Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Active discussions
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject

LGBT studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingResources ResourcesShowcase Showcase

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay Pride Flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:

WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable

RfC regarding Wikipedia policy on deadnaming trans peopleEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Draft for a proposed new MOS:Deadname RfCEdit

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 proposalEdit

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 RfCEdit

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 deadnamingas 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 RfCEdit

[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)

Comments on Draft 4Edit

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

[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 PinkNewsEdit

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?Edit

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)

"Faux" /"Bio" / "Female"/AFAB drag queensEdit

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?Edit

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 ShojaianEdit

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)

Cleavage (breasts)Edit

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(talkcontribs) 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(talkcontribs) 02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ljuba PrennerEdit

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 doEdit

An IP address keeps re-inserting ([1], [2]) 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)

What about Posie Parker?Edit

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 [3] [4][5][6]. 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 FrankEdit

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 RevueEdit

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 homosexualityEdit

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)

Return to the project page "WikiProject LGBT studies".