Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 69

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Newslinger in topic Noticeboard discussion on reliability of TheSword.com interview
Archive 65←Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71→Archive 75

Name standardization

Latest comment: 4 years ago43 comments10 people in discussion

Via a {{histmerge}} request I came across this discussion and this ridiculous number of moves. The editor who performed the moves moved back the majority upon request, but there are a LOT of discrepancies; I started cleaning them up but then I realized I was probably just making it worse. Rather than start the mother of all move discussions, I thought I'd check in with this project first and see about what the "common consensus" for the term(s) that should be used (e.g. LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, etc) so that they can all be standardized. No need to ping me, I'll be watching the discussion. Thanks for your input. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

LGBT is the old-school standard with LGBTQ being the main alternative with increasing currency among younger generations. I think it’s safe to say that some editors will never acquiesce to replacing LGBT or accepting any alternatives so that may be the safest route for acceptance. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This was just discussed at Talk:LGBT#Requesting more inclusive page name for this and related pages and there was no consensus to move. I'd likely support a move to LGBTQ (not sure about the +), but it would need a solid consensus so that it can be implemented in a consistent way.--Trystan (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the GLAAD Media Reference Guide (10th edition, 2016) recommends LGBTQ. — HipLibrarianship talk 06:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
So is there enough of a "dispute" to turn this into an RFC, or should I just standardize everything back to the "status quo" of LGBT and call it good? Primefac (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Advocate/Out magazines, the largest LGBTQ publications in the US, use LGBTQ as well so an RFC might be timely as we may have past the tipping point. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll probably wait a few days before running an RFC, but I do note that there are a little more than 1000 pages using "LGBT" in the title, and only about 100 using LGBTQ (and that includes a few dozen redirects), so maybe my concern is misplaced. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd say "LGBT" is the de facto standard at present. If a WP:RFC were to take place, I strongly believe it should appear on the Centralized Discussion template that appears at the noticeboards, and that it should be listed under (among possibly others) the "style" category of RFCs. But as you decide whether to embark on something so time-consuming, keep in mind that a good case can be made to stick with "LGBT". A Google Books search for "LGBT" returns 1,030,000 results; for "LGBTQ", 445,000. Regular Google is 200,000,000 vs. 90,900,000; Google News is 56,200,000 vs. 45,000,000. Google Trends shows "LGBT" as over double "LGBTQ". [1] We keep in mind all reliable sources when deciding the WP:COMMONNAME. Crossroads -talk- 20:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
We should be careful of any mass move or officially correct term, particularly on the the line between LGB and LGBT; while we think of that as a large single bucket these days, that has not always been the case, and there were things in the past that addressed LGB matters without inclusion of trans individuals or concern about how they relate to the matter at hand. Q is a bit more of a catch-all, so the difference between LGBT and LGBTQ is not such a concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that one option is that they coexist, with zero need to replace LGBTQ with LGBT as has happened time and again. I think other variations are also acceptable on a case by case basis. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Standardize everything back to the status quo of "LGBT." I see absolutely no need, for example, to rename this WikiProject "Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ studies." The data Crossroads cited is clear. Wikipedia follows; it does not lead. And, for some, there will never be enough letters in the initialism; the LGBT article mentions the criticism that adding more and more letters to it has received. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason the culture is leading Wikipedia to *also* use LGBTQ and variations is that LGBT erases people and identities. There is zero reason to standardize all mentions when the culture is moving in the other direction. At the end of the day all those mentions links point to LGBT which is currently the dominant initialism. I’d welcome an Rfc to demonstrate that the current plurality is acceptable and preferred. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Erases people and identities? People feel the same way about not using "LGBTI" or "LGBT+", or other variations, instead. At the end of the day, we are supposed to adhere to WP:Common name. Any of the variants can be used when they fit better; they redirect to the LGBT article, which covers them. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Common name covers just the article LGBT, which no one has suggested needs to change. I see all the variations as acceptable as many people in fact identify themselves in those terms, increasingly so. And, if linked, those instances still lead to LGBT which is fine for now.
Primefac’s original question can be answered that that article could squarely live at LGBTQ as that’s the way the article was researched and written so LGBT isn’t accurate.
A RfC will undoubtably conclude that LGBTQ is an increasingly mainstream initialism so is just as encyclopedic as LGBT, and its use is on the rise, not being phased out. There is zero reason to standardize all uses to either initialism, and anyone who implausibly could be confused would undoubtedly end up at LGBT where they could learn why any number of initialisms is used and acceptable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:Common name does not only cover the LGBT article. It covers all of the articles because they all have titles. The moves should never have been made. It makes no sense for Wikipedia to be inconsistent with most articles using "LGBT" and some using "LGBTQ" unless "LGBTQ" is the common name in those specific cases or is more precise for the article content because sources and therefore the article explicitly take the time to significantly cover people who identify as queer or questioning. But then again, the LGBT article significantly covers different groups and is called "LGBT." And queer is still commonly associated with gay. For those who don't think "gay" when they see "queer", they are usually thinking "non-heterosexual" in some way. It's used a lot more to refer to sexuality than gender identity. Also, one might try making the case to move the "LGBT" article to "LGBTQ" by having all or most of the other articles use "LGBTQ." That person would be arguing consistency and that the main article should also be "LGBTQ" if most or all others are. As for "A RfC will undoubtably conclude that LGBTQ is an increasingly mainstream initialism so is just as encyclopedic as LGBT," RfCs move discussions at Talk:LGBT have already done that, but ultimately concluded that the article should stay at "LGBT" because it is still the common name (most common name) for the topic. And "LGBT" is accurate because it's used in an umbrella term way, no matter the fact that it has a number of variations to explicitly represent different groups. A lot of people within those groups, namely intersex and asexual people, don't even want to be included in "LGBT" because they feel that the initialism doesn't fit them (or that they don't fit within the community). Some questioning people state that they are simply questioning and that they are not LGBT. But, of course, that's a matter for the LGBT article to cover. The article already covers that some intersex people would rather not be included as part of the initialism. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. And those pages in the Project_LGBT actually talk about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, they do not necessarily refer to queer ones. They do not talk about "legality of queer activity around the world", "queer and the law", "queer and immigration", "queer and adoption" and so on. Queer and LGBT are not synonyms, and they do talk about different things and ideas. There are some lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual people that identify themselves as queer, but they belong in a different group (or sub-group). It is also important to say that this debate is very U.S-centric and the English Wikipedia is for all its speakers. I think Wikipedia should keep consistency around its articles. Raniee09 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
”The gays” was seen and used as an umbrella term yet has been found to be dismissive and insulting to everyone who felt that “gay” didn’t address their lives, concerns and needs. Ditto with “lesbians and gay”, “LGB”, etc. The exact same arguments rise up.
Accepting LGBTQ isn’t anarchy, it’s following the natural progression of languages, and it’s Wikipedia following where the culture is leading.
I even accept the rigidity in categories, although I think they should all be moved to LGBTQ as soon as possible. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nah. Not the same thing. "The gays" is considered derogatory. "Gay", on the other hand? Not only did "gay community" used to refer to the LGBT community as a whole, it is still at times used to refer to the LGBT community as a whole. But, yes, "LGBT community" is used more often now when speaking of more than just gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. And, as we know, "LGBT" is commonly used to cover people who identify as queer or questioning...and usually with no objection or issue. Use of "LGBT" instead of "LGBTQ" or any of the other variations is usually not deemed dismissive and insulting. That's why it's still used by many LGBT sources and advocacy groups. That is why it's still standard. As for "and it’s Wikipedia following where the culture is leading"? With the moves, Wikipedia is leading. And to repeat, "Wikipedia follows; it does not lead." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, see what I mean? Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This needs to go straight to ANI because it’s massive undiscussed controversial page moves, and in an area subject to Arbcom D/s on top of it, and because they refuse to discuss—-check their talk page history and section “About the page moves” on their talk page. First they need an immediate block of 48 hours, and then this can be discussed. I’m mobile so can’t go to ANI for a few hours but I’ll support any move to do so. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

They were moving articles from LGBTQ+ —> LGBTQ, that seems desirable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
But they weren't only making those types of moves. They also, for example, moved LGBT themes in comics to LGBTQ+ themes in comics. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
They appear to have stopped; so ANI is moot.
Desirable or not, what's abundantly clear is that it's controversial. That means at a minimum, a Requested move. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I can agree with @Gleeanon409, @Trystan, and @talk here. But I can also see the argument of @Crossroads and @Nat Gertler, while thinking that @Flyer22 Frozen and @Raniee09 make good points. Additionally, I am glad that @Mathglot reneged on having a ban of 48 hours, leading to a moot ANI. I can agree with Mathglot it was controversial, which is why I stopped the page moves. I had that notice on my talk page, because I understood why I should reverse the page moves and such, and I didn't need any more discussion about it there. Since this discussion is continuing onward, some day I'll do a WP:VPR for this, but likely not for a long time. Its not really a top priority for me at this point. I have other editing to do. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of status quo pending RM discussion

Per User:Trystan above, I would also likely support this in the context of a discussion. The more important point is the usurpation of process and unilateral contravention of WP:MOVE guidelines by a single editor without discussion. I am going to move all of these back to their original name (contrary to my own preference) so proper procedures can be followed. Mathglot (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Move undo worksheet

Original list of moves is here.

Some of these may have been already moved back, even if not ticked in the box; always check before moving.
TPO is waived for this worksheet; you are free to update it.

Added worksheet. Didn't realize Primefac had already embarked on this; thanks for initiating it. Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Historyda001 has cooperated by moving some pages back (thanks for that!); but these don't all have check boxes in the list yet; so if you're helping with reverts, please be aware of that. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe all the pages have been changed back, mainly by me, as reflected in the above edits. The following pages I only added "LGBTQ" to align them with the history pages (History of LGBTQ characters in animated series, History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 1990s, History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 2000s, History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 2010s, History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 2020s), which began with the term "LGBTQ" in the title, I had created:
I changed the first page, List of animated series with LGBTQ characters because User:1.Ayana purposed it. I ended up reversing the changes (from LGBTQ+ back to LGBTQ) on June 25. I would argue that these pages should not be changed unless there is a discussion on each one of those pages, individually. I removed the List of fictional lesbian characters in anime page from the above because it is a list, which I fully explained why I made the change. Also, I created the page, and no one had edited it other than myself up to that point. On another point, it is very rude didn't seem right for @Primefac to begin this discussion without mentioning me directly, since I was the one who committed the heinous act to begin with. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, the dates I put in the chart may be approximate, but I'm pretty sure all the pages were switched back, apart from the above mentioned ones which I talked about in my previous comment. Historyday01 (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out with that, and doing the lion's share of the work. Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Historyday01, I didn't ping you because it wasn't about what you had done, but what should potentially be done in the future; I wanted to know where the majority of pages should end up if there were to be a standardization. Primefac (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that's fair. I take back the rude comment. I always forget where the code is for strikethroughs on here. I should probably add that to my talk page so I remember... Historyday01 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Use <s>some text</s> to generate some text. Hth, Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I will, @Mathglot. I just copied some of the text from that wiki article and stuck it on my user page in case I forget. But thanks for the tip. Historyday01 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I think LGBTQ will prove to be the correct initialism as each master list only needs to evidence at lease some of the list members identify as queer. The alternative, which seems poor, is to create a parallel list just for queer list members. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409, I can agree with that. It wouldn't be hard to just add a Q onto the name. Just having "LGBT" without the Q is too limiting. Historyday01 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Historyday01:, well you need to actually have queer list items to that. As long as you can identify some for each list I think a move is logical. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair. I know the lists of animated characters are LGBT and beyond. As for the other pages, they probably need some work. Historyday01 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Starting a WP:Requested move discussion at whatever article's talk page is best. As seen by this discussion, not all editors will agree that "Q" should be added just because a few characters (or a few listed people) identify (or are identified) as queer or questioning. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps. For now, @Flyer22 Frozen, I'm just going to improve the sourcing on the pages, to make the pages more comprehensive. Historyday01 (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, @Flyer22 Frozen, I thought I'd let you know, that a discussion about renaming those animated series pages from LGBTQ to LGBT is going on right now, so I'm taking into account all the comments here. Historyday01 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that you mean Talk:List of animated series with LGBTQ characters#Proposal to change page name to "List of LGBTQ characters in animated series". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. Historyday01 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the reliability of AfterEllen

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about AfterEllen, given the relevance to your community, your participation would be appreciated. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Picture_of_an_intersex_person

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thoughts on this would be appreciated. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 16:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sex vs. gender at the Homosexuality article

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions are needed on the following Talk:Homosexuality#Introduction. Sex vs Gender. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

...We do risk crashing hard against the lack of proper words for non-binary and agender situations, but I think we can get around it somewhat with some reliable source searches (Google Scholar, etc) for combinations like "lesbian transgender" or "gay transgender" Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 23:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Need to solidify process for re-naming articles/converting prose to new name absent of obvious RS’s

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

[boldly giving this its own section]

  • I wish for the proposal to describe the sources we need to do name changes. The current conversation mostly examines a case when some sources use the early name and other sources use the later name. The more common case that I have seen is reliable sources which feature the early name, and no reliable sources featuring the later name. Issues:
    • Should Wikipedia update biographies for which we have no WP:Reliable sources of a name change? I propose that the default be no, because we already have a practice (but not a guideline) that we do not make updates or changes without published sources for verification.
    • Even with the default practice of not doing name changes without reliable sources, should we make exceptions? Yes, I support routine and easy exceptions, but only if someone makes a request on the article's talk page and provides some amount of public evidence. Public evidence might be links to primary sources like social media accounts or self published profiles. By default, we do not accept zero sources or backchannel sources not shared on the talk page.
I would like to avoid establishing a practice of off-wiki or unverifiable processing of name changes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems like this would be a separate RfC, right? It addresses a different issue than the initial proposal.--MattMauler (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The proposal is "birth names should be included in the lead sentence article only when the person was notable under that name." But a common case is when we have a reliable source for the birth name, but lack a reliable source for the new name. I think this situation is so frequent that the proposal should address it from the start. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This feels like a related but separate issue. My hunch is that the person in these cases is already notable under that former name, and now has changed their name, possibly as part of their gender identity. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is the situation I want to address. When someone is notable by a birth name, then adopts a new name, then should Wikipedia present the new name? What do you think? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is a separate issue and should not be combined into this RfC. I also see no evidence that it is "frequent", let alone "more common" than the situation of having reliable sources that use a new name. Indeed, I am not sure how it could exist at all: if there were no RS documenting a new name / name change, we'd have no way of knowing the name had changed, and so could not be having a discussion about changing any article to reflect the name change. Typically, a notable person changing names (especially as part of coming out as trans, the kind of change MOS:DEADNAME deals with) will be reported in the news. I can at least conceive that someone formerly notable but no longer of interest might e.g. come out on a verified twitter account and yet fail to garner news coverage, but in that case either their tweet is a reliable source per WP:ABOUTSELF, or if it's not (e.g. because the account is not verified or we think it might be a joke like Graham Linehan did once) then we're back to "it can't be an issue in the first place (and there does not need to be guidance about it) if there's truly no RS". -sche (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
"Typically, a notable person changing names ... will be reported in the news" - I see things differently - there are hundreds of thousands of biographies of living people in Wikipedia, and few of those are for celebrities whose life events get media coverage. Even public figures who come out as trans rarely make a media event of it.
"if there were no reliable sources documenting a new name / name change, we would have no way of knowing the name had changed, and thus could not be having a discussion about changing any part of any article to reflect the name change" "WP:ABOUTSELF" - Yes, I think the common situation is a transition without reliable sources or even ABOUTSELF sources, and we still get notices about these cases.
Here is the common situation which I wish to address - There is a Wikipedia biography for a typical person who someone was featured in media for a few accomplishments. They are not a major public figure but are Wikipedia notable. At some point they transition. They have no particular social media presence and leave no particular media trail of their transition. Sometime within 1-15 years, they come to be aware that a Wikipedia biography exists and that it uses their older name. They or their friend ask for an update, perhaps on the talk page, or perhaps by contacting the WP:Volunteer Response Team. There are no sources. Should we -
  1. Reject the change, (deadname the person), until and unless they navigate Wikipedia's source policy
  2. Try to process their request somehow, even when there is no RS or ABOUTSELF source?
If people here see this as a separate issue then fine - I appreciate anyone who can establish consensus for any proposal to get progress. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I’d see that as getting referred to OTRS who will verify old identity and work with them to do gender identity and/or name changeover(s).
As their former name is already notable the proposed RfC wouldn’t have much impact in their case. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: I am an OTRS agent who takes LGBT tickets, and I discourage transferring these issues to OTRS. I have drafted WP:Identity verification as a step toward some best practice but please no, it is my view that OTRS is unable to handle these cases with respect and I wish for any alternative. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, WP:Identity verification doesn’t seem helpful for people contacting Wikipedia to correct their article. Arbitration committee? The WMF? Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a reasonable issue to address, but the current RfC is about people who are only notable under their current name and not under their birth name, so the issue you describe would be better suited to a separate RfC, IMO. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with those who say this situation should be handled in a separate RfC. Funcrunch (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this would be better as a separate RfC too, because the more things you bundle into an RfC the less likely it is you'll get consensus on anything. But I do agree it's another area MOS:DEADNAME is very lacking and I think it is quite critical we have an RfC on it. My personal view is that I'm very reluctant to support any change in article space which doesn't have a source, and we should be directing people in this situation to easy ways to make an ABOUTSELF-acceptable reference (perhaps even making an edit in userspace by an account verified by OTRS could count as such a source). But if the person has no social media trail, we need to make damn sure the person contacting us is who they claim to be. — Bilorv (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Yes, exactly, you understand entirely.
  1. This RfC --> reacting when we have source for birth name + source for name change
  2. Later RfC --> reacting when we have source for birth name + no source for name change, but a request for change / complaint about deadnaming
Bilorv + @Gleeanon409: we should not look to OTRS / the Volunteer Response Team, ArbCom, or the WMF for solutions because I am sure that each of those groups has less information and understanding of this issue than this WikiProject LGBT Studies. Eventually we should be the community to propose a best practice. Right now we have several dubious options and eventually we should choose one of them and develop it to make it better. Thanks for hearing me out, yes I still support this proposal as part of our response to deadnaming. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, I see what kind of situation you're talking about now; I'm sorry my earlier comment was so sceptical. Since anyone can claim to be an article's subject (and IIRC someone did falsely claim to be James Randi in the last few years, for example), I do think we need some RS (even ABOUTSELF) to make a change; I can't imagine there'd be consensus for changing articles without any RS. So is the question you envision the RfC asking, "should we make a change if we have an ABOUTSELF source (of whatever kind, whether an e-mail to OTRS verified in the same way we verify ones that grant legal permission to use media, or a tweet, etc), but the person is not notable under the new name?" ? ...I would personally be inclined to wait until there were concrete examples of that (and then, to handle at least the first of those on an individual basis) before trying to get consensus for a general rule, but I admit my approach is small-c conservative, as I expect much teeth-gnashing that "we shouldn't update an article if they're not notable under the new name". Perhaps one thing we could do, orthogonally, is that this WikiProject could write an essay on how to set up a verified account on a non-WMF platform for the purpose of providing ABOUTSELF-usable statements. -sche (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

, my hunch remains that editors will keep referring people in need to OTRS, and I’m guessing they are still the go to for verifying identity(?). If so it feels like a guide on considerations and process would make a lot of sense. Once we work something up it could be an input RfC from the wider community.

FWIW I think this should parallel MOS:GENDERID where a subject’s latest declaration of gender identity takes precedent. So in that same spirit renaming an article to avoid misgendering in specific, and deadnaming in general is called for. And we likely should keep the concern on deadnaming itself as *every* discussion will otherwise devolve into how such-and-such name isn’t really just a male or female name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Wait - if we do the RfC as proposed, then I suppose we should include language about changing gender pronouns too, right? Like for example, if there is a trans name change from birth name --> new name, then do we take for granted that the gender pronoun change is there, or should we explicitly state that? Yes, I agree, MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME should be interconnected so that a change to name should also trigger a change to pronoun, if that is not obvious.
Yes -sche and yes Gellanon I am interested in talking about name / gender pronoun changes without conventional sources, and yes the ideas you present are options, but I agree that this can wait until later. There are some complicating factors to this. Let's get through this round of revision with consensus then look to the next issue when we are ready. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixing gender pronouns shouldn’t be too challenging as long as the Aboutself statement includes the needed change.
I think repurposing WP:TRANSNAME might work for all this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
A little care should be used when writing the policy, though: Historical articles run up against the issue of assigning gender identity to the person in the absence of clear signs. For example, Sándor Vay is going to be a confusing mess as regards gender, and there's nothing that can be done in the modern day to fix this, as we simply don't have the information from them as to which gender(s), if any, they felt represented them most truly. Did Vay dress as a man because of the opportunities it allowed, but was actually a lesbian woman, or were they genuinely transgender? We cannot know now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 16:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the reliability of PinkNews

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of PinkNews as a reliable source. Input is welcome. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This has now been upgraded to a full RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

How to word the lead sentence at the Tranny article?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tranny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Tranny#How to craft the lead sentence?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding Wikipedia policy on deadnaming trans people

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I've created an RfC regarding Wikipedia's policy of deadnaming trans people despite the lack of notable events under said deadname. As far as I have seen, Wikipedia policy is to publish the deadname of any trans person, regardless of events, so long as a reputable source has published the deadname. You can find the RfC here. 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not actually how Wikipedia works. See MOS:DEADNAME. I can tell you from personal experience that Oversight will nuke edits that add a trans person's deadname without good cause if you ask them. See e.g. Talk:ContraPoints#How_to_handle_otherwise_potentially_valid_references_that_reveal_the_subject's_deadname? Loki (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

as LokiTheLiar has pointed out, there is an existing Wikipedia policy regarding this, and I have closed the RfC. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, MOS:DEADNAME only applies to the names given in the lead. Deadnames are still given in the body of the article as long as they can be reliably sourced. Many editors will seek out and add such information, arguing strongly for its inclusion as an "essential biographical detail".
In one biography, the subject's deadname was added based on a single available source. That source subsequently retracted it. Following Wikipedia's inclusion of the name, at least one more prominent source picked it up and republished it, getting it from us. The only reason it is not currently included in the article is that it was successfully argued, against strong opposition, that there were no valid reliable sources to use for it, as they had all either retracted it, or we were able to definitively demonstrate they got it from us. If even a single reliable source remained to which it could be cited, I think it would be re-added, allowing Wikipedia to once again greatly amplify the dissemination of the subject's deadname. I think that would be a gross violation of the intention of WP:BLPPRIVACY, but I do not think my view is the majority view here.--Trystan (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I wish the RFC would continue as I think there exists a large loophole as you point out. Deadnaming should be avoided unless it’s encyclopedically unavoidable because the person was notable under their former name. We must consider the real world harm, violence and death threats trans people face day in day out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: We don't typically suppress the information that someone is trans, which is more directly relevant to the violence and threats issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Trans people are targeted by misnaming/deadnaming/misgendering etc. Wikipedia should by any measure of human decency minimize the real world harm. In this case the real harm is perpetuating deadnaming when there is not net benefit to the reader. In cases where the person was never notable under a deadname, there is no further understanding to be had with the name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: I'm not arguing in favor of deadnaming, I just don't think "they could be hurt or killed as a result of Wikipedia policy" is a valid argument when "they are trans" is much more likely to get them harmed than exposing their former name. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it’s a matter of the ingrained institutional fear of LGBTQ people that we’re dealing with. It’s off the charts, you-can-be-infected-by-touching fear that is so pervasive that killing trans people is just seen as casual. And the day-to-day experiences is a life of micro aggressions, and casual transphobia is a part of that, and misgendering contributes. Wikipedia, being the biggest mouthpiece of information planetwide should avoid contributing to that, and in good conscience stop reasonable steps that cause harm, real or perceived. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment which the link above to Talk:ContraPoints#How to handle otherwise potentially valid references that reveal the subject's deadname? made me think of: that issue (of whether/how to use references that use a name that the community has decided not to use in wikivoice for whatever reason) has come up in several kinds of situations beyond just deadnaming trans people, and is something we might want to consider whether to have a trans-specific or a more general discussion about, after the one or two RfCs being discussed below have concluded. Off the top of my head:
  1. in the discussion of the Slate Star Codex article, it has been noted that there is an academic reference in which the site's creator publicized his full name, which could be cited in the article, but for the concern by some editors that he now does not want his full name linked to in that way anymore;
  2. the Dril article long mentioned his name being deduced, and either did link or could've linked to some references which included (in their own text) that name, but only for shorter periods has the article itself listed his name;
  3. and for a long time before there was consensus for the article on the Columbia University rape controversy to name the alleged rapist, his name was nonetheless present on the page in the headline of one of the references.
(It is interesting to note who pushes to include non-notable deadnames of trans people but opposes printing the publicized name of one or more non-trans people.) -sche (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Faux" /"Bio" / "Female"/AFAB drag queens

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current article on drag queens who are assigned female at birth is titled "Faux Queen" and was renamed from "Bio Queen" in 2007. "Faux queen" is an outdated and offensive term (this is correctly explained in the "Drag Queen" article). I rewrote it using the term "female queen" as while that is also considered offensive, it is at least commonly used. The most widely ACCEPTED term for AFAB drag queens is "AFAB drag queens" but that term isn't as widely used in articles, which tend to say "female drag queens" or for specific performers, "cisgender female drag queen" or "trans male drag queen" etc.

Should the article be titled using the more widely used term among performers (AFAB drag queen), or the more widely seen term in news articles (female drag queen)? . --PropterScientiam (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

How to word the lead sentence at the Blanchard's typology article?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm requesting opinions on the following issue: Talk:Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#"Controversial"_in_lede. Loki (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Article for Deletion nomination for Alireza Shojaian

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Iranian queer artist and activit Alireza Shojaian's article is nominated for deletion by an Iranian user. In Iran being gay is punishable by public execution. Alireza is prime among young Iranian artists to paint works aiming to fight prejudice and persection against LGBT people in Iran and othter intoleratnt countries. The rational for the nomination is lack of notability. Articles about Alireza were issued in Paris, Beirut, Italy and Canadian-American print magazines. This comes after a failed attempt to erase Egyptian gay rights activist Sarah Hegazi who suffered from harrassement and imprisoment in Egypt before taking her own life. Please step in to stop the deletion of middle eastern gay persons. Thank you. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ljuba Prenner

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:ERRORS about the correct pronoun to use for Ljuba Prenner in the current WP:DYK hook. Any input would be much appreciated at WP:ERRORS. Cheers, Woody (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

IP address keeps inserting claim a BLP subject is transgender without reliable source, not sure what to do

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

An IP address keeps re-inserting ([2], [3]) the text Lady Bunny identifies as a non-operative trans woman. In a 2013 interview with the HuffPost, she stated that she sees herself "part of that [trans] community. But I have no plans for the surgery".[5] Furthermore, she is almost never seen out of women's clothing. into the article for Lady Bunny. The source for this sentence is the following paragraph:

Another thing that I’m always interested in during your shows is your approach to trans issues. Talk to me about the connection you see between the trans community and the drag community.
A lot of drag performers go on to become trans... in the same way that gay people come out as gay and then you come out again as a drag queen when you’re ready to flex those muscles. For a transsexual, it’s even harder because some of them will become drag queens and then realize that they want to live in drag and they don’t want the illusion to disappear in the morning. And that’s really, really tough because it involves surgery and things that don’t wash off like cosmetics. So, I feel an affinity with both. People ask me, “How are you different out of drag?” and I say, “I’m really not! Not at all.” Everyone I know, including my mom, calls me Bunny. I definitely have tons of transgender friends and I do feel that gender is fluid, so I do feel as if I’m part of that community. But I have no plans for the surgery.

— Michelson, Noah (3 August 2013). "Lady Bunny On 9/11, Downside Of 'Drag Race' Success And More". HuffPost.

To me the quote doesn't say Lady Bunny "identifies as a non-operative trans woman", although I can see why someone might interpret it to say as such. But as this is a WP:BLP, this statement needs an unambiguous reliable source and since there is none, I've removed it. I don't want to get accused of edit warring after it's been re-added twice now, so I'm not sure what else do do. Do any of you have thoughts/opinions on this issue? Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page discussion link for convenience: Talk:Lady Bunny#Non-operative trans woman. Umimmak (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the source doesn't say what the IP is claiming it says—that's OR. If you've already explained our policies to them and issued warnings on their talk page, I would say go to ANI if they aren't stopping. Armadillopteryxtalk 04:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Armadillopteryx: I haven't yet issued warnings on their talk page, yet; I wasn't sure if that was the next step or making sure there was a consensus one way or the other was. I think it would be best if a third party gave them the warning since that way it's from a neutral observer rather than a participant? (And also I don't really know what to say other than what I've said in my edit messages.)
Also just for clarity I'm now realizing the reverts were done by (at least) two distinct IP addresses (Special:Contributions/2601:C4:C300:1BD0:A8C4:44B6:EDDD:E64E, Special:Contributions/2601:C4:C300:1BD0:88BE:C18B:688C:E70D), so in theory it might not all be the same person. Umimmak (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I would certainly try to share and explain the relevant policies to them on their (or the article's) talk page first, then if they repeat the edits, I'd put a warning on their talk page. I added that page to my watchlist and will try to give input if they keep it up.
Those are two distinct IPs, though geolocating them puts them in the same US city, so there's a decent chance they're the same person. Let's see if they say anything further on the talk page for now. Armadillopteryxtalk 04:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can/should remove it from the article myself now for a third time or if that counts as edit warring a WP:3RR violation? Also the statement Lady Bunny once again stated that she will not transition is I guess technically accurate in that yeah cis people don't transition, but it seems misleading to have that phrasing in the article but I don't know on what grounds that can be removed other than just leading readers to have an incorrect inference. Thoughts? Umimmak (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Umimmak: You can revert a third time—it's the fourth revert that breaks 3RR. But also, removing contentious, unsourced information from a BLP is an exemption from 3RR; you can revert changes like that as many times as you need to without it counting as a 3RR violation. I agree that the phrasing the IP inserted is misleading even if technically accurate. Armadillopteryxtalk 04:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
The cleavage article needs to be more gender inclusive, and have better sources for LGBT content

There are some parts in the article that deal with crossdressing. But, not being very oriented with LGBT studies, I really can't put those parts in order on my own. Seriously need some help, especially with sources. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

At first reading through it I had no immediate concerns since I the content of the paragraph seemed to be accurate enough and neutral if a bit aggressively written. Then I looked at the sources. Obviously an unreliable unacceptable source right off the bat, one even appears to be an ad. Unfortunately I have no clue how we deal with unreliable sources outside of rewriting/resourcing it myself... the text itself has some merit.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
It would be a great help if somebody lent a hand in improving and editing/writing the section. May be it should not be about crossdressing at all, but cleavage for non-woman genders - men, trans and others. I have tried looking up reliable sources and failed. I hope someone here would have sources and stuff to share. If I get them, I can write it myself. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

What about Posie Parker?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should the activist Posie Parker known as Kellie-Jay Keen have a wikipedia article. I feel there is enough third person sources to justify an article. What are other people's thoughts?Dwanyewest (talk)

What are these sources you mention? Loki (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Loki (talk) what about these sources [4] [5][6][7]. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd lean towards delete based on only these sources if I saw such an article on AFD. The main issue for deletion is passing notability guidelines using WP:RS and I'm not sure the talk radio or the NR source would count. WP:RSP notes it is unclear if NR counts as an RS. The NYT source is an opinion source so that wouldn't be RS either. That leaves the BBC source which is mainly about one event and doesn't use the Posie Parker name directly. Different RS could help me change my mind. Can only speak for myself though and decisions at AFD may go down differently. Rab V (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Anne Frank

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's an RfC regarding Anne Frank that this WikiProject might be interested in. Loki (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject RPDR's Collaboration for August 2020: RuPaul's Drag Race: Vegas Revue

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's
Collaboration of the Month for August 2020:
RuPaul's Drag Race: Vegas Revue


Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Age-structured homosexuality

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please help provide input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Age-structured homosexuality. Thank you.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your input is solicited on a proposed merge at Talk:Catholic teaching on homosexuality! Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested at LGBT ideology

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your feedback is requested regarding the Notability of the topic "LGBT ideology" at this discussion: Talk:LGBT ideology#Notability. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion, although not completed, may be moot; see next section. If you just have time for one, please contribute to the one below. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race § Hatnote to explain pronouns

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race § Hatnote to explain pronouns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

TfD on hatnote template for pronouns

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Watchers of this page may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 26#Template:Multiple pronouns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge feedback needed at Anti-LGBT rhetoric

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please comment on this discussion which proposes the merger of four articles into Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is to merge the following articles into Anti-LGBT rhetoric:
  1. LGBT ideology
  2. Homosexual recruitment
  3. Homosexual agenda
  4. Gay Mafia
It would be helpful to get more participation in this discussion. - MrX 🖋 17:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Improving Lists of animated series with LGBTQ characters

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello all! I've been working on the List of animated series with LGBTQ characters page, and all those that spring from it, relating to animation from the 1960s onward. After going through all the pages, I came up with a list of sources I couldn't find reliable sources for, which I stuck in a sandbox. While I could watch all or some of the animations (and anime) I list there, I was hoping some of you could help me with this, to make sure that these shows aren't forgotten and languish in my sandbox. I would really appreciate it. What I'd like is reliable sources, not citing the episodes directly if at all possible. Previously, the page had mostly cited episodes as sources, but I removed most of that, so I'd like to make sure that the Lists of animated series with LGBTQ characters pages have reliable sources. In some cases, I know, citing the episodes is necessary, but I think the pages would be better if a reliable source, whether a review on somewhere like ScreenRant, Comic Book Resources, or from the actual creators, is used instead. Thanks and I hope to hear from you all! --Historyday01 (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Scientific homophobia

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I restored this after it was deleted out of process, and then tagged it for a proposed deletion. Wanted to make sure others had a chance to look at it before it's deleted again. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that AfC accepted such obvious WP:Synthesis in the first place. It should have been declined. Crossroads -talk- 02:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 
Awesome, with a pinch of dissapointment.
I just have been honored to get a chance to look at a recently deleted article after it was deleted. Awesome.
What is more awesome is that none of the examples the article uses does actually refer to something as strong as "homophobia". Hmmm.
But the most awesome is the opening line "Scientific homophobia describes the use of scientific and psychological studies and pseudo-evidence to legitimise homophobic beliefs and rhetoric." This article gets your attention at the very first glance, and then completely fails to deliver. (Feels like Tinder, innit?) Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ron Oden up for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hard to believe sources aren’t plentiful for this mayor of Palm Springs. First openly gay mayor of a California city. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, everyone. Me and a few other new editors recently completed a draft for an article about an essay by Sandy Stone. It's widely considered to be one of the inaugurating texts of transgender studies, and I believe it's important that information about it lives on Wikipedia. I would really appreciate any general feedback, as well as any attention to the issue I've raised on the talk page. Thank you! Rizzolioli (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft for a proposed new MOS:Deadname RfC

Latest comment: 4 years ago43 comments14 people in discussion

Here is my draft so far, please comment on any needed changes before it’s started.

[see new draft in section below]

Please use the last section for discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

MOS:Deadname only states: “In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".”

[Rfc note]

Should we add to this to address two main loopholes: per the dignity of the person and respect to their families, we should 1. minimize our deadnaming to the bare minimum of these people as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm; and 2. in the case where the person was not notable under their deadname, it should never be used in article space, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources.

Any input welcome! Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So there are a couple of things here that bear discussion.
First is the question of using a loaded term in our official guidelines. Calling a birthname instead as a "deadname" prejudices people against it automatically and accepts a certain POV as correct and true. So we should think carefully about introducing POV terms into Wikipedia's own documentation and culture. At the present moment, the term "deadname" only exists in the shortcut, i.e. MOS:DEADNAME and nowhere else in the documentation (which might make it confusing for someone unfamiliar with the neologism.)
Secondly is the question of definition. This guideline is invoked for all "transgender and non-binary people". It is a fact that some such people do not consider their birthname to be a "deadname", or shameful or something to be suppressed. So are we content to continue defining "deadname" as the birth name of any transgender or non-binary person? Or should there be a certain threshold pertaining to the transition or naming itself? Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, we can rework how and if ‘deadname’ is incorporated—“so-called deadnaming”?, let’s see if anyone has ideas on that as well.
”some such people do not consider their birthname to be a "deadname"”; a deadname could also be a married name, but we could posit that idea although my hunch is that including a catch all—“case-by-case” exceptions—might solve that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether "deadname" is a loaded word in this specific case. It seems to be the most commonly accepted term for the birth name of someone who changed their name because they did not identify with their assigned gender. This is obviously different to people who change their name for non-gender-related reasons.
That said, I think the RfC itself would be less leading with pared down wording like: "If a transgender or non-binary subject was not notable under their birth name, should we avoid mentioning the birth name altogether in the article text?" Might also be worth citing the precautionary principle and the potential of the deadname to do harm. I could imagine some outcome like always omitting the birth name by default but being able to "opt in" if the subject is on record in RS saying they don't care if people mention it. Armadillopteryxtalk 07:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Would adding a “case-by-case” clause answer that? Also good point on the wording. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that gets the point across. Armadillopteryxtalk 08:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd support officially confirming that a trans person's birth name (often known as a "deadname") should be considered private information [and can be suppressed] unless the trans person in question was notable under that name or is publicly okay with people using it. (And I phrased my support with my preferred language.) If they were notable under that name, it should still be kept to a minimum, and substituting their current name for their birth name should constitute an exception to MOS:IDENTITY. Loki (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I think since the target community benefiting from this has risen ‘deadnaming’ as the name for this concept I’m positive it should be in the final language, currently I’m at “usually a birth name, and usually misgendering— so-called deadnaming”. But it’s evolving. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! As far as the terminology is concerned, I am partial of saying something like "previous names of the incorrect gender" as opposed to 'deadname' or 'birthname'. It may be on the long side, but I feel like unlike 'deadname', it is not dismissed as a loaded/biased term by some AND unlike 'birthname', it makes it clear that the issue is about misgendering, and is specific of trans people, leaving little room for the all too common wikilawyering about "birth names being factual, basic information and therefore we absolutely must publish them". cave (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! As we are serving trans folk, and deadnaming is their POV, I want to honor that, and educate the editors. How it’s done Best is tbd.
I want to be open to *any* non-notable name, not just birth, and not just one that unquestionably misgenders. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Eurocave:, @Gorillawarfare:, @Gagaluv1:, you may be interested in this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I think that "case-by-case" is simultaneously too broad and too limiting. Trans people, being individuals, have a variety of relationships to their pre-transition names; for some it is very much a dead name, for some, not so much. So I think this restriction should be specified apply to those who have not expressed an open connection to their former name, and that we default to assuming that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this. I had understood the "case-by-case" wording to be a part of the question in the RfC itself, not the language that would be added to MOS:DEADNAME. I think that the text to be added to the MOS needs to be explicit both about the default approach (i.e. adding or not adding the birth name to the article) and about what qualifies as an exception. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think including all exceptions may be too cumbersome. Maybe there’s an economical approach? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft 2 of RfC proposal

Please use the last section for discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

MOS:Deadname only states: “In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".” (Followed with examples.) It only addresses deadnaming in the lead.

[RfC note]

Should we add to this to address loopholes: per the dignity of the person and respect to their families, we should by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and 1. minimize misgendering as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm; and 2. in the case where the subject was not notable under a former name, usually a birth name, and often misgendering—so-called deadnaming, should we avoid mentioning the name altogether in article space, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sourc?s.

Here is the second version. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend removing and respect to their families as unnecessary/understood as a part of the dignity phrase. Could the phrase usually a birth name, and often misgendering—so-called deadnaming be removed or changed as well? It seems like it interrupts, and since the proposed addition to the guideline would clearly be in a section concerning trans and non-binary people, I don't think removing the phrase would be confusing ("misgendering" is mentioned before in number 1 of the proposal, and we can add (deadnaming) in parentheses right after it to keep that word in. In number two, we have "former name" so there won't be a lack of clarity there). Other options would be "under a former name that misgenders them, should we avoid ..." I think the closer we can get to Armadillopteryx's "pared down" version, the better probably.
Wording aside, this seems like it has been the default practice of well-meaning editors on these articles. It would be good to make it explicit in the MOS.--MattMauler (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
How about RfC wording like this?
Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to include the following text? "Per the precautionary principle, care should be exercised to avoid the possibility of deadnaming transgender and non-binary subjects. If such a subject was not notable under their birth name, then that name should not, by default, be included in our articles. An exception can be made for subjects on record in reliable sources stating that they do not consider mention of their birth name to be deadnaming." Armadillopteryxtalk 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: Chelsea Manning was added as an example in 2015 (by User:-sche; and Laverne Cox was added at the same time). Before proposing new wording for the section, can you explain what problem you are trying to solve? Or in other words, what is wrong with the way it is now? Unless a clear case can be made for something wrong, or something missing in the current version, I think we should just leave it alone. Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is that many transgender and non-binary people consider mention of their birth name to be deadnaming, even though some appear to not care if the name is mentioned so long as it is not used. There is a little background on that in our article on the subject. The current wording of MOS:DEADNAME addresses use of the birth name in the lead section of articles, but it does not address articles as a whole. Right now there are articles where the birth name is mentioned only in the Early life section, but the MOS does not clearly state whether or not that should be allowed. I think this RfC would be useful since BLP policy normally errs on the side of doing the least possible harm. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: The current wording is only about the lead, letting editors think they can birth names of trans people in the article just not in the lead (e.g., the early life section, personal life section, or infobox). See discussion in, say Talk:Peppermint (entertainer), where people have this interpretation. Umimmak (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as a trans editor, I've been speaking out for a long time against the deadnaming of trans people anywhere in articles if they weren't notable by that name. See my profile page for some talks I've given on this issue. I'm all for a new RfC on this subject, and I would like the wording to be even more direct, though I'm fine using the term "birth name" before mentioning the less familiar term deadname.
So here's my preferred wording:
Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to read as follows? "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence article only when the person was notable under that name."
The RfC can be accompanied by explanatory text that explains the harm of deadnaming to trans folks. Funcrunch (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I like this wording a lot—in fact, it's my favorite so far.
I do think it would still be useful to include a clause about what to do with subjects that state publicly that they don't mind mention of what the birth name was so long as it is not used to refer to them in the present. That's probably a small minority of trans folk, but there are some, and they might as well be accounted for explicitly to remove doubt. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you think of any examples of such cases off the top of your head, Armadillopteryx? I'd prefer Funcrunch's wording as the simplest but if there are cases where public figures really are this explicit about what they do and don't mind then I agree that it's worth taking into account. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Not off the top of my head—I just thought to bring it up because most trans people in my circles don't care if you know what their birth name was and often share it openly if they're talking about their transition process; they're just clear that no one is to call them by that name in the present. I don't think it's that farfetched that some notable person could have the same view. I think that Funcrunch's suggestion should certainly be the default (and in practice will likely apply most of the time). I just think it couldn't hurt to bring it up in the RfC since it's probably a rare but realistic situation. Naturally, if most participants of the RfC object to adding this bit to the MOS, then we won't. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree and will work to incorporate in the next draft.
@Funcrunch:, my hunch is to link to deadnaming, and improve that article to address real and perceived harm as we’re educating editors and the public.
Armadillopteryx, I have a hunch that any non-cisgender people who don’t mind their former names being used will have such names in a good percentage of reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. My point is that our default policy will probably be to omit the birth name even if it appears in RS, but an exception could be considered if the subject actually says they are okay with it being known/mentioned—otherwise, we should keep it out no matter how many RS include it. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft 3 of proposed RfC

Please use the last section for discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[rfc note]

Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names, including birth names, should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).]

Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize misgendering—so-called deadnaming—as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm. Avoid using the name, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources.

——————- Q: Why is this needed? A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”.

Here’s Draft 3. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is difficult to read. Is there a reason the first part can't simply read as how I proposed in the Draft 2 section, requiring the modification of only two words in the original guideline:
Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to read as follows? "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence article only when the person was notable under that name."
The rest of the current guideline, with the examples of Chelsea Manning and Laverne Cox, seems fine as-is. As for the explanatory text (for the RfC only, not to be included in the MoS), I would simplify it to say something like:
Mentioning a trans person's birth name should be avoided by default, as deadnaming has been shown to cause real world harm. Funcrunch (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I am in favor of Funcrunch's proposal. Very clear, and it addresses the main issue.--MattMauler (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It may also be more effective to limit the RFC question itself to the brief proposal to change the guideline, and post the explanatory text as a comment in response to the RFC. RFCs can easily be derailed by arguments over whether the question is neutrally phrased.--Trystan (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Trystan: Good idea. I expect this proposed change to be highly contentious. Funcrunch (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this as well. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  Done. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Funcrunch, if I thought that a pared down version would end all the Wikilawyering done misgendering people I would leave it, but we need to cover a lot of ground.
That’s Why it’s about all article space, not just the article, and any former name, not just an assumed birth name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Good intentions noted, but I expect Wikilawyering will happen regardless. And it's unclear even to me, an editor for over 11 years, what you mean by article "space". Funcrunch (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The article namespace, as opposed to Talk: or Wikipedia: or Draft:. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Well the spirit should be obvious to help the many editors who probably aren’t educated on the nuances. We want to preempt as much edit-warring as possible. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s to help stop, for example, putting the deadname under a disambiguous page [John Foo (Mary Foo), American entertainer], or in any list article, or any article that mentions them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Funcrunch's proposal to just update the one word/phrase, and with leaving the rationale as a comment rather than part of the RfC question. If you want to clarify that a non-notable deadname should not be used in any article (not just "the article"), I think it would read as more fluent to say ...should be included in the lead sentence any article only when.... -sche (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Funcrunch:, it occurs to me that we can footnote some of the seemingly extra information. I’ll give it a go to see if we can condense things a bit. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft 4 of proposed RfC

[Rfc note]

Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).]

Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize deadnaming as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm.[a]

  1. ^ Avoid using the name, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources.

Q: Why is this needed?

A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”.

Here is draft 4. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I oppose it. If deadname was legal name and appeared in reliable source after transioning, we should describe it. Furthermore, We should describe former name of Julia Serano. She wrote many academic articles under former name. --Sharouser (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Draft 4

RfC started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads up. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of TheSword.com interview

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of an interview with Erik Rhodes on TheSword.com. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Sword. — Newslinger talk 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_69&oldid=1249345116"