Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

RfC on JOBTITLES

Should the "Positions, offices, and occupational titles" section be changed to reflect actual practice, namely capitalising titles adjacent to names? ~~~~ A.D.Hope (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• CLOSE for longer RFCBEFORE or OPPOSE ... but might support some rephrasing of the guideline. For context, this discussion started above, with #Conflict between JOBTITLE and SURNAME. The proposer noted that, though JOBTITLES says to only capitalize titles before names, we do, in practice, capitalize some post-name titles, like "William, Prince of Wales". Above, I noted, "Per WP:NCROY, royalty often use titles in lieu of surnames. As such, the title is part of the name. Though subtle, I think there's a distinction between saying, for example, "William, Prince of Wales" vs. "Charles was the prince of Wales". Notably, capitalization seems to be standard practice around the various articles: In this ongoing RFC discussing how a list of funeral attendees should be presented, no one is suggesting lowercasing titles." I'd amend that to note, as NCROY does, that a similar title-in-lieu-of-surname practice is often used for non-royal nobility or consorts (Albert, Prince Consort). That said, there are a few exceptions, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell has both a surname and a title.
  Regardless of the inconsistency, I think the above proposal is too broad. I'd oppose an approach of capitalizing all adjacent titles (I'd prefer "George W. Bush, president of the United States at the time, ..." to "George W. Bush, President of the United States at the time, ...". I might support some explicit clarification to account for the type of British nobility titles OP has mentioned, but I think such an amendment should be tailored to those titles (and probably discussed at the relevant Wikiproject—Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility?—prior to an RFC).--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Over the past few weeks I've had a number of discussions about exactly when to capitalise titles; despite JOBTITLES the general consensus on English Wikipedia seems to be to capitalise them when they're directly adjacent to a person's name, except when they're commercial or informal. Rather than contradicting this, as JOBTITLES currently does, would it be worth updating the section? Although my preference would be for the current wording, I don't see any realistic prospect of either changing how titles are capitalised in practice or updating the thousands of articles which must technically be in violation of the MoS. Thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:JOBTITLE already reads:

  When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.

  What change is being proposed? —Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Captalising when a title follows a person's name. JOBTITLES would currently have 'Richard Nixon, president of the United States', but I propose changing this to allow 'Richard Nixon, President of the United States' to better reflect how Wikipedia editors seem to capitalise in practice. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this proposal. To my eye, the example above is improper for English and promoting it would gradually lead to such words always being capitalized, more as in German. To try to "reflect how Wikipedia editors seem to" do something is not, in my opinion, a rational or sustainable way to organize the MOS.Dayirmiter (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The above example isn't improper English, to my knowledge, although admittedly it wouldn't be endorsed by the Chicago MoS. I do see your point, but then organising our MoS to work with editors rather than against them is both rational and sustainable, surely? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, I think most editors would use an article there, "Richard Nixon, the president of the United States, ...." Would your proposal also require capitalization there?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, it wouldn't. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, so just so I'm clear: "Richard Nixon, President of the United States at the time" but "Richard Nixon, the president of the United States at the time"?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. I know it's anecdotal, but that's the style a lot of editors seem to naturally adopt. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's a well established principle in a number of style guides where the title preceding the name is capitalized, but not when it follows the name. So "President Nixon" and "Richard Nixon, president of the United States," but not "Richard Nixon, President of the United States." I'd argue that where you see the later happening, it's both against the MOS and generally incorrect. More often, I've seen people misread MOS:JOBTITLE to say that "president Richard Nixon" is correct, probably confusing something like "the president, Richard Nixon," where it would be lowercased. That said, royal titles like "William, Prince of Wales," are a different case in part because you would never say "the President" in running text without the president's name, but you would say "the Prince of Wales" because of how the title acts as name. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mostly agree with your comment ... although I do want to caveat you would never say "the President" in running text without the president's name seems ... which I suppose might be true if you mean "on Wikipedia", but certainly outside of Wikipedia, "the president announced" is quite common.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that you should write "the President" in running text [w]hen a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office (the second bullet point of MOS:JOBTITLES). Rosbif73 (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for this! I was wondering where I had seen that—I wrongly assumed I had seen it in a third-party style guide, but I actually found that most style guides disagree! (In a 1999 article, William Safire announced that the NYT would be joining the AP in not capitalizing president even when referring to a specific person; he said his preference was to capitalize in such a case, though he said the approach was "no longer stylish".[1]) CMoS, AP, and NYT all seem to now agree to lowercase it. I must have seen that passage in MOS:JOBTITLES and just forgot it was there!--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, at the moment our MoS is very clear on 'the President' rather than 'the president' when referring to a specific person. Again, although that usage seems to have fallen out of favour among style guides it does still seem to be popular on Wikipedia, so changing it is a question of balancing stylistic trends with how editors actually write. As I understand it neither usage is really wrong, after all.

  I do wonder if the best thing would be to make the MoS itself less absolute on this issue and title capitalisation, and aim for consistency within a page rather than across the whole enyclopedia? I think @Mgp28 will back me up when I say that there are pages where the main editors would resist the MoS as currently written being strictly imposed, and not unreasonably. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hurm, the examples there are "Queen" and "Pope", which seem a bit different to me than president, mostly because royal (and to a degree ecclesiastical) titles seem to be referring to the person, while president and governor would refer more to the office (i.e., one is more about WHO it is, the other is about the person's position). But that also sounds like I'm stretching for a rationale ... :) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it would feel totally wrong to write "the king" or "the pope" (referring to a specific person at a given point in time) but somehow more acceptable to write "the prime minister" or "the bishop" in the same context. If we are to change the guidance, we need clear rationale for the distinction. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have followed this discussion around a few different conversations since Talk:List_of_guests_at_the_coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla#RfC_on_capitalisation_and_peerage_format. At that point it applied to princes, earls, lords and so on. MOS:SURNAME advised to capitalize these names. I was unconvinced that MOS:JOBTITLE should apply to all of these people but there was a possible contradiction so I suggested above that it might make sense to rephrase the example for when the title has become part of the name:

  • When they can be considered to have become part of the name, i.e. when combined with a person's name to form a title: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII; William, Prince of Wales, not William, prince of Wales

  I still think this could be reasonable, but only in the context of the title being part of the name in that position, not generically whenever a title follows a name. I would not think we should expand it to "Richard Nixon, President". Also, as presently phrased it might suggest capitalizing job titles that are never used as part of a name, "Adam Smith, Butcher", which I don't think it the intent. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Now that's its become clear this is about writing ""Richard Nixon, President of the United States" instead of "Richard Nixon, president of the United States", I hvae to oppose, because the comma separates them into separate clauses, and the title is no longer directly connected to the name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is English, not German, and moreover it's not Benjamin Franklin's English, either. Moreover, I don't support capitalizing a title like "president" when referring to a specific person, because that's a distinction without a difference, and one that is entirely missed by any user who has impaired sight or otherwise isn't using their eyes to take in this information. I only note that last because it was raised by other editors, not to suggest a change at this time.~TPW 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC on complex gender identities

How should complementary or complex preferences with regard to gender expression and identity be handled? This applies to article subjects such as Conchita Wurst or Trixie Mattel, where the article contains information both on the person and their stage persona(s), as well as to articles like Eddie Izzard, where the subject's expressed identity does not clearly indicate how they should be referred to under MOS:GID. In such cases, should the article text:

A. Refer to the subject with only one set of pronouns throughout the article

OR

B. Refer to them variably?

Note relevant discussion in the GID inclarity section above. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is no single “right” answer to this question. A LOT depends on the expressed desires of the subject of the article… which means we often have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• I also feel this is something needing to be thrashed out on individual talk pages. There has been a lot of discussion that can help with guidance on this page and elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Hard cases make bad law GMG^talk 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Blueboar. This isn't the sort of situation where a one-size-fits-all rule can be crafted without creating more problems than are solved. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the above people that this is something that needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, not with a wholesale policy change. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 13:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) There is no single “right” answer to this question. A LOT depends on the expressed desires of the subject of the article… which means we often have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, per Blueboar but in general, refering to someone variably within an article is a recipe for confusion IMO. The drag artists (Conchita Wurst and Trixie Mattel) have some justification since the articles are ostensibly in the name of the character, rather than the artist, but even so, the articles seem needlessly confusing, both whether the article itself is actually about a performer, or the drag persona they created and in the use of pronouns (the character or creator could be referred to by name throughout). Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Case-by-case, follow the reliable sources, lather, rinse, repeat. Do we really need this RfC? Where and with whom did you decide how to frame the RfC question? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm sure this is asked with the best of intentions, but... Please please please, not another GENDERID RfC. This is not urgent. The wiki is not burning down. The trans/nonbinary biography space does a pretty good job self-regulating and does not need RfC after RfC on style rules. Give people some time to breathe. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree I don't keep my pronouns in my sig like Tamzin, but anyone who met me in my thirties or forties would attest that "complex / complementary gender expression" would apply to any bio of me were I somehow most unwelcomely to pass WP:N. So, I claim an "inside view" of this topic, and with that perspective I ask please take a break. I cannot remember a time there were not at least two concurrent pronoun and/or deadname RfCs running in fairly public venues.

  I see nowhere established an inability of talkpage conversations to handle this corner case. Further, and kindly, I claim that unambiguously [gender]-identifying first name is a fallacious construct. To step outside this culture for a moment, whenever one of the teachers I worked alongside in China would hear from another teacher the name of a student they didn't know, the first question was always "boy or girl?" Leaving aside the obvious gender-binary cultural blinders, even the idea of an unambiguously gender-identifying first name is unknown is some settings.

  And for a counterexample from Western culture, one of the easy ways people in our department at grad school used to suss out whether some student was actually familiar with the secondary literature or had just read a few articles here or there would be to bring up Michael Nylan, now the most prominent active Han dynasty historian in the Western world, and see if the student misgendered her based on assumptions about her first name.

  I'm sorry this got rambly and ranty, and I appreciate that the people initiating these RfCs are doing so in good faith to protect and respect notable people who are similar to me in a vulnerable way that makes us visible minorities wherever we go. But what I'm feeling instead is that the image being presented to the wider Wikipedia community is that trans people are delicate to the point we need a constant flow of RfCs to head off any possible affront no matter how minor or unintentional. When people address you with the wrong pronouns, you remind, forgive, and have patience. It takes a while to learn, but people are learning. The ceaseless pushing on these topics is a road to resentment, not consensus.

  Apologies for the feelings. It's been a wholeass week over here. Double apologies to everyone who has their pronouns tattooed on their knuckles and gets tilted about pronouns on the daily (although I doubt the person I'm thinking of reads anything in the Wikipedia_talk: namespace). Folly Mox (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  "I see nowhere established an inability of talkpage conversations to handle this corner case." Yep. We already have a WP:MOSBLOAT problem, and MoS should not get new rules added that are not frequent sources of reader confusion or editorial in-fighting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Reiterating what's already been said, we should handle these on a case-by-case basis. I beg that we do not have another RfC. Like Tamzin and Folly Mox, this has a personal connection for me. I'd not claim to have complex / complementary gender expression, rather I have a "don't give a fuck" approach which means I don't mind any personal pronouns. But even in that, the same issue arises as described by Actualcpscm. I don't think we have enough BLPs that would require us to create a uniform policy and AFAIK we've been able to self-regulate well enough. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography

Split Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. Currently the topic is a WP:FORK between the two. Being a subtopic in MOS:Biography perpetuates forked discussions, forked manual-of-style-guidance, prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature and accessing this policy discussion, and floods disinterested wiki policymakers with a high-barrier-to-entry inaccessible discussion. We already have about 100 conversation threads identified for this and it is unsustainable to center them here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. I fail to recognize negative consequences of this proposal; if anyone sees any then please state them.

Proposal -

1. Replace {{Further}} {{Further|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity}} with {{Main}} {{|Main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity}}
2. Summarize this topic at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity in 3-5 sentences - no great detail here
3. Future development and discussion go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity
4. Shortcuts now go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity including
   1. MOS:GENDERID
   2. MOS:GID
   3. MOS:DEADNAME
   4. MOS:NB
   5. WP:GENDERBLP
5. Similarly, merge Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, because it is another WP:FORK of the same topic

• Support as proposer. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would take it a step further… and remove it from MOS space entirely. That happened because originally it simply discussed pronouns (which was a style issue)… but it has grown well beyond that. The issues we have been wrestling with for the last few months are far more than style issues… there are mostly content issues: focused on relevance, Verifiability and reliability, Neutrality, and a host of other things. I would suggest a separate WP:GENDER guideline. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: the large majority of discussion on this talk page is about this one guideline and that strongly suggests to me that it deserves its own page.
  In addition, I agree with Blueboar that MOS:GENDERID is really not a style guideline, it's a content guideline with style implications. It bears more relation to WP:BLP than to the rest of the MOS. So I wouldn't oppose breaking out the parts about excluding names for privacy reasons to WP:BLP or a subpage, and leaving the MOS parts for how to properly word things given those content restrictions. Loki (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I can see good reasons for a simple split. The amount of discussion on this guideline, not just the current discussions on amendments and rewrites, but also discussions on how to interpret and apply it to relevant content are pretty lengthy and frequent. Separating this out would allow for those discussions to occur without impacting on other discussions here relating to MOSBIO.
  I also find myself agreeing with Loki and Blueboar, GENDERID has grown beyond a simple style guide into something that touches upon inclusion criteria, neutrality, privacy of biographical subjects. There is a strong argument here for making this or elements of this either a standalone guideline or policy in its own right, or integrated into the policy or guideline they are founded upon. If this finds consensus, I would still be minded to leave behind transclusion of the style related aspects (ie, use the most recent name and gendered terms for the person), as those are truly style related issues, and can be considered separate from content inclusion issues. I'd prefer a transclusion though than a summary, only because that means we only need to update it in a single place should the style text be amended in any major way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  To restate succinctly why I think we've reached the point where this needs to be split off into its own stand-alone guideline. When GENDERID was first added to MOSBIO in something resembling its current form it was a style guideline with content implications; use the name and pronouns the subject uses; if they weren't notable prior to changing their name, don't include the former name. As time progressed, the guideline was amended to and added, and in its current form I think it's more accurately described as a content guideline with style implications; use the name and pronouns the subject uses; if they weren't notable prior to changing their name, don't include it; don't detail name and gender presentation changes in other articles unless pertinent; paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to avoid deadnaming and misgendering in quotes.

  MOSBIO on the whole a style guideline, with some minor content implications, which typically amount to "don't give undue weight" (see the sections on bad nicknames and sexuality). However because GENDERID is now a content guideline with style implications, and is typically enforced as such at dispute resolution and behavioural noticeboards (AN, ANI, AE, BLPN) it's clear that it has outgrown this guideline. That alone is sufficient reason to me to split it off into its own guideline.

  Finally, on the arguments that this split would result in local consensus or ownership problems, frankly in my opinion that isn't a reason to not split, nor is it one I can find that's supported by policy or guideline. If there is a policy or guideline that supports not splitting, could it please be linked? Editors who are fearful of such a situation would be able to watchlist it just as easily as the stakeholder groups that Blueraspberry has mentioned. Likewise there are well established mechanisms to prevent and challenge local consensuses, like RfCs and notifications to relevant noticeboards or WikiProjects, and WP:CENT, which are designed to stop such a thing from occurring. The option to use a contextually relevant mechanism will remain open regardless of whether future discussions on the guideline occur here, on a stand-alone guideline page, or some other venue like VPP (the forum for the two most recent RfCs). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support, particularly the idea that this should be split out and separated from the MOS. That said, I worry that a move to this guidance mainly residing at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity (or wherever that page moves to) might incidentally downgrade most of the guidance from guideline status to explanatory essay status. If the resulting page is a guideline page, I'm all for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in part because the material is short and isn't really suited to being an entire guideline page, in part because orders of magnitude fewer people would be watchlisting it, leaving much more room for mischief, and in part because a separate page on this would be highly likely to develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION. This material is much safer in a major guideline page with over 700 watchers, over 100 of whom are actively engaged in keeping this page sensible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Similar grounds to SMcCandlish.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. The proposal is explicitly made because the status quo prevents LGBT+ communities and other stakeholders from using the "watch" feature. I am not sure whether there are other stakeholder communities this could be referring to, and if not, then the question remains that once this change is made, would there will be appropriate balance in resultant discussions, instead of a local consensus? starship.paint (exalt) 04:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. This is a topic of discussion that needs as much sunlight on it as possible. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing is preventing certain communities and "other stakeholders" from watchlist-ing this page or participating in discussions here. SMcCandlish raises good points, particularly that a separate page would develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION. Some1 (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the issue of local consensus can arise wherever the guidance is located, but making it a stand alone guideline under WP:BLP (rather than an MOS page) would lessen the chance. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Anything other than making it policy and making it clear that WP:NPOV does not mean that we have to deadname people just because reliable sources do is a complete waste of time. As long as people use WP:NPOV as an argument for deadnaming any MOS on the matter is completely meaningless. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW it's already the case that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to deadname people. That's always been a losing argument whenever I've seen it, which is very rarely. I much more often see arguments based off WP:NOTCENSORED among people who want to ignore this guideline. Loki (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW it's already the case that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to deadname people. If it's WP:DUE, then it does. If there are losing argument[s], then it's because you're witnessing editors willingly choose to violate the non-negotiable status WP:NPOV enjoys and it's a shame because our ability to cover topics neutrally is a deeper concern than helping someone trying to stop a streisand effect (or put a genie back in a bottle, etc, etc) over something that not all of society agrees with (as evidenced by reliable sources). Of late, the arguments for change are boldly running straight through WP:RGW and are disruptive with the non-stop proposals/threads/debates and it grows tiring. If someone had told me 3-4 years ago I'd be on Wikipedia arguing about transgender topics, I'd never have believed them. And yet here I am, because apparently we're trying to change Wikipedia from being a follower of sources to being an encyclopedia that picks and chooses which reliable sources to ignore or acknowledge. And that's the most dangerous thing to come out of this to me in my decades of being here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain please, why you think a person's name (or in this case former name) is a point of view on a topic? And how a name could a dispute? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  From WP:DUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. And I don't think it's a point of view (and it doesn't really matter what I think here), our sources do. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't really answer the question, and opens a few more. Our sources don't have a concept of what we define to be a neutral point of view. They have their own criteria and reasons for including or excluding content, just as we do. Despite this, you're asserting that including or not including the deadname of a trans or non-binary person is a point of view on that person, so I return to my original question, how is a person's name a point of view?

  Just because our sources include a piece of information doesn't mean we have to include it (see WP:VNOT, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). A piece of information must have encyclopaedic value before it can be included in any article. Now if you want to make an argument that the former name of a trans or non-binary person (living or dead) has encyclopaedic value, then by all means make that argument. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  You asked Why [do] you think a person's name (or in this case former name) is a point of view on a topic?, I cited the exact wording from WP:NPOV that addressed your question. As to the rest, I'll leave you with WP:RGW which addresses what's happened here far better than I'm capable of. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've stated what you think, but I was asking why you think it. I want to understand why you think a trans or non-binary person's deadname is a point of view, as NPOV defines it. Or perhaps, based on this reply, why you think our sources believe the former name is a point of view, and not a factoid (as in the CNN definition of it being minor trivia) about the person. If our sources believe, as you assert, that a person's name is a point of view, could you perhaps cite a relevant style guide or editorial policy that elaborates on this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, you misunderstand. I don't think this, WP:NPOV says it. And you apparently can't understand that. If you think something as integral as how we identify someone in an encyclopedia article is simply a factoid, you'll need to let the folks who came up with WP:AT and the various Wikipedia naming conventions that their work was all for nothing. But this is all basic writing: who someone is (their name) is as important as what they've done, where they did it, and the why of what happened. This is all very academic. I won't be re-quoting NPOV since apparently the words don't mean anything to you, but it's all right there. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  AT, and the various naming conventions deal with an article subject's name, and with a few exceptions will typically follow WP:COMMONNAME. Name changes of article subjects are one of the major exceptions to the article naming conventions for why we might break with the historical common name for a subject. And that policy point, alongside GENDERID is why our articles about trans and non-binary individuals always use the current name of the article subject, and not their former name. However, we're not discussing article titles and naming conventions, we're discussing content inclusion or exclusion.

  The NPOV policy covers points of view on a topic. The purpose behind it is that we describe disputes, and not engage in them. As DUE states, neutrality requires that our articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Ordinarily when we discuss DUE, we are asking and answering questions like "does [insert label] apply to this article/?" or "what does current academic research state about this topic?" or "is this theory disputed and by whom?" This is so that whenever we're answering those questions, we're always following whatever the mainstream view on a topic is.

  The logical leap that I can't understand is why you're asserting that the former name of a person is a point of view, as that is in no way clear from the text of the policy. The only places in NPOV that actually use the word name are WP:POVNAMING and the paraphrasing of Jimbo Wales' 2003 mailing list post about naming the prominent adherents to a significant minority viewpoint. The questions that I've been asking have been to try to understand this logical leap you're making, because it is not an obvious one from the text of the policy. In other words, there is some base assumption that you are making here when reading the policy text that I am not, and it is one that I would like to understand. Based on your most recent reply, the only way I can think of that your interpretation makes sense is if you believe, or you're asserting that our sources believe, that a person cannot ever change their name, and that the act of changing names is a dispute that we cannot engage in. Is that the case? If that is not the case, would you please elaborate on what non-obvious base assumption you are making, because again, it's not obvious from what you've been saying or quoting? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to (emphasis added, the "several ways" provided are just a sampling and not an exhaustive list) the depth of detail (a name is a "detail" that sources may go into depth on, omitting such a detail when reliable sources report it runs afoul of DUE) [...] the juxtaposition of statements (our sources may list a "deadname" near a subjects current name, deviating significantly from that would again run into NPOV concerns). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so why is that encyclopaedically relevant? To pick another characteristic for a moment, if the majority of our sources said something like "X had curly red hair" or "Y spoke with a Scottish accent", is that something that NPOV would compel us to include in our articles? How do you balance that against other policy points like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:5P1? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  If lots and lots of sources highlight the fact that someone has/had curly red hair, that fact is obviously considered a significant trait for that person. It would be UNDUE for Wikipedia to omit it. The same is true for former names. We can quibble over how many sources are needed, and about the quality of those sources… but… eventually it comes down to: if enough sources all highlight a fact about a person, that fact should be considered encyclopedic and worth including in our article about that person. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  NPOV isn't just about points of view; it's also about aspects. See WP:BALASP and WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is true but IMO irrelevant. If lots of sources said what a BLP subject's current address was, we still couldn't include that information. That's not a WP:NPOV matter, because neither WP:NPOV nor WP:V require us to include information no matter how well it's sourced.

  Rather, if we do include information we need to include all significant points of view about it in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, but we always have the option of just not including it at all, and there are many polices (WP:NOT for instance) that instruct us to not include some information sometimes. Loki (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  We can include a BLP subject's current address, and often do so. The article on Donald Trump, for example, states that he resides at Mar-a-lago. WP:BLPPRIMARY only forbids the sole use of primary documents for the purpose of identifying a subject's address. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLPPRIVACY says articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons. Loki (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are a few rare cases where WP:NPOV overrides that aspect of WP:BLP. For example, Donald Trump and Jeremy Hunt. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am not saying that WP:NPOV does mean that we have to deadname people. Personally I think that is a bizarre interpretation of what a point of view is (and conflicts with a whole host of rules and guidelines, including, but not limited to the ones listed by Sideswipe9th). But WP:NPOV is used to argue for deadnaming. Of course most people just go with "reliable sources do it so we have to do it" without giving any policy rationale. And unfortunately I don't share you optimism that it is a losing argument. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Move out of MOS. I also agree with Blueboar and LokiTheLiar that much of MOS:GENDERID is about content not style and should be part of WP:BLP, not MOS. And yes, I do think that it should be restricted to living or recently dead people. The same rules should apply equally to all people, regardless of gender or gender identity. But even if we have different rules for trans etc people, it should still be a content guideline, not a style guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  It actually is a bit of BOTH content and style… but that just highlights the need for it to be on a page of its own. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Lots of bits of MoS have elements of content guideline to them; that's not a good rationale for such a split.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMc. I support it in principle, but it's not a simple split as we'd be effectively elevating it from a MOS guideline to either a guideline or a policy. And that makes the NPOV/DUE conflict even more important to resolve. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I posted this invitation to comment to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, WP:Feminism, WP:LGBT, WP:Women, WP:Men, and WP:Gender studies. These were stakeholder communities that I imagined might have opinions. If anyone else knows of others, then invite more participation. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, but really agree with Mitch Ames and others that the best solution would be a short section in BLP (perhaps based on proposal #4 above) to decide on content exclusion, and leave the MOS for style tips. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I previously proposed this, which I believe would incorporate the principles into BLP in an appropriate and consistent manner. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; this will reduce the number of eyes on this section and I do not believe that is a positive change. There are also WP:CONLEVEL issues with this proposal; it will either upgrade Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity to a style guideline, or it will downgrade Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity to an essay. Which one will occur isn't specified, but either way a split discussion lacks the CONLEVEL to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  this will reduce the number of eyes on this section — I don't think the number of watchers should affect where a guideline goes. It's either about content or style (or both, as Blueboar pointed out), and its location in the guideline/policies structure should be dictated by its scope, not by how many people chose to watch it. Anyone can watch or subscribe to anything - we don't hide our policies and guidelines. If anything, it should be easier to find and watch if it is in a sensible place, matching the scope of the guideline/policy. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as second preference to moving out of MOS per Blueboar. This needs it's own page that deals with both the content and style issues, the former can and should be summarised at WP:BLP, the latter can and should be summarised here, with both pointing to the specific page for more detail and precision. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is something I could support. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMcCandlish; it's not necessary and it shunts it off somewhere with less scrutiny. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support for alternative proposal to move this out of Manual of Style altogether. I've seen discussions as to whether revision deletion or oversight is acceptable for violations of this guideline, and while I can understand that sort of thing on BLP grounds, I cannot accept it on MoS grounds. The Manual of Style – Style! – is a guideline, not a policy, that discusses how to write, not what to write, and the idea that MoS violations should be deleted/oversighted is extremely WP:TROUT-worthy. As for other places where the MoS dictates what content is allowed, those should also be pruned down; I'm not so sure why, for example, relevant portions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games should be treated differently from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which notes that [t]here are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia and focuses on avoiding the loss of information (MOS:SAID is a good example of this). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

GENDERID in BLP

Based on the consensus that seems to be forming around the split, here is a proposed wording for a paragraph in BLP, so that the MOS is for style and not making content policy.

Proposed paragraph for WP:BLPNAME
For the special case of the former name of a transgender or non-binary individual, it is reasonable to assume they would not want the name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure. Any inclusion must be supported by multiple reliable and neutral sources.

Proposed MOS:GID

Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person should only be included if the person was notable under the name, they made the name public post-transition, or they are a public figure (See WP:BLPNAME). The former name must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest that we NOT change any existing language at this point… but merely MOVE the existing guidance to a new WP:GENDER page. Once people get used to it being consolidated at a new location we can discuss changes. Go one step at a time. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see where there's consensus to take anything out of the MoS.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, consensus that seems to be forming, whaaaat? No jumping the gun, please. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  The "consensus that seems to be forming" is opposition to splitting this material out of MoS. And as Blueboar says, trying to change the material in the process of proposing a different split is just asking for opposition. We already know from all the discussion prior that there is considerable opposition to phrasing like "they made the name public post-transition" (which is a rephrasing of the same idea behind "clearly expressed their consent to share the information"), because these are matters of public record that are not dependent on what the subject themselves did/said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• While there certainly are a few comments supporting moving parts of GENDERID into BLP, I don't see anything close to a consensus or even an emerging consensus. I also don't see anyone in the above discussion having mentioned the public figure changes that are part of this proposal. Once again I agree with the points that Blueboar and SMcCandlish have made, either move the guidance or change the guidance. Don't do both at the same time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  But policy opponents will likely assume that a proposed move is motivated by a desire to make changes under more friendly circumstances, so there's sort of a linkage. Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  What is amusing is that I have the exact same concern about leaving it here (“hidden away” as a section within a “Style” guideline). By promoting it to its own guideline, I would expect that any proposed changes would be spotted sooner, and can be discussed by a wider selection of the community. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  This page has 773 watchers at present. A new page would, by default, start with 0. There's also the matter of what status it should have if it's moved out of the MOS. I would support an essay, but I would oppose any attempt to enshrine this as guideline or policy while the NPOV conflict remains. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's also the matter of what status it should have if it's moved out of the MOS. That's easy. GENDERID is already a guideline, and is regularly enforced as such at both content and behavioural noticeboards. As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity.

  while the NPOV conflict remains While this has been going on, I've re-read every formative discussion on the text of the guideline (ie those that were on the text of the guideline or lead to changes of it, and not application of it). In doing so I discovered that NPOV concerns have been raised by a handful of editors in total, across the hundreds contributing to the various discussions. The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  GENDERID is already a guideline It's a style guideline and part of the manual of style. It is not a traditional content guideline. As such any move to a stand alone location would, at minimum, also be a guideline to keep parity. This would not be parity, but a promotion by fiat unless it was accompanied by a community conversation that showed support for such a promotion. The views that you're expressing do not seem to be representative of the broader community consensus on this. NPOV is non-negotiable, whether a community of editors supports something is irrelevant. If you want to split it off and promote it, you'll need to address these issues or face the reality that it will likely fail. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV is non-negotiable; however your particular interpretation of NPOV is very much negotiable. It seems to be a very small minority, in fact.

  Like it or not, all interpretation of policy on Wikipedia is determined by consensus. If you really want to settle the issue, we can take it to an RFC. But if not, nobody has any obligation to WP:SATISFY you or your decidedly minority interpretation of WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. I'll note that WP:SATISFY is an essay. We'll go with the policy here. But we won't be sacrificing our neutrality on the altar of WP:RGW just because a vocal minority (the small group here) wishes it so. The community decided the principles of NPOV are above consensus decision making, and likely rightly so if the conversations here are any indicator of how quickly some groups are willing to set aside our neutrality in the name of "feeling good" or some misguided desire to "respect" people in a way that society (and more importantly, our sources) have not. There is genuine real-world progress to be made on these issues, but Wikipedia cannot be the "leader" of change that some here seem to be pushing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  NPOV is indeed policy, but what NPOV means in any given scenario can only be determined by consensus. You seem to be (nearly?) the only person here who thinks a person's name is a point of view, and thus the (nearly?) the only person who thinks including or not including a person's former name is something that is of any relevance to NPOV. This is exactly the same way that reasonable editors may disagree about whether an actor should be primarily referred to by their stage name or their real name, but that disagreement is not an NPOV matter. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - While the majority opposes the specific proposal by Bluerasberry, there are five comments that suggest moving the content guideline to BLP would be an improvement. Considering the hurdle of getting agreement for a new exception at BLP, I think my proposal is about the best you can get. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference though between simply moving part of the existing guideline to BLP, which some editors do seem to support above (though not yet a consensus), and moving part of the existing guideline while adding to it, which no-one other than yourself seems to support.

  We could very easily make a proposal here that just replicates the existing inclusion guidance into the relevant portions of BLP, and that otherwise does not contain the new public figure and "made the name public post-transition" exemptions. Simply moving the existing guidance without any significant change to scope is a far easier thing to "sell" to the community than moving it and changing it at the same time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you propose that we move to BLP to exclude all former names unless they were notable under the previous name, it would fail. I think even my proposal might fail for the opposite reason you're saying, due to being overly censoring. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you propose that we move to BLP to exclude all former names unless they were notable under the previous name, it would fail. Outside of IAR, we already exclude all former names unless the person was notable under the former name. Moving the relevant parts to BLP for something we already have a long standing consensus for and have been doing routinely for years is much easier to do than adding wholly new exemptions or moving and adding new exemptions.

  The problem with this proposal is that it's trying to do two things at once. Move part of the guidance to BLP, that is already enforced as though it were part of BLP, and add a new exemption. As multiple editors have said now, those need to be done separately. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft RFC

I'd like to get feedback on this proposal before taking it to VPP. Assume a preamble and option to oppose all.

Option 1 - Expand MOS:GENDERID to deceased
Add this paragraph to MOS:GENDERID: For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.

Option 2 - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with normal privacy exceptions, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name, it has been widely published by reliable sources, or it may be reasonably inferred that the individual does not object to the name being made public. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup: Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Option 3 - Move content restriction to WP:BLPNAME with only exception for notability, and revise down MOS:GENDERID

Add this paragraph to the end of WP:BLPNAME: It is reasonable to assume that a transgender or non-binary individual would not want a former name disseminated, and it should be removed unless the person was notable under the name. Revise MOS:GENDERID to remove content restrictions and other cleanup (same wording as Option 2): Refer to any person whose gender might be unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote. Added back in:Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. In rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided (e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover), the quotation or work may be included. Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've some thoughts on the phrasing of options 2 and 3, but have an immediate question on the format. While option 2 and 3 are clearly mutually exclusive, due to the conflicting nature of what they'll respectively add to BLPNAME, is option 1 supposed to be mutually exclusive to 2 and 3? Or will this be the sort of RfC where you could !vote "option 1 and 2" or "option 1 and 3"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The question of deceased individuals can't go in BLP because it is about living or recently-deceased persons. I (personally) think it also can't go in the MOS, but considering that the last two RFCs came close to doing exactly that, then option 1 is there. I think to expand the exclusion of deadnames to deceased individuals you need to figure out a policy/guide that makes sense and run a policy RFC to do exactly that, or create a new one. Would it help to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other options to enshrine an MOS-based policy about past-RDP deadnames? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Would it help to include in the preamble that option 1 can be combined with other options Perhaps, though that particular clause might just be better handled as a separate RfC, or as a separate question within one overall RfC. I'm not entirely sure that the drafting of that text has reached a conclusion yet and I wouldn't want to pre-empt it by placing a non-final version of it in here. The alternative would be to wait until that process and this process has finished and we have finalised text for all of the options/options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, wouldn't options 2 and 3 remove large chunks of the GENDERID guidance without moving them to any other page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add a 4th option: “Move/Promote the current text of MOS:GENDERID to a stand-alone WP:GENDER ISSUES guideline page - without any changes. (Changes can be discussed separately, at a later date.)” or similar language. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on the phrasing of options 2 and 3. Beyond the text that's moving to BLP, and the excising of the examples, there's also some key elements of the existing version of GENDERID that have been removed entirely. I'm using del and ins tags below to (hopefully) highlight the differences a little more clearly.

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned unclear with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent).The former name of a transgender or non-binary person must not be given undue weight or overemphasis. It may be placed later in the lead or elsewhere in the article instead of the first sentence, to avoid giving it undue prominence. In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion. Articles or other works that were published under a pre-transition name may use their current name as the primary name while describing the work, while crediting the prior name in parentheticals or footnote.

When the former name or gender is not included in the article, avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). If the former name appears in a quotation, the article may need to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except. Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc.(e.g. pun, rhyme, album cover) the quotation or work may be included

• Critic X said "Juno needs a fine [actor] to play its pregnant teenage star, and [Elliot] Page has shown [himself] to be the perfect [man] for the job." involves many bracketed changes, so is better paraphrased: Critic X argued that portraying the pregnant teenage lead in the film Juno required a fine acting talent, and said that Page had proved perfect for the job.

In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person.

Some of the insertions and deletions are where sentences have been moved about, or subject to some minor word changes that don't significantly change the meaning. However there are several sentences that I'll now highlight separately that have been removed entirely

• even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise
• Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.
• In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events.
  • Note while some of this text has been moved, there is a significant change between use their current name as the primary name and may use their current name as the primary name
• In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)".

I'm very concerned that once again we're looking at a proposal that radically alters the scope of the current version of GENDERID while also moving or rewording portions. It's one thing to move portions of the guideline to BLP and make small textual changes to accommodate the move, while keeping parity with the current scope of the guidance. It's another thing entirely to reduce the scope of the guidance, while moving portions of it to BLP. Until the text of the guidance that will remain as part of GENDERID in options 2 and 3 maintains parity with the current scope of the guidance, this option cannot be brought forward to an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have made a good-faith draft to clean up the section and accommodate moving content restrictions to the policy page. The specific examples you brought up either do not "radically alter" the scope or are wordings already discussed on this page. For example, Tamzin previously commented, In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names. Which resulted in the change to "may use their current name" addressing works published under pre-transition names. In another example, even if it does not match what is most common in sources is redundant and unnecessary. You have the right to oppose all of my efforts, but you can't insist that it cannot be brought forward to an RFC with specious complaints. Due to this topic having a history of WP:GAME and WP:ADVOCACY by WP:ACTIVISTs (as noted in numerous RFC comments) I don't expect 100% agreement on this page but I welcome any feedback to make it a better proposal. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The feedback I'm giving is the same feedback that SMcCandlish, -sche, Loki, Tekrmn, Blueboar, and I have given you already at multiple stages throughout these discussions. Stop trying to do two things, move/rewrite GENDERID, and change the scope of GENDERID at the same time. Either propose a split that otherwise keeps parity with the existing guideline with some minor textual changes to accommodate the split, or propose an amendment that alters the scope of the existing guideline. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th et al. Trying to make multiple changes at the same time is all-but guaranteed to result in no consensus for any of them and possibly even consensus against all of them. You stand a much higher chance of getting consensus for both if they're discussed one at a time, so pick which you think is the highest priority and discuss only that. When discussion of that has concluded and consensus reached on a change, then return to the other matter. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're suggesting running two RFCs? How many people have been commenting like this or this, ready to put a lid on all the GENDERID discussion? And these complaints about my revision are an example of why it's helpful to incorporate a cleanup into a single RFC. My cleanup has already received generally positive comments from less-active editors. The only scope altering is to move inclusion criteria to BLP. I'll respond to each of Sideswipe9th's points here to show what I mean:

Removed: even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise - this is redundant to the "Refer to any person" in the previous sentence, and the "unless they have indicated a preference" is just obvious. It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writing, not scope of guideline. Even though it's not my preference, I can put it back in to build unity.

Removed: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. - 1) this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographies, 2) it's in scope for removing in the spirit of moving content criteria out of the MOS, 3) also obvious given many relevant content policies.

Changed use their current name as the primary name to may use their current name as the primary name for pre-transition publications. This was not my idea but I was incorporating a recommendation from Tamzin: In the "Articles or other works" bit, there should still be an exception for those who prefer to be referred to by pre-transition names. Nobody opposed this until now. As I've been reading hundreds of RFC comments over the last 3 months, proposing drafts and soliciting feedback, I'm trying to get the best version forward. Similarly, the change in the first sentence from "questioned" to "unclear" was a result of feedback from Jerome Frank Disciple and SMcCandlish on this page.

Removed: In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated. See WP:KISS. If you think it's important, please propose a better wording. This is a style example and has absolutely nothing to do with scope. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It could be included, but it's a question of style and quality of writing The content that refers to is part of the Manual of Style. It makes sense for style guidance to be a part of that text.

this is MOS/BIOGRAPHY and it's talking about outside of biographies Per the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles. All biographical content, regardless of whether it's in a biography or any other article is subject to MOSBIO.

Nobody opposed this until now. I cautiously opposed it on 24 July. However that is separate to the reason I'm opposing it now. The reason I'm opposing it now is because it represents a significant departure from the current scope of the guideline, by adding a new exclusion criteria to GENDERID. We should not be launching an RfC that alters both the scope and location of the guideline at the same time. Do one of those two actions, and do that one action well. Now if it was only that change of scope that was being discussed, I would be somewhat more inclined to support it, but I still think it has issues that require further wordsmithing.

This is poorly worded and the section has become a bit bloated. Possibly, and given the widespread shift in academic journals with regards to allowing for silent retrospective name changes for trans and non-binary authors this might even be (partially) outdated. That said, removing it again represents a significant change in scope of the guideline, in this case by removing guidance on how to handle source author name changes in citations. However saying this is a style example is again irrelevant, because this is referring to content that in options 2 and 3 will be remaining in MOSBIO. And as I've said above, MOSBIO refers to all biographical content and not just biographical articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise - If I hear wider support that this is important I'll include it. Again, not a scope change.

the first paragraph of WP:MOSBIO - you win! I'll add it back in to the MOS text.

may use their current name as the primary name - nobody opposed this particular change until now, and the change was in drafts #2,3,4, and 5 above. The link you gave of you opposing it is just some general opposition to Tamzin's draft (#5). Perhaps some wording along the lines of "...unless they have a preference otherwise" would be in order, but I don't think it is very consequential whether we use "should" or "may". The proposal is clear that we assume privacy concerns unless the individual says otherwise, so that would override the "should". If I hear wider support that this is important I'll change to "should".

In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". - Please propose a better wording. Both sentences look like they were formed by committee. To me at least, it's not clear what situation it's trying to address, or whether the "author is notable" refers to the new or former name. Try writing like you're explaining it out loud.

I realize that I should not have used the phrase "style" in my last comments because this is the manual of STYLE. I was talking more about style of writing the guideline, not style guidance. As in, each person has their own style of writing. I'll try to be more clear. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Thryduulf and Sideswipe. This RFC is trying to do too much in one question. "What should be the wording added to the guideline for deceased individuals?", "Where should the guideline be?" and "Should we have extra exceptions other than notability?" are three different questions that should all be asked separately. It'd IMO be fine to ask those three different questions at the same time but they are three different questions and should be asked separately. So for instance:

Question 1 - Wording for deceased individuals

Which of the following paragraphs should be added to the guideline on referring to trans people? For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person. For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources. lorem ipsum dolor sid amet None of the above

Question 2 - Location of the guideline
Where should the main guideline on referring to trans people be located? MOS:GENDERID, a subsection of MOS:BIO, where it currently resides A subsection of WP:BLP Its own separate guideline page, with references from MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP Split between MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP, according to whether each section pertains to style or content

Questions 3 and 4 - Exceptions

Which of the following reasons should require mention of a trans person's former name in the lead of their article? (You may select more than one.) The person was notable under their former name The person is currently a public figure The person was a public figure at some time after transition but are no longer The person has said, in a way we can source reliably, that they are okay with their former name being mentioned Which of the following reasons should allow mention of a trans person's former name in their article? (You may select more than one.) The person was notable under their former name. The person is currently a public figure. The person was a public figure at a previous time (but #1 does not apply i.e. they were a public figure after transition) The person has said, in a way we can source unambiguously, that they are okay with their former name being mentioned

Loki (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Given how many contentious MOS:DEADNAME debates we have had recently, I would strongly encourage any RfC we have to be simple, and to propose something that is all but certain to receive consensus.

I don't believe Questions 2, 3, or 4 meet this definition; Question 2 in particular, as a proposal to change the level of this guideline, should be a standalone debate.

When we do hold Question 4, I would also suggest The person's former name has been widely published by reliable and secondary sources, based on WP:BLPPRIVACY

For question 1, I would suggest we have a single wording to propose, as a support/oppose option. Trying to give multiple options will make the debate more contentious and less likely to find any consensus; I would suggest For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person. However, I am still hoping we can avoid an RfC on that question. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Loki's proposal is actually doing more things than mine was. My proposal really only has one main fork: should we add a deceased exception to MOS, or move content criteria to BLP? Due to the inability to agree on this talk page, there is a second fork of whether the BLP move should be limited to notability only. Loki's question 2 would be a disaster by asking a question of where policy should go without specific wording, resulting in more (likely failed) RFCs in the future. Keep it simple. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What Loki's proposal is doing is more clearly delineating the change aspects of your proposal. Your proposal's option 2 is implicitly asking questions 3 and 4, because it contains text that incorporates those questions (ie the new public figure exemption). If Loki's proposal seems to be doing too much to you, this might perhaps give you insight into why I've been opposing your proposals, because by my reading yours and Loki's proposal have the same overall amount of change to the guideline. The differences are in the presentation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For question 1, the lesson we should learn from the first of the two recent RfCs is that too many options makes determining consensus difficult. Ideally we should have one reasonably robust option that we're asking a yay/nay on, as that will result in the clearest consensus either way.

For question 2, we do seem to have at least three mutually exclusive options here; split part to BLP while keeping the rest in MOSBIO, elevate all to a standalone guideline, or no change. I'm not sure we can pare that down any further than that. RfC formatting wise, that could be asked akin to the three question format of the first of the two recent RfCs, where we have one RfC tag and asking multiple independent questions. But I do fear that in total we might be asking too much at once. While I do agree with Cunado that question 2 would benefit from more concrete wording in principle, the way that I'm reading Loki's proposal here is that it's more of a draft formatting/structural proposal on how to present and ask the generalised questions, than one that has the specific phrasing for any given question or option in place.

For questions 3 and 4, those maybe need to be standalone RfCs. They're wholly new exemptions, and both the phrasing and location of the finalised text would be highly dependent on the outcome of question 2. I'd worry that asking this, alongside the question on splitting/moving GENDERID, would come across as too much simultaneous change by the broader community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I am also okay with simply skipping Questions 3 and 4. I don't think there's really much cause to ask those right now. I included them because I was making my version of Cuñado's proposal, and Cuñado's proposal included those questions. Loki (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think the questions are distinct enough that I would trust the community at VPP to be able to parse them without much impact on the outcome of any one proposal, but, at the same time, I don't see any harm in staggering them either. However, I would suggest a different order of operations:

• Question 1: It's the simplest inquiry, has fairly streamlined language at this point, and I believe it is something the community can get behind at this point. Let's try to get the benefit of inertia from the start.
• Questions 3&4: I actually think it maybe makes sense to run these concurrent with Question 1, as they really should be considered in tandem insofar as each contains language that will impact the others. I also think that this approach runs the least chance of fatiguing the community's remaining reserves of patience for proposals in this area. But we can always try them back-to-back; it's possible that one of Question 1's proposed wordings have hit enough of a sweet spot that the support will be overwhelming and that the mood surrounding this cluster of disputes will turn much more positive in light of finally having a consensus.
• Question 2: I agreed with Cuñado that a serious discussion about where this wording ultimately goes is important (and honestly, there's strong arguments for all the variations, imo), but I really do think it can and should wait until we iron out the actual language. Besides, the discussion about the language itself will heavily inform the pragmatics of determining what will go where.

So, either Q1, Q3 and Q4 ---> Q2. Or Q1 ---> Q3 and Q4 ---> Q2. But I do think the community can handle all four at once if it came down to it. What has held up the previous proposals has been less procedural hitches and more a lack of preparation at the front end, I suspect (no offense intended to anyone who worked on those proposals, but we've just had a very healthy amount of discussion dialing the current proposals in, further informed by the previous discussions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think we should combine "moving the guideline" and "modifying the guideline"; those are two completely separate things and should be totally separate unrelated RFCs. The bare minimum requirement for any move RFC should be that the overall guidelines will not change as a result of any options in it, and such an RFC should clearly state at the top that no change to the substance of the guideline can result from it regardless of outcome; if it's impossible to do that for one reason or another then the guideline shouldn't be moved. "We should cut it it fits in slot XYZ" isn't a good reason to change a guideline that has received as much input, discussion, and consensus-building as this. If people want to tweak, trim, or otherwise alter the guideline that should be a totally unrelated RFC that does not discuss moving it at all - trying to combine everything into a single do-everything RFC for something with as much history and complexity as this is doomed to failure. And if people want to cover the same material elsewhere or incorporate this elsewhere, that can be done without substantitive changes here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• I confess to some confusion. What are questions 3 and 4 "exceptions" to? Are the lists of four items meant to be exhaustive? What is a "public figure"? How does "public figure" differ from 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense? EddieHugh (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is specifically supposed to be a rephrasing of Cuñado's RFC wording. So I don't have a great answer for you on the public figure question. Questions 3 and 4 are supposed to be exceptions to the general rule not to use/mention a trans person's deadname. None of these lists are necessarily exhaustive, feel free to suggest things. Loki (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC at VPP

RfC has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on GENDERID in BLP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

And quickly procedurally closed as premature because the discussion above is still ongoing and the RFC posted was the version that has been rejected by everyone who has commented on it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

But this is a good time for a page break anyway: is a proposal nearing ready?

I'd like to suggest that Loki's presentation of the issues, divided among three potential proposals, looks to have a the requisite levels of simplicity and clarity to my eyes, and has taken the feedback of the above discussions into account, regarding what we can predict from the last two RfCs and how ambitious the new proposed wording can be while still standing a decent chance of capturing community consensus. The advocates for increasing the privacy protections of trans individuals as biographical subjects have adjusted their approach, and I am hopeful that those with strong NOTCENSORED conerns among the respondents of the next RfC at VPP will also give some ground in light of / as a result of the extra level of preparation and tailoring that went into this language.

As such, I'd like to read the room and see if we are good to go on this in the coming week or so, pending some additional tweaks to the precise language? (For example, do we want to leave the inquiries of Q3/Q4 open-ended as they stand now or propose precise language?) If there is support to propose this soon, I think the following timeline is most advisable:

1. We ask Q1 at some point in the next week. The OP should foreground the fact that this will be a series of RfCs but that they will be held in series in order to not confuse respondents, overwhelm this page with feedback from what is already likely to be a large and involved discussion, or tax the community's patience on these matters unnecesarily. We let this first RfC run its course at VPP for 30 days and hopefully get a timely close with a clear consensus.
2. Repeat the process with the complimentary (and I think clverly presented) wording of Q3 and Q4. The results of this discussion should, by a combination of the responses to each question, create a sense of the range of acceptable commentary about deadnames in relevant articles. Wording can then be drafted for the policy with close fidelity to the outcome. The only concern I have here is that with a two-part inquiry, each of which allows for four options, we may not end up with a clear consensus. However, it's possible we will and even if we don't the feedback may be of substantial help moving forward. Given the complexity of the issues involved, and the foregoing disputes, I think this is a reasonable way to present the inquiry for this cluster of issues and get useful community input. Again this should run for the full 30 days, needless to say.
3. Once the language is dialed in, if we have remainign appetite for it and a strong consensus here that the matter should be pursued further, we can discuss a third RfC for purposes of re-distributing the resulting language of GENDERID between BLP and MoS sections.

I appreciate this puts us potentially more than three months out before all of this gets resolved, but there seems to clear consensus above not to run all of these inquiries concurrently, and that may well be for the best (and ultimately save a lot of time and effort) in the long run. Incidentally, my thanks to everyone for pulling together and trying to meet in the middle after a tumultuous start to this series of discussions. Thoughts? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Loki's suggested structure and with your suggested sequencing and timing with two caveats

1. I'd consider waiting a week or so between each part (maybe more if discussion was intensive up to or beyond the 30 days) to further mitigate against fatigue and reduce conflating of issues.
2. I would avoid starting it until at least a full day or so after the ANI discussion about Cuñardo has concluded.

Regarding the actual options, I'm not completely sure I am happy with the language of all the options yet (I need to do more thinking), but I don't think we're far off. If others agree with the structure and sequencing then we should focus energy on the wording of Q1 for now, especially as feedback from that may inform later options. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

All good points, I think. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep to all of that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I like this schedule with Thryduulf's suggestions, and Loki's structure. Assuming we're all not exhausted, we'll have the time while Q1 is running to get the wording sorted for questions 3 and 4.

On the wording of the amendment for question 1, I'm still concerned that the barrier for inclusion is too low with respect to the consensus established by the first RfC. It's not enough of a concern to say "we can't launch the RfC yet", but it is enough that I think there might be a slightly better text we could use. There's one editor who I'd like to hear from on this, who has contributed to earlier parts of this discussion but not on this specific issue, but I'd like to check with you all if it's OK to notify them. Is there any objections to asking that person for an opinion here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious who you mean but it doesn't matter for me, I'm fine with asking them. Loki (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If they contributed to the broader series of discussions already, at any point, I see no reasonable grounds for objection to notifying them, if being pro forma about canvassing / soliciting input is your concern. And in a more general sense, the more perspectives, the better is my general rule of thumb. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's mostly a canvassing concern. I didn't want people to ask "why are you pinging that one editor", and didn't want to cause any fuss if anyone had any objections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Which editor are you referring to? I'll probably be fine with notifying them; in general though I don't want to make the proposal any stricter - I want something that will receive consensus, and if in practice we find issues with it we can use those issues as evidence towards strengthening it through a future discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

In terms of strictness, the RFC we're following up came to the consensus that the rule should be more permissive than "never" but more restrictive than "Principle of least astonishment / majority of sources" and so I cannot agree to presenting options outside that range. My preference would be include somewhere between 2 and 4 options that represent different points within the range, which gives the best chance at community consensus. Regarding pings, I have no objection to pinging someone involved previously in this discussion as long as they have not since been topic banned. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My preference would be include somewhere between 2 and 4 options that represent different points within the range, which gives the best chance at community consensus. I would strongly oppose that. We have tried multiple ambitious RfC's, and they have done nothing but exhaust community patience. We need to run with a single conservative proposed wording, that is guaranteed to get community consensus. My wording has broad acceptance, even if some editors think it is too strong, and others thing it is too weak. Let us use that, and if down the line we find it is not strict enough we can look at a modifications to address specific issues that are raised. BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Thryduulf on this. If we present a single option – already knowing that some object to it as too much and others as not enough – then that is simply a recipe for everyone who doesn't agree with it to the precise letter to !vote against it, for reasons that are actually antithetical to each other. Present the range of options, and consensus is much more likely to settle on one of them (statistically speaking, most like in the middle of the range, which might very well be the version you want to run solo anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what SMcCandlish says, those of us discussing things here are not necessarily representative of the community as a whole so what we like may or may not mesh with what the broader consensus us. Also presenting a single option will almost certainly be perceived by some as an attempted fait accompli (even though that is not the intent) and will get opposition on that basis alone (even if the same people would pick that option from a list). Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Also presenting a single option will almost certainly be perceived by some as an attempted fait accompli (even though that is not the intent) and will get opposition on that basis alone (even if the same people would pick that option from a list). Honestly, I doubt that - most policy proposals have a single option with editors !voting either "support" or "oppose", and I've never seen anyone oppose a proposal on that basis.

If we must include multiple options - and again, I strongly argue against doing so, as multiple option RfC's are far more likely to result in "no consensus" than single option RfC's - I would suggest the following, keeping in mind that any proposal has to be less restrictive than the one most recently rejected by the community:

1. For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
2. For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is widely documented in secondary and reliable sources containing non-trivial coverage of the person.
3. For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in at least one secondary and reliable source.
4. For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name should be included in their main biographical article only if the name is documented in multiple secondary, reliable sources.

BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why "is documented" rather than "has been documented"? If a news source gives the information and then the news source is changed to exclude it, doesn't that set things up for arguments, especially if there are archived copies of the source giving the information? Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall why I worded it that way; I didn't have an intention of having it speak on modified news articles. I don't have a strong preference either way. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Best to avoid side issues, I'd say. Or, if there's a feeling we should be governed by sources changing, address it directly. Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll see if others have a preference, but if they don't, or if they also prefer "has been documented", I'll switch over to that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't really read the wording that way either, but also I prefer "is documented". The reasoning for adding this language in the first place is that we're trying to suss out whether sources think that it's OK to use this person's former name. So if they change their mind, that's relevant. We're not just looking for proof as to what the name actually is. Loki (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Loki. There are multiple reasons a source might remove a name, and all the ones I can think of are relevant to whether we include the name or not (although we wont always follow suit, we should be considering it). Whether a source has ever used the name is relevant to verifiability, which is obviously an absolute prerequisite for even discussing inclusion, but whether it currently does matters more for whether we should. Especially as one of the reasons for a source no longer using a name is because it was incorrect (this is very unlikely for someone who was notable under a previous name but plausible for someone like Brianna Ghey). Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Thryduulf here. We got a consensus on the first RFC, which had multiple options, and didn't on the second with one option even though it seemed to have consensus while being drafted, so I don't think multiple options is the barrier to consensus BM thinks it is.

If you think the guideline should be changed but favor permissive wording, then you'll tend to !vote for that if there's an option for that, but against restrictive wording if that's the only option. And vice versa. Loki (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with BilledMammal here. The problem with presenting more than two options is that you can very easily get into a situation where one of the options has the plurality of support, but not the majority of support. This happened most recently with second question of the first RfC, where "never" had the plurality of support (or in the words of someone else who was closing it there was a near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3), but not enough overall to gain consensus. This is why in the second RfC the barrier for inclusion was set very high, as it was to try and respect that consensus, but clearly that failed because it was too high.

If we're set on presenting multiple options, then we should present as few variations as possible to try and minimise the chances of that situation of plurality but still non-consensus from happening again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That being said, what if we're looking at this the wrong way around. Instead of presenting several finalised (or mostly finalised) options to the community and asking them to pick one, we instead take a leaf out of a fill-in-the-blank questionnaire. We start with the common base text, eg from the 4 options listed above For deceased transgender or non-binary persons, their birth name or former name should be included in their main biographical article only if... and then present a series of options that complete the sentence, eg multiple, reliable sources, multiple, secondary, reliable sources, multiple high-quality reliable sources. Editors then contributing to the RfC can then chose which combination of options how restrictive or non-restrictive they feel this part of the guideline should be.

Or do we think that would that get too messy for a closer to determine consensus on? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually considered that option, but I'm pretty sure that it would reduce the chance of a consensus being produced to around zero as we - and the closer - can't assume that just because someone supports an option is a specific context that they support that option in all contexts. For example, they might support "multiple high-quality reliable sources" when those sources aren't required to include "non-trivial coverage of the person", but that doesn't mean they will support "multiple high-quality reliable sources" when those sources are required to include that coverage.

As such, the effect of it will be to produce dozens or hundreds of different options, and the likelihood that any of those options will find majority support is minimal. BilledMammal (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's true. Even if you keep the number of options to fill in the blanks small, you can still get a large number of permutations. And as you say, cross checking becomes troublesome unless people are explicitly saying "I support options A/B/C or B/C/E or ...". Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is one of those cases where each side has a hold of the Stick of Truth with a good argument. There are statistical advantages and risks for deadlocks in both approaches:

• Too many options absolutely can dilute support to the point where even a closer making reasonable adjustments for context will not be able to find a single conclusion they can judge as definitely endorsed by consensus. Technically nothing stops the supporters from endorsing more than one option (usually), other than their own reasoning about which options are definitely ill-advisable. But with even the remaining proposals they may view as permissible, they may incline towards a Goldilocks principle and !vote (or at least endorse most strongly) only a subset, or one. At the same time, remember that you're going to have, in a discussion like this, a certain number of people who will be opposed to all options on principle.
• On the other hand, a straight up or down, binary vote has it's own set of pragmatics that also pull up and down. Yes, it's much easier in these cases for two sides to get entrenched. And you're definitely going to lose some people in terms of support for the specific chosen proposal who might have been on board for one of the alternatives. But at the same time the support you do have is generally rowing a little more uniformly in the same direction with their arguments and the weight of their support.

The thing is, one of the advantages of our methodologies on this project is that there is enough flexibility built into our communal discussions that if someone someone sees the alternatives anyway (and some definitely will in a discussion of the scope of involvement this one will probably be), they can always adjust their feedback accordingly, and you can actually end up with a closer reasonably making consensus conclusions that weren't even included in the original proposal. So in the final analysis, all the 'vote' running statistical pragmatics, process constraints, psychoscial factors, and game theory that might be applied to the different options might play a smaller role than one might think.

Nevertheless, we have to decide on something, and I think I'm inclined to say keep it on the lower end here. Or at least, let me say this: I know I can support the first wording we have for Q1 right now. I'm not sure what advantage we get from offering the second variant, honestly. Because here's the thing: it's the lesser-strict option (i.e. the one with the larger burden for the person wanting to use a deadname). But interestingly, because of the the way the last discussion shook out, I think it's actually going to appeal more to the on-the-fence community members who previously had concerns about right threshold/burden of proof here.

Because the significant majority roundly rejected "significant coverage of the deadname itself" as a standard. And "non-trivial coverage of the person" sounds a lot more tame than that by comparison. And most of the respondents there will not have been privy to this intervening series of drafting discussions. Their frame of reference will be either as as someone with the last proposal most fixed in their memory, or entirely new to the discussion. So with regard to many of the respondents, I would suspect this wording is going to demonstrate just how much the needle has moved towards the middle for this proposal. Meanwhile, the second option / alternative wording of Q1 is paradoxically less useful to those who want stricter requirements for using the deadname, and yet at the same time less likely to appeal to the editors who are skeptical of the need/advisability of tightening those provisions. So including it seems unlikely to change the result (people will either !vote for Q1-1, or reject a change outright.

That's not to say that there's not some alternative wording worth offering up here. Per the start of this post. It may be worth splitting the difference between the two arguments here and offering a proposal with two options (well, three really:Add language A, add language B, or no change). But until we see a decent offering (and it was hard enough to arrive at this one, let's remember), I can't see the wisdom of supporting that approach blindly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As I'm not seeing any objection, Trystan I was hoping you could give your opinion on the barriers for inclusion listed in in this reply, and the quoted text in this reply. With respect to the two most recent RfCs, are any of these options either too high or too low of a restriction? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I haven't had the opportunity to stay on top of the recent discussions on this issue, so I don't think I have anything useful to contribute at this stage.--Trystan (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Trystan that might actually be a benefit here, as it would be useful to hear what someone who hasn't been following this discussion closely has to say about the current selection of choices that will be brought forward to an RfC shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• The big problem here is that the last RFC closure asked us to find a compromise between “never” and “sometimes”. But that is an impossible task … because anything more permissive than “never” IS “sometimes” (and anything more restrictive than “sometimes” IS “never”). So we keep going in circles. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you're looking at it as a ternary of always/sometimes/never, then yes you're right. But if you're looking at it as a spectrum, there are degrees that are more restrictive than sometimes and less restrictive than never (eg "almost never"). Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor?

MOS:ETHNICITY covers several useful situations for how to refer to the nationality or ethnicity of a biography subject in the lead section. However, there is no guidance on whether duress can be a factor in determining a person's nationality. At Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, there is currently a riveting discussion regarding how to refer to Sergei Bortkiewicz' nationality and/or ethnicity in the lead section. Even if these questions are mooted by other factors, the question of duress may still relevant to many biography subjects who have lived in the middle of geopolitical conflicts, especially if they lived in occupied territories. @Mzajac raises an interesting concern regarding Bortkiewicz: "His own comments have to be interpreted in his cultural and historical context: in the Russian empire one could get in serious trouble for publicly acknowledging Ukrainian as a separate national identity so it wasn’t done, and the name Ukrainian wasn’t universally used as an ethnonym until after the revolution (in Austro-Hungarian Ukraine, Ukrainians had referred to themselves as Rusyns, Rusnaks, or Ruthenians). This coloured the way people from there referred to themselves and others, and the way the rest of the world referred to them."

To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity? 169.156.16.220 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

To what extent can duress be a factor in determining a person's identity? No extent, because that requires WP:OR. Instead, we should just follow the sources; if the sources describe Bortkiewicz as Russian, we describe him as Russian. If the sources describe him as Ukrainian, we describe him as Ukrainian. If the sources are conflicted, we reflect that conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Duress doesn't really apply to Bortkiewicz since he was living in Germany for most of his life. But as @BilledMammal said: we should trust sources that they are able to acknowledge every factor while determining subjects nationality, we shouldn't do that ourselves. Marcelus (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with BilledMammal and Marcelus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn’t duress, it’s colonialism. Bortkiewicz grew up in imperial Russia where everything Ukrainian was either denigrated as low peasant culture, or appropriated as Russian. He was from a landlord family of foreign ancestry. Why would he ever associate himself with Ukrainianness?

And of course, these prejudices were exported to Western academia by Russian émigrés, and are still only partially addressed,[2] so his connection to Ukrainian culture is only now beginning to be examined, as evidenced by sources that I quoted from in Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz#Edit war regarding Countries of Bortkiewicz’ Heritage.  —Michael Z. 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the academic RS consensus on Bortkiewicz's identity is about to change, but until it does it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to jump the gun. At most it may be reasonable to omit content relating to Russian identity if it is connected to outdated scholarship, but purporting new content about connections to Ukraine in the absence of sourcing is OR._signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And (not looking specifically at the sources in this case) if only Ukrainian sources describe him as Ukrainian and other sources describe him differently, like it currently happens a lot, this situation should be mentioned in the article (rather than saying 50% sources so, other 50% sources so). Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can automatically treat sources as WP:BIASED solely because of their nationality. That would lead to problems for eg. Arab–Israeli conflict. Or, for another example, would we require that every source about the Vietnam War published in the United States or written by an American attribute that fact? The fact that sources from region X tend to say Y is something we could attribute to a secondary source observing that fact, but putting a bunch of sources together and using attribution to say it seems like it could lead to problems. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a lot of situations when Ukrainian sources say something and all (or almost all) other sources say smth else. And the proponents of Ukrainian POV bring these sources en masse and demand changing the text of the article. We need to learn how to deal with such situations. Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

[citation needed][citation needed][citation needed][original research]

Now lecture us about Russian sources.  —Michael Z. 02:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources I cited in the discussion linked above are published by:

1. The New Criterion, New York NY[3]
2. Roman & Littlefield, Lanham MD[4]
3. Orpheus Publications, Harrow, Middlesex, UK[5]
4. Doubleday, New York NY[6]
5. Alfred Publishing, Van Nuys CA[7]
6. R. Glier Kyiv Institute of Music, Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine, Kyiv[8]
7. Notes Muzyczny, Academy of Music in Łódź [9]
8. University of Nebraska – Lincoln.[10]

So what is it we need to learn how to deal with?  —Michael Z. 02:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm strongly inclined to agree with the general sentiment Michael is expressing here and the points raised by Aquillion. I'm not going to challenge Ymblanter's subjective read of this particular corpus of sources in this particular context, because that is an exceedingly difficult or outright impossible thing to do in most circumstances, and even if you accomplish it, you may not convince the other party. But I will say that our policies are very obviously, directly, and deliberately design to have us avoid introducing meta-analysis of the sources unless an WP:RS compliant source can be found supporting it: ideally with attribution.

That said, attribution can be used to operate in the other direction as well: if you have a concern about the balance of sources along some criteria, attribution is the one way you can flag that. You just can't get too extrapolative/OR/SYNTH about how you describe things in doing so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That said and returning to the OP's original question, I'm in agreement with BilledMammal, Marcelus, Rosguill and SmMCandlish above: just map to the sources. Implications of duress or cultural suppression or appropriation are WP:extraordinary claims (that can really only come in the midst of controversial issues) that must meet a high burden of sourcing. Mind you WP:BIASED does tell us to present all significant viewpoints, but you still need at least one or two high quality sources for such observations of purported systemic bias. But you can reasonably, briefly, and neutrally point out any very obvious (and easily verifiable) connections between the sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Again, just don't get excitable with the wording. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I am making a general point. I did not even look at a specific corpus of sources in this case, and it might very well be that the Ukrainian point of view is prevalent in the sources for this specific issue. Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a “Ukrainian point of view” that Bortkiewicz was from Ukraine (except in that the musician from Ukraine literally wrote this fact about himself). On the contrary, there is a POV pushed in the original discussion, the baseless or distorted assertion that Ukraine “wasn't even existing at that time.”  —Michael Z. 13:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Although I originally opened the topic to discuss the limited topic of duress, this section has clearly blossomed into a healthy discussion about the proper application of MOS:ETHNICITY to the broader question of Bortkiewicz' nationality/ethnicity. Several users have weighed in here supporting the general concept that the lead section should guided by WP:RS, to prevent WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH. At Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, multiple WP:RS each were raised identifying Bortkiewicz as Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and Austrian.

I cannot take seriously Marcelus' argument that multiple sources describing Bortkiewicz as "Ukrainian-born" or listing "Ukraine" next to his name do not consider him Ukrainian.

Similarly, in response to Michael's arguments for rejecting the sources that facially identify Bortkiewicz as Russian, I'm concerned this would risk committing WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Even if Michael's claim that anyone who was born and grew up in Ukraine was Ukrainian were valid, this would not answer the question of whether Bortkiewicz was also Russian, which the WP:RS clearly answer in the affirmative.

Previously, I suggested the compromise solution of omitting both Russian and Ukrainian references in the first sentence, based on the potential conflict between sources and the Copernicus example in MOS:ETHNICITY, but that didn't seem to gain support. I am also convinced by BilledMammal's point that the sources should reflect conflict, if any. Thus, I have edited Sergei Bortkiewicz to note in the first sentence that he was Ukrainian as well as what was previously listed, with multiple WP:RS each to indicate his Ukrainian, Russian, Austrian, and Polish identities. The citations allow the readers to make their own informed decisions about Bortkiewicz' identities.

(Also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not reject sources that identify Bortkiewicz as Russian. I did say (somewhere) that it is better say exactly what that means, that he was a subject of the Russian empire. This is what some recent sources say is better (I’ll provide a reference if I can find it).  —Michael Z. 15:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the body should definitely be improved to describe the identities in more detail, including his statements about his identity, and the ethnological interpretation of his music. The lead would not be the right place, to avoid MOS:LEADCLUTTER. However, the content should be specific to Bortkiewicz. If we have two sources that identify Bortkiewicz as Russian, and a third source that says that "Russian" at that time meant subject of the Russian Empire (generally and without specificity to Bortkiewicz), then WP:SYNTH might incorrectly follow the form, "Bortkiewicz was Russian[source 1,2], which means that he was a subject of the Russian Empire[source 3]."

(Also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is already going on: Talk:Sergei_Bortkiewicz#Edit_war_regarding_Countries_of_Bortkiewicz'_Heritage, there is zero reason to start another one here. Everybody who has interest in the topic is free to join the discussion there. Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This page frequently hosts WP:RFC regarding disputes about the application of MOS:BIO. You yourself have raised some important points on Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz regarding the proper application of Wikipedia policies. It is important that these pressing points be discussed by the broader Wikipedia community, instead of just a Talk page. (Also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to put in a plug here for just omitting nationality from the first sentence when it's complicated and not very relevant to the person's notability. In fact I'd even be good with omitting it (from the first sentence) just whenever it's not very relevant to the person's notability, complicated or not. Whether that's the case for Bortkiewicz I haven't bothered to form an informed opinion on, but I'd like to challenge the apparently popular assumption that we should always or almost always lead with nationality. There's plenty of time to discuss it in the body of the article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more perspectives on this. I'm not closed to the idea of removing both "Ukrainian" and "Russian" from the first sentence, although I believe that only including "Russian" and not "Ukrainian" is neither supported by consensus nor by references. At the moment, I'm quite convinced by the argument of BilledMammal, that the article should reflect any conflict between sources. I don't see much of a conflict: only one source says Bortkiewicz was not Ukrainian, and none say he was not Russian. This does not seem inconsistent with a claim that he was both Ukrainian and Russian, and this claim seems well supported by references. While Copernicus is precedent for how MOS:ETHNICITY need not be included for someone whose ethnicity/nationality is disputed, I don't see any similar standard for not including a complicated nationality. If someone has four different ethnicities/nationalities and all four are well supported by sources, and all four are WP:NOTABLE, I think all should be included. But I'd like to hear from others on this point.

I think the Johnson dissertation and the Levkulych paper, and the Polish language source provide the best arguments for the notability of each of these ethnicites/nationalities: they were notable because they heavily informed Bortkiewicz's music, which itself was notable. (Also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I only learned of this discussion now; it would have been very helpful, not to mention a welcome sign of goodwill, had IP user mentioned they were going to take the Bortkiewicz discussion elsewhere after failing to achieve their aims at the article talk page.

Some points:

• "Duress" isn't a credible excuse for why Bortkiewicz self-identified as Russian and not Ukrainian. As has been mentioned before, his stated being Russian after leaving Russia, when he was no longer in danger of official reprisal. Even had he remained in Russia/the USSR, the notion of official reprisal for asserting one's nationality isn't as clear-cut as others make it here. During the Soviet period, expressions of nationalism were encouraged by authorities, so long as they did not threaten the integrity of the Soviet state. Levko Revutsky, Boris Lyatoshinsky, Viktor Kosenko, among many others, not only were allowed to assert their Ukrainian identity, but were allowed to thrive because of it. In the case of Revutsky, his being Ukrainian even ended up being a professional advantage during the nominations for the 1940 Stalin Prize. The committee ultimately booted Sergei Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky from the short list in favor of Revutsky's Symphony No. 2 because they needed more non-Russian nominees. All of these composers were highly regarded and were honored by the state.
• His nationality, whatever it was, ultimately played no part in his notability. These certainly did not secure him lasting fame in his lifetime, nor did it prevent him from being practically forgotten by the musical mainstream in Russia, Austria, and Ukraine until the late 20th century. Bortkiewicz also did not appreciably influence or participate in the musical history and development of infrastructure anywhere, much less in Ukraine, unlike the aforementioned composers who are crucial figures in the ongoing history of Ukrainian music.
• That he used Ukrainian music in his own work does not make him Ukrainian. If that were the case, then Colin McPhee would be "Indonesian", not Canadian; Béla Bartók "Romanian" and/or "Turkish" instead of or in addition to being Hungarian.

The best compromise would be to omit all mentions of nationality in the lead. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A formula I've used occasionally for subjects whose current nationality is non-obvious is to omit the nationality from the first sentence, but then later in the lead to list the relevant nations for major life phases like "Born in Argentina and educated in France and Switzerland, she works in Germany as..." —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very good technique and should be used more. (I've seen a few places where both at once are being done, though, which is clumsy. E.g., Alex Pagulayan "is a Filipino-born Canadian professional pool player. Pagulayan was born in Cabagan, Isabela, Philippines and was raised in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. In 2012, Pagulayan became a citizen of Canada and now resides in Toronto."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a sensible choice elsewhere, but I don't think it would work here as editors with a nationalist agenda would likely try to game this one way or another.

The main problem is that Ukraine, in the sense of an independent polity, didn't exist at the time of Bortkiewicz's birth. Adding to the confusion—and frustration to nationalists on both sides—is that notions of what it meant to be Ukrainian and Russian were a lot more ambiguous and fluid back in Bortkiewicz's time than today. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Why not just name the bad-faith editors instead of casting aspersions widely to show you have no trust in the discussion and poison it?

I don’t know why that would be a particular main problem. Plenty of independent polities didn’t exist throughout much of history. Somehow we manage to label Bach and Beethoven German before 1866 and Vivaldi Italian before 1861, and Ghandi’s not even “British.”

The question is about “notions” in current sources, not in Bortkiewicz’s time.  —Michael Z. 03:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep derailing discussion by accusing others of attacking you and Ukraine? I even forgot about you until now. Furthermore, nobody here or at the other discussion was maligning Ukraine. The only person who kept bringing up outdated terms for it that are now considered derogatory was you. So please take my word: I neither hate you, nor am I trying to attack you or Ukraine, whether directly or by implication.

Getting back on-topic, Vivaldi, for example, was ethnically Italian, spoke Italian, contributed to the development of Italian music, and was referred to as Italian by sources in his time and since. Sources are clear that Bortkiewicz was born in what was then Russia and that his ethnicity was Polish, but arguments for his Ukrainian nationality, on the other hand, did not appear until well after his death. As I mentioned above, "duress" cannot be the reason he self-identified as Russian even after leaving Russia; even had he remained, the cases of Revutsky, et al, prove that assertions of Ukrainian identity were celebrated and encouraged in the USSR. (Since Bortkiewicz never returned there, however, this is besides the point.)

Bortkiewicz himself neither ever identified as Ukrainian, nor had any ethnic connection to Ukraine. So the grounds for him being Ukrainian, aside from being born in a territory that 114 years later became Ukraine, are a lot more debatable. If anything, the situation here is more like trying to refer to E. T. A. Hoffmann as Russian or Béla Bartók as Romanian simply because their respective birthplaces eventually became Russia and Romania. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Now you’re making up false accusations. Please take them back.

And you’re indulging in a straw man argument, or maybe several. I’ll repeat what I said before: the article should say Bortkiewicz was from Ukraine. Since that meets the definition of a Ukrainian, it could use that term to say it, but it would be better to be specific.  —Michael Z. 04:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And Immanuel Kant was from Russia because even though he never identified as such, spoke the language, or was in any way directly involved with its culture or history, his birthplace is located in what is today Kaliningrad. Doesn't that meet the definition of a Russian? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY does not support the claim that just because someone is from a region, that person should be referred to by the demonym of that region. Review the guidance on the usage of British vs Scottish/Welsh/English/Irish, and Spanish vs regional demonym. The course of action in that case is to consult reliable sources that refer to the person using those particular demonyms. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The only two sources raised that claim Bortkiewicz was Russian were Grove (2001), and Johnson (2016), both long after Bortkiewicz died. If you found fault in the recency of the sources claiming his Ukrainian nationality, the sources claiming his Russian nationality would be weak for the same reason. Claiming Bortkiewicz was Russian because he was born in Russia would be impermissible WP:OR, which is the same thing I said to @Mzajac about the claim that Bortkewicz was Ukrainian because he was born in Ukraine. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, The New Grove is "only" the largest reference work on music in any language. For another, whether anyone likes it or not, Bortkiewicz's birthplace was internationally recognized as being an integral part of Russia at the time he was born. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re not citing your sources, but I suggest newer ones than 1877.  —Michael Z. 04:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Grove has many editions from many years. The citation in question was from 2001.

Schwarz, Boris (20 January 2001). "Bortkiewicz [Bortkievich], Sergei [Sergey] Eduardovich". Grove Music Online. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.03637. Retrieved 12 January 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

(also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of articles are preserved in new editions if they are believed by their editorial board to still be authoritative and accurate. The article about Igor Stravinsky by Stephen Walsh, for example, is still in use. Your gripe isn't with me, but Oxford University Press. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Where am I not citing sources? I was the first and, for awhile, the only user at the Bortkiewicz article to cite an actual source. Until I started editing the page in January, the article lacked citations entirely. That I didn't add more was simply because The New Grove is one of the most respected sources on music in any language and that I'm not personally invested in Bortkiewicz enough to exhaustively expand and improve the article as I do for subjects that actually interest me. And The New Grove article is from 2001. Not new enough? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Grove, or at least the edition provided was published long after Bortkiewicz's death, which means that it falls to your own criticism of recency. MOS:ETHNICITY does not support the claim that just because someone is from a region, that person should be referred to by the demonym of that region. Review the guidance on the usage of British vs Scottish/Welsh/English/Irish, and Spanish vs regional demonym. The course of action in that case is to consult reliable sources that refer to the person using those particular demonyms. 50.169.82.253 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're just in luck then because I have a number of articles clipped from Newspapers.com and ProQuest from Bortkiewicz's lifetime wherein he is referred to as Russian. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One minute before I opened the new topic here, I wrote in Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz: "I am consulting Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Biography for an opinion on whether duress can be a factor in determining the nationality of a biography subject." (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Your wording implied that you merely were referring to the MOS for guidance, not opening a new RfC which is what you did here. Regardless of what you meant, you should've notified editors in the other talk page that you were opening this; that you didn't is a bad look. The fact that you also attempted to WP:WL @Marcelus (by "weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards ... with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem") also does not reflect well on your intentions. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I would merely read a talk page. People consult talk pages by opening new sections and participating in discussions.

If you're concerned that my report violated Wikipedia policy, please contact the administrators. It didn't, and there's nothing else I can say. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, whatever wording you chose, it would have been a welcome gesture of goodwill had you informed involved editors that you intended to open a new RfC. You chose not to, which is as I said a bad look, especially after you gained no consensus that favored your edits at the Bortkiewicz talk page.

Unless a user is unambiguousItalicly vandalizing mainspace, I'm not interested in reporting anyone. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The consensus for my edit came from you. I mentioned that here and you did not respond. I'm further confused because you again confirmed your position that you don't want either Russian or Ukrainian nationality or ethnicity to be mentioned in the lead. So why do you continue to contest that my edit, which resulted in neither Russian nor Ukrainian identity being mentioned in the lead, was without consensus? (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As flattering to my ego as it would be, my say so alone does not make consensus. Clearly there was at least one other editor who wanted to include "Ukrainian" in the lead and another who wanted "Russian". Moreover, there should have been a formal RfC process initiated with unbiased proposals and explanations explaining them. This was not done.

And as the edit history shows, I did not revert you. I trimmed your citation overkill, removed one of your sources because it was a children's book, and added better source needed tags because at least one other user pointed out problems with them, but I did not remove your edit that stated Bortkiewicz was Ukrainian. Although I did not revert you, the fact that another editor did indicates that consensus had yet to be achieved. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Your description of WP:CONSENSUS is not accurate. Consensus can be assumed in the WP:SILENCE of disagreement. Before I removed "Russian", no one expressed disagreement with this change. Even though WP:CCC, consensus existed at the time of my edit. My edit did not affect any occurrences of "Ukrainian". It's quite counterintuitive for you to now be upset that I made a change that you wanted, and that you evidently still want. If this process of gaining consensus is so paramount, I find it quite puzzling how four times (diff, diff, diff, diff), you removed "Ukrainian" and placed "Russian" into the article without ever seeking consensus for this change. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You cited an explanatory essay that explicitly states: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines"... —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The point, "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change.", is in WP:CONSENSUS. I recall that you accused me of WP:WL. That's an essay. 50.169.82.253 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I certainly did. Which is one of the reasons I did not take you up on your offer to report you, because I don't confuse explanatory essays with policy. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think this two-editor pissing match, about a content dispute at an article, needs to continue on this guideline talk page. Most of this is turning to behavioral complaint, which belongs in userspace or at a noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, what's more it's a WP:DISCUSSFORK by the IP user. Marcelus (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I got sucked into this rabbithole topic by User:Mzajac/Michael's comment, because Bach and Beethoven and Vivaldi get rather less controversial anachronistic ethno-nationalities in the lead paragraphs, while Mozart and Haydn get into historical/pseudohistorical and politicized Godwin-converging Talk battles. There's even a Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article (entirely SYNTH imo). If you browse the archives of any such bio's Talk page they raise the same basic points: nationality, ethnicity(s), language, citizenship, residence, and self-identification are all different concepts that may vary in different contexts at different times in the subject's life. An appropriate RS may indeed cover such a topic in some detail. But if it's only mentioned as a throwaway line in a bio -- "Bach was born in X. The precocious young German did Y." -- is that really a suitable source that a historian has staked out a position on the subject's ethnicity, especially if the historian provides no footnote for that singular nominalization? I hear way too often the entirely false mantra that "an RS is an RS". Tldr: maybe editors here who say it suffices to adhere to reliable sources are correct, but I have yet to see editors consistently understand what reliable sources are, especially when tribal lines are being drawn. If something like duress is even remotely an issue, then I'd be shocked if editors ever agree to put any positive ethnicity or nationality anywhere. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

bolding of "sir"

Per MOS:BOLD, "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section." However, the guidance at MOS:SIR is, "The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." In cases when the title of the article does not include the honorific, this is contradictory; not knowing that MOS:SIR even existed, I've been conforming articles to MOS:BOLD.

I'm not clear why "sir" should be different than any other honorific in terms of the use of boldface; shouldn't it only be in bold when it's part of the article title? If in fact it's the consensus that "sir" is an exception, shouldn't MOS:BOLD be updated to reflect that? ~TPW 15:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It should not be treated any differently from other titles and honorifics, whether pre- or post-nominal. This is a WP:POLICYFORK that needs to be fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You're forgetting that the person's full name is always bolded even when their full name doesn't feature in the article title. Nicknames and other common names by which a person is known are also bolded in the first paragraph. So are former names. So this does not stand up to scrutiny. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the good-faith assumption that I am forgetful, but that's not it at all. Most titles are not placed in bold, except when they are part of the article title. In other words, they are not considered "part of the full name" unless the consensus is that the article title include it. I'm just trying to understand why the guidance and MOS:SIR appears to contradict that. Do you know of other specific guidelines or policies that would shed light on this seeming contradiction? ~TPW 16:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Bolding the Sir seems to be a continuation of bolding the MOS:FULLNAME? For example, for the article title Winston Churchill we have bold text Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Equivalently, in the article Ruth Westheimer includes Karola Ruth Westheimer and later Dr. Ruth. An alternative route to the same result is that Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill and Dr. Ruth are both redirect pages.

In either case, I think it would help for MOS:BOLD to include this, but I think it should encompass the bolding of all full name variations, not just the title Sir. Mgp28 (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything at MOS:FULLNAME that refers to titles; that would suggest that titles are not placed in bold as a matter of course. For Churchill I'd not put the "sir" in bold for that reason. Dr. Ruth, however, is in bold as an alternative name redirected to the main article pursuant to MOS:BOLD. Paul McCartney does not have a redirect from Sir Paul McCartney, on the other hand, and I'm trying to understand why bold of that title is appropriate regardless. ~TPW 16:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear. I didn't mean that the guidance at MOS:FULLNAME mentions titles. I meant that if we're bolding full names then it seems reasonable that some titles will end up included in that. Andrew Lloyd Webber's Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber would look strange if we unbolded the "Baron". Other examples of titles that are bolded include Mother Teresa's (among others) Saint Teresa of Calcutta.

As an aside, Sir Paul McCartney is a redirect. Despite having brought up redirects in my first reply, I now think it's unwise to focus too strongly on that justification because misspellings are also redirects and we would never use that as a reason for bolding. Mgp28 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I somehow missed that. Still getting used to the way search terms pop up in the newest interface, I guess. ~TPW 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As for what seems reasonable for inclusion, maybe it would be appropriate to request comments on that, but I don't think I could come up with a concise enough request quite yet. ~TPW 16:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "In what circumstances should a title be considered as part of a person's full name?"

I don't know if there can be a strict rule. It would probably need to be some combination of the title's permanency (e.g. not jobs / elected offices) and WP:COMMONNAME. There's also issues of article titles. For example, popes' articles tend to have "Pope" in the title, so that'll be bold regardless of whether we say Pope is part of their name. Redirects opens up even more, e.g. should Princess Grace be bold?

I know there have been extensive discussions about article titles for UK monarchs and their consorts. Bolding in those articles seems mostly to be just the article title. I don't know how broad those discussions have been. Perhaps evidence of a broad consensus already exists in those discussions and we don't need to re-open it? Mgp28 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking half of my reply. If it's in the article title it's bold so why did I suggest opening disputes that won't change anything? Mgp28 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I found a better example: the lead of August Thayer Jaccaci refers to "Captain August Thayer Jaccaci, Sr." The "captain" is not in bold. Should it be? Why, or why not? If not, how is it qualitatively different than "sir," in articles that do not include the title in the article name? ~TPW 20:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Captain Tom Moore has "Captain" in the article title, then starts Captain Sir Thomas Moore. I have no idea... Mgp28 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Because captain is a rank, not a title. They are entirely different things. When someone is knighted they are referred to as "Sir Whatever" for the rest of their lives. Effectively, it does become part of the name (and can, incidentally, appear on passports and other official documents as part of the name). Taking this opposition to bolding titles to its logical conclusion, it would also lead to the ridiculous situation where Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet was referred to as Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet in the first line, whereas Edmund Affleck was referred to as Sir Edmund Affleck, 1st Baronet. Both are baronets, but only the first needs to be disambiguated by his title. Presumably under this thinking, Winston Churchill would appear as Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. And if not, why not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I tend to follow the same line of thinking as Necrothesp. "Sir" is not the same thing as "Captain" is, it effectively used as part of the name. --Jayron32 13:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

All I ask is a demonstration that this practice is consensus, to allow me to read through that discussion, or, in the alternative, reliable sources supporting the asserting that "sir" is part of a name, which would certainly be helpful in achieving consensus now. ~TPW 13:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly in the past. Periodically someone comes along and asks why we do it. It's explained to them. A few people (usually those who don't like titles) object. It goes round and round for a bit. Debate peters out. Then some other person reignites it... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I fear there was more context in my head than in what I wrote. For whatever it may be worth, the bold in the first line of the Captain Tom Moore article matches my preference. In a series of unhelpful comments, I made a suggestion to TPW, deleted it on the basis that article titles are always bold, then found counter-examples. Given that I'm perfectly happy with the status quo it's probably time for me to step away but I do think it would be reasonable for MOS:BOLD to include (or point to) guidance about bolding of people's names. Mgp28 (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear from my last comment that I am not interested in reigniting a past debate if consensus was reached at that time. I ask again if someone could provide me a link to that discussion. ~TPW 18:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive § Remove bold for honorific titles in lead sentence, Mitch Ames (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you. ~TPW 14:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the last thread on this (thanks for that, @Mitch Ames), I have a clearer understanding of why no one has pointed to consensus; none has been achieved. In that thread, at least, some editors expressed distaste for the idea. The arguments were largely based on vaguely-defined distinctions among "titles," "honorofics," and "pretitles." It appears that some of the editors participating at that time weren't clear on what any of those mean; I am similarly in the dark. There were also suggestions that anyone questioning this practice must be opposed to titles, although no evidence of that assertion was presented. ~TPW 14:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

In all of these sorts of discussions I'm aware of, there has repeatedly been an assertion along the lines that "Sir/Dame becomes part of the name", which is a very confused argument. It fails to distinguish between the actual name (which pre-existed the honour, and may surviving it – I saw in the news only a few days ago that King Charles stripped someone of a knighthood), versus something later added in front of the name that is conventionally (not invariably) used along with it. This odd "titles and names are distinguishable" argument appears to be the primary if not sole backing of the "we should boldface Sir/Dame in the lead" stance. Observing how logically weak this position is, is not in any way an "IDONTLIKEIT" take, as True Pagan Warrior repetitively suggests. We have guidelines that call for extremely minimal use of boldface, and abiding by them is also not IDONTLIKEIT nonsense. If anyone is triggering I[DONT]LIKEIT concerns, it's the other side of the coin, arguing for Sir/Dame in bold simply because they "like" it one sense or another (e.g. it appeals to their traditionalist sense of propriety and deference). The very notion is also against the spirit of MOS:SIGCAPS (which is rooted in WP:NPOV policy): Wikipedia does not do special typography to try to force a sense of importance-signification into the brain of the reader. Doing it with excessive boldfacing (or unwarranted italicisation, or SMALLCAPS, or use of colour fonts, or any other typographical trickery) isn't any better than doing it with everyday over-capitalization of things that are not normally capitalized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

First name mononym

We're having a discussion at Sia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about if/how to introduce per MOS:LEGALNAME why we refer to her as Sia throughout the article. She has not changed her legal name to her mononym. This is similar to the examples in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use: Aaliyah, Selena, and Usher; where only Selena has an introduction, "known mononymously as Selena" in the first sentence.

Is there a general consensus to prefer an introduction over none? - Hipal (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

See also Madonna. Like Usher, this is a Good Article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Prefer the introduction, since it makes things clearer for readers (not everyone is an avid follower of Western pop culture), and is better for WP:REUSE of our content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the redirect category {{R from deadname}}

There’s currently a discussion going on at RfD regarding the redirect {{R from deadname}}. One of the potential outcomes is the creation of a new rcat.

During the discussion so far, an editor has raised potential BLP concerns, so it would therefore be good to hear the opinions of editors experienced in this area. I’ve linked the discussion below — any editor who wishes to take part may do so.

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Template:R from deadname

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 09:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)