Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people

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

Overall, there is no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal. We’ve had several proposals to raise the bar for inclusion of deadnames/former names for deceased trans people, and none have achieved consensus.

Numerically, there is a slight majority favoring the proposal. The arguments raised by supporters are generally similar to previous discussions concerning MOS:GENDERID, with a notable uptick in opinions expressing frustration and a desire to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A few believed that the bar should be even higher, but would accept this as a compromise for now.

Among opposers, the most common rationale was that our current policies and guidelines already offer sufficient standards for inclusion. Many argued that the bar should not be higher than WP:V for deceased people, or similarly that the proposed standard was still too high. Several also raised the issue of instruction creep, believing that this issue does not need a specialized rule or that it shouldn’t be part of the Manual of Style.

There was also significant discussion regarding a modification suggested by Sideswipe9th. This idea would have changed should be included to may be included, effectively strengthening the inclusion criteria beyond the original proposal. Reasoning for this was primarily based on the closure of the June 2023 RFC. Based on the discussion, there is consensus against this suggested change.

The practical result of this failure to achieve consensus is that the text of MOS:GENDERID remains unchanged. Our existing policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BDP continue to determine the standard for inclusion of material in articles. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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:

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)[reply]
I would add that I also oppose Sideswipe9th's proposal below of "changing 'should be included' to 'may be included'. 'Should' provides some flexibility to adjust to the needs of a specific case without leaving the broader issue unresolved; 'may' would leave much of the issue unresolved and allow the perpetual disputes about whether a name should be included to continue. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support and support Nat Gertler's suggestion of any former names. Mgp28 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What wording would you prefer? The intent of that section is pretty clearly "include it only if the former name is actually notable, and no, you being transphobic isn't enough" but without the accusation. If you can capture that same intent, I doubt it would be a particularly controversial change.

Perhaps something like "if they would be notable considering solely work from before they changed it"?

-- Keiyakins (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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). PS: I oppose Sideswipe9th's proposal below of "changing 'should be included' to 'may be included'". That's a recipe for endless editwarring to remove former names, that are not deadnames, on the wikilawyering basis that they are optional. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 23:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Policy language can't depend on the article's content remaining stable; it needs to be clear in a self-contained manner. "Former pre-transition name[s]" would work. If the pre-transition name is also the post-transition name (and NetGertler was correct to point out that this is common), then it is not a "former" name, by definition. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, but would oppose Sideswipe9th's tweak above, which relies on an easily disprovable point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 if the point is so easy to disprove, perhaps you could disprove it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A digression on logic, definitions, and NOTEVERYTHING.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING clearly defines encyclopedic interest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You seem to have missed the two sentences the shortcut WP:NOTEVERYTHING actually applies to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That is Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedic interest, as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support per BilledMammal. Cremastra (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support This seems like a sensible way to address this issue. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
At that point it's just WP:V, though, isn't it? Cremastra (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why? Cremastra (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
🤣🤣 बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Cremastra (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: see my comment in reply to बिनोद थारू. Cremastra (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See WP: NPOV (and especially its WP:UNDUE section)… it’s already in a policy. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stops people from dredging up sources to deadname people while allowing for inclusion where relevant. Galobtter (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See discussion section below for how Sideswip9th's closing point would be invalidated by that editor's own "should" → "may" change proposal. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cunado: policy implications. ——Serial 15:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per both Cuñado and AryKun above ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose Per David Eppstein and Cuñado. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Silver seren^C 04:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is that not just ordinary WP:V? Cremastra (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But then what are the motivating concerns? My worry is that the main one is something like "we want to stand with the trans community". Well, no. Wikipedia should not be taking political stands. --Trovatore (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we have 99 sources that deliberately exclude a subject's deadname and one source that pointedly gives it, then us including it would be taking more of a political stand than neutrally reflecting the approach of the 99.--Trystan (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this wording is that there are a few notable deceased trans people (off the top of my head, Sophie (musician) and Brandon Teena, but there are surely others) whose names are technically sourceable to college transcripts or government documents or other similar reliable-but-not-useful-for-notability sources, but who weren't notable before being trans. So by the rules we would use for living trans people, their birth names should be excluded. And their birth names really don't have significant encyclopedic value. But there's currently no policy that actually excludes them other than WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even though adding those names would definitely be something that the people in question would strongly object to if they were alive.

The other part of this issue is that there are lots more living trans people who are in a similar situation regarding their birth name: it's technically sourceable to a college transcript or a government document or something, but they weren't notable under it. And so as Wikipedia ages more and more of these people will die, and it seems unlikely that we want to have people running to their pages to add this information after their death. Loki (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose. Self-contained pieces of information consisting of no synthesis, analysis, or original interpretation are precisely where the use of primary sources is most permissible. "Secondary sources" is an impoverished substitute for "encyclopedic interest". In judging such interest and the balance of being neither censored nor gratuitous, ordinary editorial discretion can include any number of situational considerations. Examples include contextual relevance in the surrounding article text, and prevalence in sources (again, not necessarily secondary). Other additional considerations from BLP only apply to actual BLPs and BDPs. In my view, whether the sources are classified as secondary is not determinative under the proper analysis. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and bravo to WP:bold editing, but I am glad we're discussing it to reach consensus. I can think of many conversations on Talk Pages where this policy would have assisted editors. Pistongrinder (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems like a reasonable compromise which formalizes how WP:DUE should be applied in this situation. Hatman31 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with full sympathy to trans people, but certainly I support what is already required for any notable person who has changed their name. A fact that can be verified with RS shouldn't be seen as anything but a factual presentation. As an LBGTQ person myself, I have no expectation that an encyclopedia carve out a special consideration that seems to avoid wanting to present a simple, verifiable fact. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'm open to tightening policy around name changes in general if that should become necessary. I do appreciate the concept that just because someone changed their name, it should not automatically be included in an article. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 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. per Iffy. Additionally alreadyA person's deadname should not be used unless the person was notable under that name, and that notability is evidenced by multiple reliable sources per Ivanvector. This feels like a solution looking for a problem. In the few transgender related content disagreements that I've been involved in, this wouldn't have helped at all, since there the issue revolved around such matters as what WAS the name the person had chosen to live under, and therefore WAS there a deadname, to which we should be applying policy? Plus simple clarity matters. As Blueboar says below Deadnaming, as with most Transgender related issues, is a very personal thing, and does not lend itself to a “one-size-fits-all” solution , which this proposal seems to want to mandate. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This appears to be a reasonable proposal based on previous discussions. However, I think one of the challenges with MOS:DEADNAME is that the basic principles are not addressed in the introduction of the entire section, namely "A former name of an individual is not inherently of encyclopedic interest." But, in taking another look at the entire section, would it not be simpler to add the words "including death" to the sentence "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise"? So, the sentence would read "This holds for any phase of the person's life, including death, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." --Enos733 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support.(Summoned by bot) I'm not going to dismiss entirely the perennial "one size fits all", WP:CREEP, and WP:RGW concerns discussed already above and which were the cause for similar proposed language failing to achieve consensus in each previous attempt. In meaningful ways, this standard somewhat proposes to speak for all trans and binary people on their desire to be associated with past names, and thereby create a carve-out for this specific type of biographical subject, leading to non-trivial potential knock-on effects to the utility and neutrality of affected articles, thus impacting the reader's needs.

Further, many of the scenarios I have seen discussed in both the present and previous discussions regarding the potential for non-relevant deadnames to be shoe-horned in by an anti-trans provocateur are easily and effectively regulated by major policies, such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV broadly--which are going to make for far more secure ground for keeping out advocacy editing/bias than is MoS language, when the fur really starts flying on these cases. The proposed language may in fact on some occasions lock us into a restrained position in an area where great nuance and sensitivity is required: sometimes to the detriment of the interests of the trans or nonbinary persons the advocates for this change are seeking to assist.

But re-examining the whole picture here, I am nevertheless convinced that the community is being presented with reasonable compromise language. The previous proposed language was to the effect of "... only if the name is documented in multiple secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the name." (as opposed to non-trivial coverage of the person.") The change to the new language substantially limits any deleterious effects from the new requirement. In fact, it's possible that almost every instance where one couldn't find at least a couple of secondary RS discussing the subject specifically, WEIGHT was going to apply to keep any challenged content out anyway. I'd be more comfortable without the "multiple" in there (can't remember if that was part of the previous language debated at the MoS talk page discussion, or if it has been added since), but I for one am willing to look past it to put my support behind something the community might be able to finally agree to.

My only lingering concern (and it is not insubstantial) is that the manner of the previous debate and multiple efforts to try to brute force this and previous language into the relevant MoS page indicates an unyielding attitude among some editors to consistently press to move the needle further, and back to the already rejected language. My decision to support here is partly predicated on a wish to see a stable rule established, so I for one would like to stipulate that my support for this proposal is for this very specific language (give or take the "multiple"). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Trystan and Groceryheist. This is an acceptable compromise, for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak support.) On one hand, this pushes (often offensive) deadnames into articles to a degree we don't require of other, inoffensive info, if merely being "documented" in 2 sources means it "should be included", without even e.g. regard for what portion of sources give it weight), which gives lie to the argument above "we DONTCENSOR!": 'Not censored' does not give special favor to push offensive content in ways we don't push other stuff. Changing "should" to "may" would be in line with our policies like WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.
OTOH, after years of redundant debates about this on entries' talk pages, and in fora which have come close to putting a framework in place or agreed it'd be good to have one, I think it's wise to put in place a framework that can then be refined; that's how our other PAGs got to their current states, and the mix of people who think this doesn't push names enough vs think it pushes names too much may suggest this is a reasonable starting-point compromise. I don't view any marginal effect this might have on a tiny fraction of PROF articles as an issue; if PROF actually (as argued above) encourages contentless stubs on people who've gotten no non-trivial coverage, then if this encourages us in a fraction of such cases to wait for non-trivial coverage, that seems fine, actually. So, weak support; stronger if we change "should" to "may". -sche (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Basically per WP:NPOV, as there is no good reason to create a higher bar for the inclusion of some former names for deceased people, but not others. Additionally this is a content issue, not a style issue, and so should not be in the MOS, nor can a change to the style manual create this change. If people want to exclude an specific kind of information from being included, then the requisite policies/guidelines should be amended to state that. Particularly WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material already set out the limited circumstances in which information that is verifiable can be removed, which does not include offending against the style-guide. FOARP (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Incorporating a transgender person's previous name on their Wikipedia page is not just a matter of historical accuracy; it's anti revisionist. From a sociological and anthropological lens, omitting this information erases a critical part of an individual's life story. Names, in their transformation, mark pivotal points in a person's journey, especially in the context of gender transition. Refusing to acknowledge a gender transition by excluding the previous name reeks of revisionist history, denying the full spectrum of the individual's identity evolution. The argument for privacy and respect, while valid, should not lead to the sanitization of history. The relevance of a previous name to an individual’s public achievements and its historical significance should trump concerns of privacy, especially for public figures.

It should also be noted that name changes or alteration are common in Jewish traditions as well as African and Native American cultures.1 2 Where is the discussion about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skarz (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarz: Did you mean to support or oppose? Because the content of your !vote sounds like you oppose adding additional restrictions on when previous names can be used. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Ahecht, @Skarz, I have to say this reads as an oppose vote. FOARP (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I misunderstood the circumstances of the proposed addition. skarz (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ (note: I did see a link to it on the LGBT Wikimedians Discord server, but had intended to weigh in prior.) As Sideswipe9th said, I think should be used should be swapped to may be used, as their deadname might not be of utter importance (e.g. they transitioned earlier on but RS do mention that name). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I'm not sure I'm inclined to support, as it may lead to names of pseudonymous nonbinary people being revealed against their will following their death. For now, I'll say weak support. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dead people don't have will. That's a kind of a big aspect of being dead. We'd have to rewrite untold thousands of articles about the deceased if what they preferred in life were a general concern. BLP is a special policy about the living, and even makes a circumscribed carveout for the very-recently-deceased, but even that is predicated on concern of living relatives, not the former wishes of the deceased themselves. It is never, ever going to become a general "biographies of persons" policy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and endorsing Sideswipe9th's comments. Frankly it's disappointing how many editors here seem not to have read or engaged with the points she's making. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In general I'm opposed to removing well-sourced information from articles merely because some off-wiki community (any off-wiki community) continues to squawk about it, per creep. Many editors above have made points I agree with, including some who support this change. However, as pointed out many places above, this discussion is happening in the wrong forum. This is requires a change of policy. Second, MOS:DEADNAME is sufficient as written, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI but this RFC is happening under WP:VPP#RfC to limit the inclusion of the deadname of deceased transgender or non-binary persons, so this is the correct forum for a policy change. It was moved to a its own page because of its size, see WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 209#SIZESPLIT but for Village pumps and WT:VPR#Looking for some unofficial clerks for some background. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cuñado and S Marshal. Also, as many other editors have pointed out, I don't see a compelling reason to go beyond WP:V. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dead people vs living is no significant distinction. WP:V is sufficient. Pretending people didn't exist before they changed their identifying information (names & pronouns) is just silly. Having a separate rule for when they are deceased is even more crazy. Buffs (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:V is enough. Why single out a specific group in such a way? Cessaune [talk] 06:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the issue is only really relevant for a specific group? I'm sure if there were other groups that regularly changed their name while still alive, and strongly disliked being called by their birth name, we'd have guidelines for them too. Loki (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This really is the key to why this gets so much opposition: "while still alive, and strongly disliked". The dead can't dislike anything [that that anyone can prove, anyway], and no longer have privacy-related interests. So the strong reasons that pertain to not deadnaming the living are not available. This is really about appeasing the sensibilities of the living, and I've supported this minor sourcing restriction (and elsewhere supported a time-limited suppression of inclusion of the information for up to a year, in a separate proposal) because the sensitilibies of living family members and others close to the deceased are worth considering (and this is also the basis of the "recently deceased" codicil at WP:BDP; it's not about protecting the "interests" of the passed). I would really like to see something like this pass muster, but the attempt to change it on-the-fly from a "should" to a "may" standard has probably doomed it again. The only reason consensus was leaning in favor of it through previous RfC rounds was that while the community on the whole considers there to be an encyclopedic interest in the well-sourceable information, it was also considering that this interest might have a higher bar to meet (and in the other proposal could be put off temporarily), as a propriety matter – not just categorically swept under the rug forever. The may proposal would shortcircuit that nearing-consensus, by injecting a loophole through which any little gaggle of a couple of editors could stonewall the information's inclusion indefinitely. I.e., it's a denial of the fact of encyclopedic interest that the community has already established. Some of the other criticisms of the wording also have their points, e.g. that there is no real basis per WP:ABOUTSELF on which to exclude the subject's own primary source materials. (I doubt that was actually intended, but that's what often happens when a small number of editors try to write policy material to get at one specific result, in a near-vacuum of viewpoints other than their own. They miss secondary effects caused by interactions with parts of policy they weren't considering because they weren't immediately relevant to the narrow concerns of the drafters). Some of the other concerns raised, like "why should we treat this group differently?" have already been addressed by previous RfC rounds and are just noise. I resignedly predict that this going to come to another no-consensus, and when it comes up inevitably again in some form, it needs to address the ABOUTSELF matter, and retain the should language, or it will never go anywhere. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like it does more good than harm. Andre🚐 10:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC
Support, particularly supporting Sideswipe's suggestion. Consistent with current deadname policies on living people. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, particularly with Sideswipe's tweak, but either way would work. Including the deadname of a trans individual has more significance than including other names; this is something even many of the people arguing against this change implicitly acknowledge when they argue that the policy would make a statement - clearly, if that is the case, including a deadname also makes a statement; the different context means that inclusion claims, implicitly, that the name is uniquely important enough to mention, with a weight beyond that of non-deadnames. The extra significance of that implication means that it should therefore logically flow from WP:EXCEPTIONAL that there is a higher standard for including a deceased trans person's name. And while this flows from EXCEPTIONAL, the fact that some people don't see this is sufficient reason to have it spelled out in its own guideline. --Aquillion (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as currently structured: This creates a separate standard for deceased trans people in comparison to other deceased subjects, for no apparent reason expect to try and make it harder to go against the WP:NPOV by needing secondary sources. No reason not to use primary sources as verification for the former names of trans people like any other person. If primary sources were allowed, I would support this, but cannot as it is written now. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason not to use primary sources is so that we only include deadnames when sources make an editorial decision they're notable enough to mention. Primary sources include things like college transcripts and court documents that have to mention the old name, which we wouldn't normally use for the notability of any subject but which nevertheless are reliable for facts.

The point of the section is so that we only make the editorial decision that this information has encyclopedic value when our sources have also decided that it's worth inclusion. And the reason we want to be careful about this is that fairly often in this topic area, the sources about a given subject have clearly come to a consensus that a previous name isn't worth including. Loki (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This proposal seems fair to me. If the previous name or any former names are documented in reliable and worthwhile sources than it is worth including. It is important towards encyclopedic coverage, especially say if they transitioned later in their career and have lots of works up their sleeve under former names or not many people know about them transitioning. But if their former name(s) isn't in reliable secondary sources, then it wouldn't be worth including. For example, if there's some famous actor that only became notable after they transitioned and changed their name then there's no point in including their deadname. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Former names under which a person was not notable are not usually encyclopedic information at all, imv. Frequently these names are pushed into the first sentence of the article when it really doesn't make sense or help readers. Thus I see this proposal as an improvement, although I think it could also be extended to people who are not trans. (t · c) buidhe 01:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per xaosflux and Pincrete. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 05:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
xaosflux's oppose is based on disagreeing with special rules about "former names" that don't apply to all deceased subjects". Pincrete's oppose approvingly quotes 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, which would involve extending the "only if notable under that name" MOS:GENDERID guideline for living subjects to deceased subjects. Those rationales seem antithetical to each other. Does the proposed wording go too far, or not go far enough?--Trystan (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden proposed is too high as proposed. Other basic facts like DOB, etc do not require such a high burden for inclusion neither should the deceased indivdual's former names considering no active harm is taking place as they are no longer living. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden for inclusion is high because we already have a consensus that it should be high. Another editor who was also in the process of determining a close for that RfC stated that The way I was going to handle the near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3 (what SFR is calling 2.8) was by saying that 3 had consensus, but by footnote or other mitigating language the not completely absolute nature of that consensus should be noted. For full context, option 3 in that RfC was to remove the word living from the current second paragraph of GENDERID, with the result of the change being that if we could never include their former name(s) while they were alive, we would not be able to include them once they died. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss other discussions I suggest to take it those other discussions. If you want to argue about those other discussions go ahead but do not do it here. I have this argument about THIS specific RfC. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those other discussions that I linked to are a closed RfC that form the basis for this RfC, and a closed discussion from another editor who was also in the process of closing the RfC that forms the basis of this one. You made a point that you felt the barrier for inclusion was set too high, I explained to you why per the existing consensus that barrier has to be high. Whether or not you wish to change your mind based on this information is entirely up to you, but please do not re-litigate the already existing consensus on this point as that is off-topic to this RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Pincrete summarizes it pretty well. The closing of the May 2023 RfC also notes pretty well that Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles and One of the concerns in some of the supports for the stricter wordings was that leaving it open would lead to long, sometimes unproductive discussions, and this is likely to happen. (Although other commenters here correctly note the closer is incorrect in saying more specific guidelines should be in MOS.) CREEP and all -- stricter policy won't stop people arguing about this, especially not over those dead people who would have some historical relevance. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I still think it would be simpler and more effective to just apply the same standards for dead people as we do living ones, but adding some sort of policy making it not a free-for-all the moment someone keels over is needed, and this one is tolerable. Moving the "only" to directly after "should" might aid clarity a bit, but that's not a substantive change, just a grammar tweak.

-- Keiyakins (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This would be a positive change from the current guidelines. The "deadname" of a transgender individual is obviously a piece of highly notable information that will be of interest to a great proportion of any readers of the biography page for that individual. This, in and of itself, makes it worthy of inclusion where it can be properly sourced. The fact that one may not like what readers want to do with that information, or one may not like the reasons behind the readers wanting that information, is immaterial. I fundamentally oppose Ivanvector's proposition, it is completely unjustified from the perspective of Wikipedia's core purpose. 16:34, 7 February 2024 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.14.222 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to support or oppose? A support vote means that there would be more restrictions on including information. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems a positive change to me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does nothing to invalidate Ahecht's point that many PDFs and other sources are static. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

This again? Additional further reading:

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

[The following commment thread was originally in the Survey section under Sideswipe9th's Support !vote.] Loki (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  
  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)[reply]
  $\lnot P(A|\lnot B)$ 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  Well, if people can't agree what "is" or "only" means, it seems to me like there's no way not to bring up logic. jp×g 🗯️ 18:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  
  in my WP:ENGVAR (British English), should and must are synonyms simply is not correct. I learned to read and write in England myself, and there is no confusion between these concepts in the British dialectal range, as a review of British dictionaries will demonstrate (e.g. [1][2]). If it really were the case, then an enormous number of our WP:P&G rules and advice (not to mention requirements versus recommendations in off-site standards documents of all kinds) would be constantly and hopelessly misinterpreted and misapplied is disastrous ways, but this is clearly not happening. We are not going to end up with must language about anything like this just because someone has trouble distinguishing it from should. And must language doesn't belong in our guidelines anyway, due to what guidelines are and the function they serve (except in the rare instance a guideline is stating the hard fact of a technical limitation of the MediaWiki software, or is reiterating a point from a non-negotiable policy as it applies to whatever point the guideline is addressing). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Do we need to explicitly borrow the internet people's RFC 2119? Should is weaker than must - it means do the thing unless you have a very good reason not to. And even if not, the idea that there may be occasional exceptions is part of the general interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines anyway.
  
  -- Keiyakins (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh! also, would you interpret "you must cross the street only after checking both directions for traffic" as meaning you always have to cross streets when you can?
  
  --Keiyakins (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Collapse request moot, as LokiTheLiar just moved this to the discussion section. Though you might also want to move Trystan's "both interpretations are valid" comment as well as it's related to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it but ultimately decided it's too closely related to the support it's under to move it. (Part of the reason why I moved this instead of collapsing is that there's not a lot of context necessary.) Loki (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th's proposal above of "changing 'should be included' to 'may be included'" is problematic (and would invalidate that editor's own statement that "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"). It would provide a loophole whereby any former name of encyclopedic interest could be wikilawyered against and stonewalled indefinitely, on the grounds that inclusion is not recommended ("should"), much less required ("must", which is language that doesn't belong in a guideline), but is only an optional "may be included" matter. I.e., that it is a question that must be settled by debate on an article-by-article basis. We already know for a fact from long-term and still-ongoing disputation at various articles that a number of editors will do everything they can to suppress mention of former names of trans/enby/genderqueer persons, and that there are editors who try to include them always despite what MOS:DEADNAME already says. So, a conclusion here to include this "may" version would simply codify the current untenable situation of perpetual editwarring and conflict, and fail to do anything useful at all. If anything, it would do harm to the version of MOS:DEADNAME we already have (which clearly has "should be included ... only if ..." – i.e., inclusion is recommended if the criteria are met). Worse, a few people have even proposed (in multiple of these discussions about MOS:GENDERID and related matters) extending the notion of former-name-suppression to everyone across the board. This is clearly counter to the purpose/interests of an encyclopedia.

Changing the "should" to "may" is also counter to the conclusions of the previous RfCs that led to this point, in which acceptance of a higher standard for inclusion was, for a significant quotient of the !voters, conditional on that inclusion actually happening if the more stringent criteria were met. (And logically so: "The criteria are met in this case." "You can't include it anyway." That would make no sense, and would be "criteria" for nothing.) Whatever the intent was, this has the direct effect of an end-run around consensus that has already been established. So, I've had to modify my !vote above to explicitly oppose this mid-stream change. WP:Policy writing is hard and even one-word tweaks can make fundamental differences in the intent, meaning, scope, and interpretation of any piece of WP:P&G material. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would provide a loophole whereby any former name of encyclopedic interest could be wikilawyered against and stonewalled indefinitely ... So, a conclusion here to include this "may" version would simply codify the current untenable situation of perpetual editwarring and conflict, and fail to do anything useful at all. Respectfully, what you're describing here is a behavioural conduct issue, and not a problem with the proposed alteration to may. We already have methods for handling such issues, starting at WP:DR and escalating all the way up to WP:AN3, WP:ANI, or WP:AE if it is an intractable problem. In my experience in this content area, you'd be hard pressed to find an editor who doesn't respect an established consensus, outside of new editors and a handful of LTAs. And those editors who don't respect consensus, or otherwise engage in tendentious wikilawyering and/or edit warring are typically swiftly shown the exit door.

And logically so: "The criteria are met in this case." "You can't include it anyway." That would make no sense, and would be "criteria" for nothing. That is a very unlikely scenario to occur in my opinion. And even if we use the "should" variant of the guideline, not only does WP:IAR let a consensus form around selectively ignoring that part of the guideline, but as can be evidenced with the lengthy back and forth between Trovatore and myself the "should" version can be interpreted as "optionally include the former name, when the criteria are met", versus the interpretation that you and I share of "always include the former name, when the criteria are met".

Whatever the intent was, this has the direct effect of an end-run around consensus that has already been established. I strongly disagree, and in fact I think you have it backwards. The May/June RfC left us with a consensus that the inclusion or exclusion of the former names of the deceased will likely need discussion on individual articles to account for the circumstances unique to each article, even with additional guidance in this guideline. Taking the hardline interpretation of "should" largely precludes us from having the discussion taking into account the unique circumstances of each article, when fully considering whether or not to include a former name, outside of an application of WP:IAR. Discussion is par for the course for any CTOP, and as the closure of the May/June RfC states is nothing we all haven't seen before. My greatest concern with the "should" version is how it would affect articles like Leelah Alcorn or Murder of Brianna Ghey. For both of those articles, there exists a consensus to exclude their respective former names. They aren't necessary to understand the particulars of their respective lives and circumstances of death, and if you are familiar with the sourcing and content for both articles there are very good reasons why we would want to exclude the former names, not the least because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already know from 20+ years' experience that the community will never, ever do anything about "behaviorial issues" that are PoV-pushing on style matters. The only MoS/AT-related disruption that is ever sanctioned in WP:NPA violations, move-warring, or in one case a years-long "slow-editwar" pattern in pursuit of nationalistic nonsense that grew to such a long diff list it had to put put in its own dedicated page (and that one got T-banned not for pushing the PoV but for being disruptive in various specific ways while doing it; if they'd been more clever, it would have gone on for years longer). That is a very unlikely scenario to occur in my opinion: LOL, based on what? We have two extremely entrenched camps demanding the deadnames either be entirely suppressed, or that they always be included if sourceable. Neither camp is going to shut up and go away, and will do everything in their power to wikilawyer their way to victory. The only solution for this problem is language that unmistakably sets a stringent inclusion/exclusion criterion, in very clear wording, that actually is a criterion with no wiggle-room in either direction, not wishy-washy vagueness that can be spun however someone wants to interpret it in their editwar. On your third point, you've misinterpreted what I said; it was not that the closer chose to point something out in their own wording, it's that any actual assessment of the !votes by anyone makes it patently obvious that those in support of something like this expect the criterion to actually be a criterion, not just vague and gameable lipservice to temporarily make the RfCs stop dragging on. Such a "solution" would resolve nothing and just lead to another round of RfCs. Some effect on various articles is a necessary result of a wording change no matter what the wording change is; for all the hand-wringing you may have about two articles, someone on the other side of this has worry-wart concerns about some other articles. It is not possible to make everyone 100% happy here; this is the nature of compromise. If comromise doesn't happen on both sides of this (and the majority of people are going to be in the middle, already worn out by this polarization), then this RfC is going to fail, and there'll be another, and that will fail, and so on. There are already people at WT:MOSBIO calling for at least a year-long mormatorium on raising this matter again in any form or forum. The time is now to get to a version pretty much everyone can live with at least for now, or we'll get nothing at all. If you really, really think that the version as originally proposed is a step backward from the current language, then go ahead and oppose it, but it really is not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, based on what? Based on my experience of editing and patrolling many of the articles this guideline applies to. In my experience, the most common type of disruption is unannounced mass pronoun changes (eg she -> he, he -> she, they -> he or she). This is most typically done by IP and non-autoconfirmed editors, and the most typical response is to revert per the guideline and to seek page protection if the disruption is sustained. This type of disruption is so common that we have a warn and tag edit filter targeted to try and catch this. The second most common type of disruption is unannounced name changes in articles about a work created by or featuring a trans or non-binary person (eg something like changing Elliot Page to Ellen in Beyond: Two Souls). Again, this is most typically done by IP and non-autoconfirmed editors, and the most typical response is to revert per the guideline and seek page protection if the disruption is sustained.

We have two extremely entrenched camps demanding the deadnames either be entirely suppressed, or that they always be included if sourceable. Neither camp is going to shut up and go away, and will do everything in their power to wikilawyer their way to victory. In the last three years there has only been two articles where the inclusion or exclusion of the former name of a living or recently deceased trans or non-binary person has been extensively discussed. The first was Isla Bryson. This was a particularly nuanced case over how we should interpret the current second paragraph of GENDERID for an individual who had changed their name prior to becoming notable, but the articles that were published establishing her notability overwhelmingly included her former name. This was ultimately settled by an RfC and there has been no disruption or tendentious editing on that article in relation to the former name since the RfC was closed. The consensus from that RfC has been respected by all participants.

The second article was Aiden Hale. This article has some similarities with Bryson, where an individual had changed their name prior to becoming notable, but the articles that established his notability used his former name. As with Bryson's article, this was ultimately settled by an RfC, and with the exception of one editor who was TBANed while the RfC was in progress, there has been no disruption or tendentious editing in relation to the former name since the RfC was closed. The consensus has subsequently been respected by all participants.

Now I'm not saying that what you're alleging hasn't happened. I'm sure if I go looking through talk page archives, particularly in the earlier days of the guideline, there will be some historical evidence of what you've said. However in the current day this sort of disruption does not happen in my experience. I am happy to be proven wrong however, if there is some recent disruption on articles that I'm not aware of.

it's that any actual assessment of the !votes by anyone makes it patently obvious that those in support of something like this expect the criterion to actually be a criterion, not just vague and gameable lipservice to temporarily make the RfCs stop dragging on. The assessment of the !votes, by the closer of the RfC sub-question was that From what I've read here, tightening up the baseline for including the prior name and/or outlining some of the occasions it may be included is likely to result in consensus language. My proposal makes this a baseline for inclusion, without mandating inclusion. Personally, based on the result of the previous RfCs on this issue, I do not think we should be mandating inclusion when the criteria is met, and instead should be providing criteria that sets a baseline for when inclusion is allowed. This allows for normal editorial consensus to form around inclusion or exclusion of the former name(s) based on the unique circumstances of each individual article. In some cases this may require an RfC, particularly for those cases that are nuanced or otherwise borderline to a baseline inclusion criteria, but in many cases a regular discussion on the talk page will likely suffice.

If you really, really think that the version as originally proposed is a step backward from the current language, then go ahead and oppose it, but it really is not. I would kindly suggest you re-read my !vote above. I support the version as proposed, and I also think it would be significantly improved by changing from should be included to may be included. I'm not going to oppose it because it does not contain the exact language that I believe would be ideal, as that is a very "all or nothing, no compromises" approach that isn't helpful in this circumstance and really runs counter to your point about compromises. What I have done is propose a change in the hopes that it would convince other editors, one that I will happily advocate for making, as I have been doing in this discussion with yourself, while still nonetheless accepting the proposal as it was originally written. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the most typical disruption at particular articles might be isn't relevant; the point I'm making is about a particular type of disruption (long-term tendentiousness by factions, not drive-by vandalism/PoVpush); it does not need be the kind that is numerically most frequent to be a problem to avoid. I know various cases have been settled by RfC. That was under a different ruleset than the one proposed here, in turn different from what you'd like to change the proposal to. Under either regime, the RfC "strategies", if you will, are going to change. It's not an issue of whether or not right this moment the problem is in effect; it's that your version sets it up to be in effect in future disputes. And you're still not understanding the central point here: It doesn't matter what the closer of a previous discussion said; that's just one quasi-random person's attempt to nutshell a long and nuanced discussion. What does matter is what the !voters in the two previous rounds of these discussions actually said and why they said it. Their views are not magically going to disappear, and they (plus others showing up with similar concerns) are the ones who have to be convinced. The entire purpose here is asking the community to adopt something (after it has already collectively decided not to twice, and with growing community weariness of this coming back up again and again and now again). If we want it to be accepted, it has to be palatable to those who want to see a criterion established, and the only way that happens is if there is a criterion that is clear and actually operable, not just another excuse to dig in and fight longer because it ends up resolving to "maybe" instead of "yes/no". (Cf. the latest oppose, directly quoting and agreeing with a previously raised concern of exactly the kind I'm talking about: [3].) I'm not going to oppose it because it does not contain the exact language that I believe would be ideal: Glad to hear it, and sorry I misinterpreted you. Your defense of your alternative version has seemed to me like opposition to the original. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the point I'm making is about a particular type of disruption A particular type of disruption, that does not seem to have occurred in the last few years. If that type of disruption was ongoing, especially so if it is as serious as you're alleging, then it would be evident from both the list of discussions at MOS:GIDINFO, and also in the behavioural cases brought to WP:ANI and WP:AE. And again, I'm not saying it hasn't happened in the past, there is a reason why we have a CTOP for gender and sexuality and the prolonged development of this guideline, just that it's not happening now.

It doesn't matter what the closer of a previous discussion said; that's just one quasi-random person's attempt to nutshell a long and nuanced discussion. That is not what the closer of a discussion does. The role of the closer is to describe the consensus established in the discussion, not to insert their own commentary on it. When the closer said that setting a baseline for inclusion is likely to result in consensus, it is because that is what was said and evident from the discussion. We all know from experience that closers who insert their opinions into closes have their closes challenged and frequently overturned, because they do not represent what was said by the participants, and it is important to note that the closure of the May/June 2023 RfC was not challenged because of this. The closer's summary is useful in this regard, because it saves us from saying something like "per [list of editors here] in the previous RfC...".

Their views are not magically going to disappear, and they (plus others showing up with similar concerns) are the ones who have to be convinced. True. And we know from this that the reason why the proposal in June/July 2023 failed was because the barrier for inclusion in that version was ultimately seen as too high. The inclusion barrier for this proposal is, in my opinion, quite a bit lower than the June/July proposal because of that failure. However we also have to respect the consensus that the previous RfC's established, that there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest and that that always including the prior name, or assuming the prior name is of encyclopedic importance is soundly rejected by the community. Because the proposal above assumes the prior name is of encyclopedic relevance, when the criteria are met, it is failing to respect the consensus from the first RfC. It's not significant enough that I would oppose the proposal, but it is significant enough that I think the language change is an important one to make.

Glad to hear it, and sorry I misinterpreted you. Thanks :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A particular type of disruption, that does not seem to have occurred in the last few years." Except it has, but more to the point, I will repeat: "It's not an issue of whether or not right this moment the problem is in effect; it's that your version sets it up to be in effect in future disputes." It's unclear to me why this is not getting across. The entire crux of the problem here is that your version sets up a "condition" that is not really a condition but yet another "maybe", so it simply going to produce additional dispute instead of resolution. Even if you don't think that's the case, others do, so your version is not likely to meet with consensus acceptance, especially after proposals like this have failed multiple times already. The only thing that is going to maybe be accepted, finally, is a very clear version that sets an actual cutoff that people can rely on. Otherwise, it's too loosey-goosey and will attract too much opposition. Please understand that I'm talking about wikipolitical pragmatics here, not philosophizing or engaging in wishful thinking or idealism. Compromise is hard, and is all about getting a version that two or more conflicting sides think they can live with, and it will never be the ideal version of any particular camp. That's how compromise works. You seem to just not be getting this at all, returning to dwelling on what some old closer said. It just does not matter. The concerns raised in previous rounds do not magically vanish, whether or not a previous closer annotated them all and did so correctly. This is about the practicalities of convincing people, not the lawyerly interpretation of some particular closer's summarization skills. Finally, there is no failure to respect the previous consensus in the original, pre-Sideswipe9th-changes, proposal here; "a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest" is encapsulated in the "should be included ... only if ..." rule. That entire passage could not be present if "a former name is auotmatically of encyclopedic interest". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except it has Evidence please, otherwise both the Sagan standard and Hitchen's razor apply.

The entire crux of the problem here is that your version sets up a "condition" that is not really a condition but yet another "maybe" How is that any different from WP:WEIGHT? Assessing the weight of a piece of content is not some formalised or prescribed test. It's a judgement call based on an analysis of the relevant sources, tempered by an emergent consensus. WP:VNOT tells us that while all information must be verifiable for inclusion into an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. One of our core content policies explicitly states that we do not mandate inclusion of content, consensus can always form around exclusion. But this proposal mandates inclusion of the former names when the criteria is met. That goes against the idea of a consensus forming for the exclusion of the content, except in the circumstance of WP:IAR. And I think we can all agree that where VNOT states that consensus can form around exclusion of content, it is not solely through an application of IAR. Why are we setting a standard for mandated inclusion in this guideline that we don't set in our core content policies?

returning to dwelling on what some old closer said I'm returning to what the most recently expressed community wide consensus is. The role of the closer is to determine and describe the consensus that was reached in a discussion. If the closer states that there is a clear consensus for or against a point, it is only because that is what the community decided in the discussion. Conversely we call the situation where a closer imposes their view, over that of the community WP:SUPERVOTING, and when that occurs the relevant closes are typically undone and it is left to another editor to properly determine the consensus that has been reached. Of course consensus can change, but that requires another discussion or RfC on the same point to overturn it, whether in whole or in part.

in the original proposal here; "a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest" is encapsulated in the "should be included ... only if ..." rule I fundamentally disagree. By saying the former name should be included ... only if ... you are setting a criteria where it becomes automatically of encyclopedic interest. To fully respect that close, the inclusion of the former name has to be optional when the criteria are met. We have to set a baseline where inclusion is allowed, but not required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird that this is still open, as it's been running more than two months already. I've renewed a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.