case, find a reliable, neutral source that indicates that Confait was transgender, and it can be examined. SnowFire (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support – to the contrary of the statement that "nothing has changed", in fact, the policy situation has appreciably changed to the point where we should re-examine this; the consensus in the most recent GENDERID RfC is that MOS:GENDERID applies equally to the names of people — living or dead — as it does to other gendered terms. As I mentioned in the previous RM, I totally agree that the question of whether Confait was transgender or not is not settled (although, from my own reading of the RSes, the answer to the question is "more likely than not"), but that isn't the bar where MOS:GENDERID applies. Could Confait's gender identity be questioned? Yes. Do we have reliable sources that indicate how they preferred to be referred to? Also yes. Hence, MOS:GENDERID dictates the correct course of action, in which we should prefer "Michelle", and use "Maxwell" sparingly (although, admittedly, probably more frequently than the average article where GENDERID applies). Sceptre (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Per Sceptre's comments. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 04:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per Sceptre. This, for example, refers to Michelle as Confait's "chosen name" in endnote 81. The current text of MOS:GID now unambiguously includes names, so we need to follow this. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The usage of Michelle versus Maxwell has already been analysed closely in the RM above and in the move review. It is perfectly obvious that there is no reliable source that states that Confait used the name Michelle rather than Maxwell in everyday life as opposed to his sex work, let alone an overwhelming number of reliable sources. Almost all works describing the case use Maxwell in preference to Michelle. It really is not Wikipedia's role to make judgements about people who died fifty years ago. It is also ludicrous to suggest that we should use a name for a well-known case that is not used by other reliable sources. Few things could make Wikipedia look more ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's our role to make judgements about what we write. That's the point. And it's a judgement either way we decide. How you think our decisions will make us look is irrelevant; we go by our policies and guidelines. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed we do. Like WP:COMMONNAME! That's not a judgement. It's a fact. However, without asking him, we cannot know what Confait's gender identity was. He is notable only for being murdered. He was never a public figure. His opinions on matters are not recorded. All we know is that he was called Maxwell Confait, that he sometimes went by the name Michelle (certainly sometimes when working, at other times unknown), and that pretty much all reliable sources refer to him as a male called Maxwell Confait. That's all we know from reliable sources. And, without his own opinion on the matter, all that matters is what he was called in reliable sources. You may say this is all down to the time he lived in and today it would be different, and that may well be true, but it's still simply your opinion, not backed up by reliably sourced facts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

All we know is that – is it, though. The above source seems pretty clear on it. The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime (p. 332) refers to Confait as transgender and says she was "know as Michelle" with no mention of her employment. Our article, to, says Confait was "known to friends as Michelle". -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the Lily Hoshikawa argument all over again; we had editors argue that despite reliable secondary sources making basic textual analysis of the character, she wasn't really transgender (arguments which also happened regarding Bridget from Guilty Gear and your namesake, of course).

People continue to argue whether Confait was actually transgender or not on whether to. That's irrelevant to the matter at hand; GENDERID provides a lower bar precisely so we don't continuously get bogged down in these arguments. There is absolutely no argument that a competent editor could make that Confait does not meet the "gender might be questioned" criteria of GENDERID, given that we even have reliable sources that do that!

From that, we look at reliable sources to determine how Confait preferred to be referred as, and we have a clear answer: Michelle. From that, we have no other choice, because GENDERID provides no exceptions, and the community has repeatedly rejected the creation of exceptions. Sceptre (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Confait was a sex worker. While working he dressed as a woman. He used a woman's name for it, as many transvestites do. However, we have no evidence whatsoever from reliable sources that he used the name in everyday life. We do not even know for sure that he was a transvestite in everyday life. You are trying to impose an identity on him that we simply do not know he had. And you are trying to impose a name on the case by which it is not known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: MOS:GENDERID is primarily concerned with living people. Living people can be consulted to clarify their own preferences, which can be difficult to ascertain for dead people. Another case that sticks in my memory is the RM discussions for Talk:Steve New. As best I can tell, we don't have sufficiently clear information to identify a clear preference for Confait, so we should just stick to what name was most prevalent in sources and in their daily life (e.g. on their driving license or passport). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  GENDERID applies to deceased people as well as living people; there was an entire RFC that reiterated that fact. Sceptre (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Two Three of the paragraphs of MOS:GENDERID currently start with a context-setting phrase that involves the word living. I found an RFC that discussed whether that word should be removed, and it did not conclude with a consensus to remove it. For non-living people, especially people who have been dead for more than a decade or two, it seems very difficult in general to reach firm conclusions. It has been rather common for men (e.g. gay or cross-dressing men) to use female pronouns (especially within certain limited contexts) without intending a serious assertion of a female gender identity. And simply having a female persona name and using it among some friends does not imply that it is one's preferred identification for general purposes. Private life among friends, family life, public life, and stage performances can sometimes be different things. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - we should use whatever the sources used at the time which was to identify this person has a he so as such we should follow suit, There's nothing different from this RM and the one in March. Should be closed imho. –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect. In the case of a person whose gender might be questioned, we go with that person's self-identification and not how other people referred to them as. There is no exception to that guideline. Sceptre (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect. We don't know what this person used in their daily life so therefore we have to go with whatever the sources state (unless fresh evidence pops up that tells us otherwise). We shouldn't mis-gender someone but on the other hand we just don't have enough information to make that decision. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral. I think others have said it better, so I'll limit my response here. First, as @Sceptre: noted, MOS:GENDERID has been recently updated. With respect @Davey2010:, I think the new guidance fairly explicitly rejects the "use what sources at the time used" approach, for two different reasons: For one, it prefers more recent sources, not "sources at the time": "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources ...". Now, admittedly, more recent sources also describe Confait as a man. (See [1].) But the guideline doesn't say to prioritize how sources choose to refer to the subject—it's the subject's preference and identity expression as reported by reliable sources that controls.
  The question here, then, is Can Confait's gender be questioned and, if so, what do reliable sources say Confait preferred to go by?
  And here's where I think the issue is. Quite a few sources describe Confait as a "transvestite" (see this 2021 book review, last page). As I understand it, that term was, at the time, used to refer to people who performed drag or generally engaged cross dressing. And I can't find any reliable sources referring to Confait as transgender. While that's not necessary for the policy to apply, it sure would be helpful. @Maddy from Celeste: points to the The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime as indicating that Confait was "known as Michelle". (Maddy: The link you provided is dead for me; any chance you could post the citation details so I could look it up?) So ... should the fact that Confait was described as a "transvestite" and "known as Michelle" mean that Confait's gender could be questioned. And, if so, do we have enough sources to say Michelle was Confait's preferred name (as opposed to, say, a persona).
  Personally, I can't say. I'd like some other voices to weight in on this, however, so I'm going to alter the Wikiprojects to which this page belongs.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jerome Frank Disciple: - I think I found the article that you couldn't access, from another website, [2] Michelle Confait was identified as a mixed-race ‘homosexual transvestite’, born in the Seychelles under the name of Maxwell ... In this article I use Confait’s chosen name, Michelle. This name (among others) was also used, with their birth name, in the judicial inquiry into the conviction of three young men for the murder ... In the absence of definitive knowledge of Confait’s preferred pronouns, I use gender-neutral terminology. starship.paint (exalt) 11:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Inquiry, page 45 as printed, page 49 in PDF, [3] From 1968 (or earlier) Maxwell Confait was a passive homosexual ... he was known as "Michelle" ... One of the fire officers ... said that Confait was known locally by the nickname of "Handbag". starship.paint (exalt) 11:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks! Was I the only one who couldn't g et the link to work? Sorry about that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

    Didn’t work for me either. Token must be unique. starship.paint (exalt) 03:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

    This one? It works OK for me. But not this one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - sources, including the inquiry above, and this source [4], seem to indicate that the alternate name was simply "Michelle" instead of "Michelle Confait", so I cannot support the proposed move. More from the inquiry, printed page 125, PDF page 129: ... or whether they had ever been to Michelle's room before ... or engage in the struggle that killed Michelle ... Someone got up and down the stairs and killed Michelle ... the killer was well known to Michelle ... permitted by Michelle ... the theory that Michelle at the time of his death ... starship.paint (exalt) 12:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think we usually—pretty safely—assume by default that a changed given name doesn't automatically imply by default a changed surname.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  You may make that assumption, but personally I would not base article titles on that assumption. Could lead to citogenesis. starship.paint (exalt) 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: the facts have not changed from the 1970s, but the style guides have. In the 1970s it was straightforward that newspapers used someone's legal name if they knew it. Nowadays, in the case of people living in an acquired gender, we would use the name that they went by. Marnanel (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • But that's the point. We don't know he lived "in an acquired gender" or that he went by the name Michelle in everyday life. We merely know that he cross-dressed during his sex work (since all this comes from his description at the time as a "transvestite prostitute"). There are still plenty of transvestites who are just that and not transgender. They use female names while cross-dressing. People are simply making assumptions based on their modern reading of the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
    • One of the fire officers said Confait was also known locally as "Handbag", due to often being seen carrying one. I think this suggests that Confait frequently (if not exclusively) wore male clothing when out and about. Had he been wearing female clothing and carrying a handbag in 1972, it's hardly the handbag that would have been remarked upon! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

      The source says "He used to go about dressed in women's clothing, or in men's clothing carrying a handbag. One of the fire officers ... said that Confait was known locally by the nickname of 'Handbag'." So it says he did both. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

      So, hardly living "in an acquired gender"! Sometimes a transvestite, sometimes not. Doesn't sound very transgender to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

      How is this relevant to the application of MOS:GID in this situation? All that matters is whether Michelle was Confait's most recent chosen name, which it seems to have been. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seconding comments above by Necrothesp. Maxwell is notable under the name Maxwell, the case itself is notable only under that name, reliable sources - especially contemporaneous ones - overwhelmingly use that name.

Void if removed (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.