This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding this edit that was reverted. There is an obvious conflict with the original wording and the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, which states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

There are already guidelines and policies covering former names and privacy concerns, which is why I added links to the section. Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names? Consensus doesn't get to override policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We've been through this over and over. Check the archives. Discussing it again is unlikely to lead to a change. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've read the conclusions in the archives. The issue of former names and privacy is already addressed in BLP and on this page. GENDERID currently says to avoid the former name "even if reliable sourcing exists", which clearly violates core content policies and the MOS for former names. I have edited Wikipedia for 17 years and have never seen such an open violation of policy. Saying "go read the archives" is insufficient. If you don't want to discuss it, I'll start another RFC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You've been an editor here for many years. Don't throw it away on a tendentious anti-woke crusade. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The answer to your question, Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names?, is to be found in the many community processes linked at MOS:GIDINFO.

The "Coles Notes" summary of the discussions concerning former names is, primarily, that there is a concern based on BLPPRIVACY principles (WP:BLP having the weight of core policy) that is different for gender identity-related name changes than it is for other name changes. You may disagree with this, but it represents the way the community has adjudicated tension among its core policies for many years now, and with the input of many, many editors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So, personally I think MOS:DEADNAME is right for the wrong reasons, because I think we should in general be much more deferential to name changes. There isn't something magical about a gender-based name change that makes it more worthy of respect than other name changes; the issue is just that our community has historically sucked at respecting individuals' right to be called by the name they request, so we made a carve-out for the case where that obnoxious practice was causing the most trouble. Setting that aside, no, this is not a NOTCENSORED violation. WP:NOTCENSORED does not require us to include anything. It just says we reserve the right to show anything lawful, when doing so would be in accordance with other policies and guidelines. The actual governing guideline is Wikipedia:Offensive material, which explicitly rejects giving any "special favor to offensive content". This is why, among other things, articles on human sexuality are almost never illustrated by live-action videos; it's why the image of fresh cuts at Self-harm was replaced with an image of scars; and so on.

So if someone were to argue "We should not include so-and-so's deadname because it is illegal under the laws of such-and-such foreign jurisdiction" or "because it's a sin in my religion" or any other non-PAG based argument, then NOTCENSORED is a valid rebuttal. But if someone says "We should not include so-and-so's deadname because it presents issues regarding privacy and human dignity, without there being a particular benefit to the reader in us including it", that's the regular kind of weighing of interests we do on articles all the time. And here, people have presented that argument so many times, and it's been affirmed by the community so may times, that it was enshrined in guideline. (And hey, just a guideline. I've seen IAR exceptions made here and there, usually when the subject has publicized their own deadname.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin, very helpful. I think you touched on my point, that we should have a policy about former names without regard to transgender status. We have a guideline for former names, and a policy addressing privacy, and I think those make sense and already address the issue of non-notable former names. The guideline on WP:GENDERID currently censors useful and verifiable material based on the individual's personal feelings, which makes sense in a gender studies class but not an encyclopedia. I support keeping a person's sexual identity private unless there is good reason, but I don't agree with the way the guideline is worded. I think there is a way to update it that will not be unnecessarily offensive to transgender people while also not leaving a contradiction with policy that will endlessly churn out complaints.

At some point I'll work on an RFC, unless you think something can be worked out here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Your belief that the hundreds of editors who contributed to the current consensus against the inclusion of non-notable former names of nonbinary and trans people over the last decade will suddenly change their minds when presented with your proposal - well, to be charitable, it seems exceedingly optimistic. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you point me to the RFC that you are thinking of? I did not see that issue specifically addressed as you describe. Yes I did make an effort to search the archives. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cuñado: Here are about 10 RfCs among the 70 or so discussions - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Discussion_timeline. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please use MOS:IDINFO to navigate the prior discussions; that is what its timeline of discussions is for. The decision to clarify that non-notable deadlines are excluded from article space, rather than only the main biographical article, was made in 2020. The question of which deadnames should, and should not, be included in the lead of the main biographical arricle was decided back in 2015, and was revisited frequently but without significant changes until the restrictions on former names were expanded in 2020. In 2021 additional restrictions were placed on how notable former names of trans and nonbinary people should be mentioned.[1] [2] (All of these links are presented in the timeline section of IDINFO, with brief identifying descriptions of each discussion.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've suggested before that the appropriateness of including a deadname for transgender individuals shouldn't stop there, but should extend to any name changes, such as non-English names for immigrants or pre-marriage names for married people - if the sourcing is weak or relying on primary sources, we should not include that name. This would make one policy consistent across all BLP. But this was rejected because editors felt that it was required to include things like pre-marriage names in BLP articles. Hence the conflict here. Masem (t) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am a non-binary person. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on transgender and nonbinary people (MOS:GI) and I really think they should be changed. Why does it specifically say only a living person gets the respect of being referred to by their preferred pronouns?

If a person's preferred pronouns were known why should they not be respected in death? It is high time to update these guidelines. Errlane (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the BLP policy, so its application to dead people is limited only to the short period after death. That said, I think there's room in the policy that if a dead transgender person was known to prefer a certain set of pronouns via reliable sources, we should respect that choice (and of course, if a currently living transgender person with known pronouns dies, their preference doesn't disappear after death). If we have no such idea of preference, then using "they/them" is the more respectful route. Masem (t) 13:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any examples of articles where a dead person had preferred pronouns that we don't use? (Not at all saying it's not the case, I've just not encountered any.) — Czello 13:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean MOS:GID? If so, where does it "specifically say only a living person gets the respect of being referred to by their preferred pronouns"? I see "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification". EddieHugh (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(I noticed this on the MOS:GIDINFO page, but the content is transcluded from here)

As of this writing we offer two examples of "don't include the former name if not notable", both written in green (indicating this is how to write things):

• From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine, not notable under prior name: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...

First off, the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say: The first article begins "Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) is an American actress and..." Green text should IMO be reserved for the actual words we want to teach readers to use. Plus, wouldn't it be better if the example actually contrasted what to write with what to not write (which is why we'd use a made-up example)

Why not use a made-up example, and why not write (in green) the exact phrasing we want readers to adopt:

• Jane Doe (born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
• Jane Doe (formerly John Doe, born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."

Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.

My question is: why did the community decide to not use this style of examples? CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, but perhaps because it's redundant. The examples are of what names to use, not pronouns. We therefore do use the exact phrasing that users should adopt. (Your examples are also contradictory: the first recommends "they" and the second, for the same person, indicates that "they" is incorrect.) I'd argue that we don't need examples of pronoun use, because it's clear from the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID (in your example, "Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all" is required to explain which name is which, but it's merely repeating that first paragraph). EddieHugh (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody is discussing pronouns. Both I and the GENDERID is discussing whether to mention the former name. My example clearly shows how to write and how to not write it.

I'm saying that this...

(obviously switching to a made-up example so we can show the incorrect way of doing it; illustrating what we're telling users NOT to do) ...is much more easily understood than whatever the current text's examples is trying to say. Unlike the current text it avoids text you're not supposed to write (in other words, no they don't contain "the exact phrasing that users should adopt"), doesn't begin with a "From" (that I don't understand the purpose of), and extremely clearly illustrates both the green do and the red don't.

That I chose Jane Doe as my example name, and my choice of example nationality, "job", and pronoun, is entirely irrelevant and beside the point. CapnZapp (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought you might be referring to pronouns because you wrote "the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say", and then included pronouns, which aren't in the examples, while the green text is exactly what's in the articles. Anyway, I think that the current text is adequately clear, if long-winded (one example for not notable and one for notable would be enough). EddieHugh (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would point out that one reason to include two examples for each case is to show that there is not "one correct template" to use to follow in each case. The notable examples, for instance, give one case where the pretransition name is a "birth name" and one where it is not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• The "From" part, intended to explain from which articles the examples have been lifted, is completely unnecessary. But if you must link to real articles, don't mess up the example to do so.
• The contrast between green and non-green text is not great enough. Better is to offer examples consisting of green (or red) text only, with no explanatory nonsense inserted mid-example.
• Sorry, but just providing examples isn't enough. The purpose of a demonstration is to be clear. I don't mind keeping the two real-life examples, but overt clarity would then be needed. In the spirit of overt clarity: if you provide an example to show how to phrase it when pretransition name is a "birth name", say so. Don't expect the reader to "just understand". These guidelines aren't written primarily for people that already know what to say and what to avoid. For many readers, this article will be the first time they even hear about terms such as "pretransition name"!

For example (feel free to write better explanatory text; copying bits from reply above just to illustrate):

When pretransition name is a "birth name" (example from Laverne Cox):

• Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...

When it is not (example from Rachel Leland Levine):

• Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...

When pretransition name is not notable (fictional example):

• Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980)..."

(do not include non-notable pretransition name at all)

CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume I have answered y'all to your satisfaction, and that we are now in agreement. CapnZapp (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for "preserving the presumed intention", Newimpartial. However, wouldn't you agree your edits lost the explanation of why we have two green examples? That is (with your own words) "one case where the pretransition name is a 'birth name' and one where it is not"...? At least I don't know either of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine, and wouldn't be able to discern any functional difference between the two examples (other than "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not") CapnZapp (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by Elliot Page's prior name not being a birth name? Wasn't Page christened "Ellen"? (And weren't we discussing these in the context of Cox/Laverne, not Manning/Page?) CapnZapp (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Prior to acting, Page's last name was a hyphenated form of his mother and father's surnames (Philpotts–Page), which was shortened for his stage name. It's a bit confusing since the hyphenated name is not in the linked article and it's not an obvious change (like from Norma Jeane Mortenson to Marilyn Monroe, for example). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the hyphenated name does not meet notability requirements (to my knowledge, the only sourcing for it that satisfies WP:IND is a local newspaper in South America). This has been discussed at length at Talk:Elliot Page. The consensus has therefore been consistent that "Ell*n Page" is a notable professional name, not a birth name, and this consensus was reflected in the choice of example for the MOS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The purpose of giving examples is illustrating a point. In order to explain the point (why otherwise make it?) we need to explain an obscure detail that we have agreed to not divulge! The obvious conclusion is to use another example, where we can actually tell our readers what our example is meant to illustrate. CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying Page is a bad example. If we clearly (in our article) explain that Page is an example of a subject whose name is not a birth name, and avoid raising further questions by explaining why this is so, then it is a great example. If, however, we use Page as an example with zero elaboration as to why we use that example, it loses all instructive value. CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Where are you suggesting that this elaboration ought to be provided. Surely not in the article text of Elliot Page? Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where the elaboration should be provided (or it if is even appropriate), but it's not clear to anyone unfamiliar with the lengthy discussions at Talk:Elliot Page why he would be used as an example for "not a birth name." It's about picking an example that makes clear the point being made, not further confusing the reader. Perhaps replacing "not a birth name" with "professional name" or "stage name" would be less confusing. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to reflect your suggestion in this tweak. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the exclusion of pre-transition names, the difference is precisely that "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not". The value in those particular examples, as I suggested above, is simply to underline the fact that there is no single formula mandated in this branch of the decision tree, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. But... this explanation needs to be provided to the reader of the article, because the point of the example is to convey a point. I certainly didn't understand this given only the examples - after all you needed to explain it to me! Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Does that make things clearer for the reader? The assumption I would work with is that a bio lede would follow MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:CHANGEDNAME, but with the stipulation that deadnames/prior names should only be used in very limited circumstances when the person was notable under that name. Do the multiple examples help understand this better? (And there really needs to be a pointer to MOS:GENDERID at MOS:CHANGEDNAME to make clear that pre-transition names are handled differently.) — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the carveout for pre-transition names of trans people deserves an effective pointer at CHANGEDNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Do the multiple examples help understand this better? As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the "no notable pretransition name" case, the two examples only illustrate "no single formula", since the difference between the cases doesn’t illustrate anything specific to pretransition names.

For the "notable pretransition name" case, the examples illustrate subtly different treatment for a birth name vs. a professional name, so they do illustrate a point that is relevant to pretransition names in particular IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point and see the same thing mirrored at MOS:FULLNAME. I edited how the GENDERID examples are presented to parallel how similar examples are presented at FULLNAME and other sections of the article. This makes it clearer to me what is being described and required (and how it aligns/differs from the guidance elsewhere). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Late in the previous discussion, a point was raised: shouldn't CHANGEDNAME point to GENDERID?

And so it does (very last line). However, note the word "living" in the current text. Does GENDERID apply to living subjects only or equally to deceased subjects? We afford greater protections to living bio article subjects, is GENDERID one of these?

If the answer is "yes only to living" then GENDERID needs to make this distinction. If the answer is "no; to all" the above line at CHANGEDNAME needs to be edited. (To be clear: I have no opinion either way, I just want to point out this possible discrepancy)

CapnZapp (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID applies to living people ("If a living transgender or non-binary person..."). A large RFC about a year and a half ago found no consensus for changes relating to dead people.--Trystan (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably the existing pointer at CHANGEDNAME should be higher up in the section, perhaps after the red de Blasio example, since it creates a pretty big exception to what's stated upfront and currently falls after a section on changed surnames. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Out of no where this format à la "Austrian and American" comes to counter the long established tradition of the hyphen! Goodness gracious ;)

Where and when has this format been decided all of a sudden? Synotia (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example. There is no nation of Austria-America, so Austrian and American or Austrian, American would be the correct way to show dual nationality. A hyphen is often used to describe ethnicity. Is that what you mean? MB 15:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We write African-American culture for example, yet there is no nation of Africa-America either?

And has this been decided by a community consensus, or by just one single egghead? Synotia (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MB… if we are indicating someone’s ethnic heritage (not encouraged, per MOS:ETHNICITY) then the hyphen would be appropriate, but if we are trying to indicate dual citizenship we would need to link the two nationalities with “and” (and if we are indicating sequential citizenship - ie the person renounced one citizenship for another - I would suggest not trying to do so in one single sentence). Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No one seems willing to denounce themselves ;) Synotia (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that for ethnicity, MOS:HYPHEN says not to hyphenate:

Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors, regardless of whether or not they are used attributively (Aboriginal Australians, Asian American studies, Black British people).

—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I have no clue who came up with this, it goes against the established consensus on this encyclopedia. For ages people used hyphens and nobody had an issue with it. Only a very very small handful of articles use that weird format. Moreover, outside of Wikipedia I have never encountered it, making it feel made up as hell. --Synotia (moan) 12:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Per EddieHugh's request, below is proposed revised text based off what consensus here was showing, but edited to address their concerns.

When a living transgender or non-binary person's former name is not notable, that name should not be included in the article. For example:
When a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under their pretransistion pretransition name, that name should not be included in the article.
For example:

• From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
• Avoid: Not notable, do not use: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their prior former name, that name may should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior former name with "born" if they were notable under their birth name or "formerly" if notable under a prior former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym. For example:
In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person who was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, that name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

• From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
• From Elliot Page, notable under prior former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

Thoughts, objections, concerns? CapnZapp, Newimpartial —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think using the old language for the first case, like "when a living ... person was not notable under a pretransition name, that name..." is more precise (and therefore better) than your proposal. The test is the notability of the person while using the name, not the "notability of the name itself" (whatever that would mean). Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, adjusted above... Does using "pretransistion name" instead of "prior name" create any gray areas around gender change without a medical transition? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, since the relevant transition here is social, rather than legal or medical for example. But I would like others to weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• "pretransition" is misspelled "pretransistion"
• I would have thought that the usage of green/red text is standard and that the reader can be assumed to understand its meaning ^{(actually, is green/red text color-blind-friendly?)}, but okay - if MOS generally explains examples in red as "don't actually write this, this is an example of how to do it wrong" then we should definitely repeat that here as well. If this would be an isolated case, however, I think the explanation "do not use" from "Not notable, do not use:" should be removed.
• I like how the new text avoids claiming Page's prior name is not a birth name, since we appear unwilling to actually explain that.
• I like how the new text explicitly tells us when to use "born" and when to use "formerly". (Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before. Previously there wasn't an actual rule against using other words than "born" for the notable under their birth name case - we just stated editors should use "born" or "formerly". The examples hinted at which word to use where, but examples aren't rules. And to be ultra clear: I have no objections, I just want to raise awareness in case anyone missed the fact the suggested edit doesn't just change the presentation of the MOS rules, it actually changes them)
• I concur with Newimpartial's objection.

CapnZapp (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the spelling. Looking at other examples on the page, some red text is introduced in the sentence preceding it with "do not use" or similar language. Others (particularly when paired with a green text example) it's introduced with Avoid on the same line, so changed to that. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion back here. Comments:

• Is "When a living transgender ... For example:" needed? Most of that is in the existing "If a living transgender ... the person's current name" paragraph. Would adding "For example:" to the existing paragraph be enough?
• The current "...former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it" isn't very clear in its use of "should", but it differs significantly from the proposed "that name may be included in the lead sentence" ('should' versus 'may').
• I'm not sure about adding "pretransition name" to the list of terms used: what counts as "transition"? But then there's already "transition" in the same section. EddieHugh (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence of the proposed text is not needed, as it just repeats the existing "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable..." sentence. I also think that shifting from "should" to "may" reduces clarity and is likely to lead to unnecessary disputes about when to include the former name. The section as written establishes that by "former name" we mean a deadname. The proposed text would result in switching between "former name", "pretransition name" and "prior name", which reduces clarity. Finally, I oppose mandating that birth names be introduced with "born", as opposed to the current guidance which says both "born" and "formerly" are appropriate, leaving the choice up to the editors of a particular article.--Trystan (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, with Just wanted to point out this, since the new text adds a rule that wasn't there before. above I hope to have helped made sure this change didn't fly under the radar. (Unlike you Trystan I don't mind the change, but then again, I don't have a strong opinion either way). CapnZapp (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, tried to address the seemingly repetitive first sentence, use former name throughout, and replace may with should when talking about someone notable under a former name.

Regarding formerly vs. born. The examples as MOS:CHANGEDNAME all use born for birth names, as does MOS:NEE. The discussion of "also known as" names at CHANGEDNAME and MOS:PSEUDONYM puts a different emphasis on the professional or stage name (e.g., Timothy Alan Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen) than I think is what's intended in GENDERID. To my mind, presenting "born" as the proper word for a birth name aligns with the rest of MOS:BIO and "formerly" covers well the instances when the notable name is something other than a birth name. Can you provide an example of a case where it makes more sense to use "formerly" for a birth name or "born" for a stage name? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out that examples can't make rules (or at least, shouldn't). That is, just because all examples use X doesn't mean there is a rule saying "you must use X"... unless there actually is rules text to that effect. We can't (shouldn't) expect readers to infer rules from examples. (I have no opinion either way; just want to keep the level of clarification high throughout this discussion, which I'm mostly monitoring so my proposed changes aren't lost half way) CapnZapp (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better way to phrase things then? The existing text at GENDERID says introduce the name with "born" or "formerly":. MOS:BIRTHDATE says Birth and death labels are included only when needed for clarity. When given, use full words, whether immediately preceding a date or not: (which is referring to writing out "born" instead of using "b."). Examples may not be "rules", but they demonstrate the proper application of the rules to help aid in understanding them and almost every time a birth name is used in the examples when the person is known by a different name, "born" is used to mark the birth name. The only exception is MOS:NEE says specifically, when a birth name is given for someone who's changed their surname, Editors may denote this [the birth name] with "born" ... or, if the surname change is due to marriage, né or née may be used instead of born. (The conditional may is used here because of the exception for when né/née might be used instead.)

CapnZapp, as I see it, it's not a new rule, just a clarification that aligns with the rest of the MOS. The current GENDERID text specifies to use either born or formerly. The only difference is the revision specifies "born" for use with (notable) birth names (which is in alignment with the rule at MOS:NEE and the examples that illustrate the rules at BIRTHDATE, CHANGEDNAME, etc.), leaving "formerly" for use with other sorts of former (notable) names. Are there any cases where this would be problematic or where an editor would reasonably choose to use the words differently? Or should "may" be being used here instead of "should" (to mirror the verbs in MOS:NEE)?— Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Trystan, can you elaborate on your last point (let editors choose when to use born or when to use formerly)? Is there an instance where born would be used for a stage name? Or where formerly would be more appropriate for a birth name? How do you see this deviating from the rest of MOS:BIO, such as the statement at MOS:NEE to use born, unless you're dealing with a surname change due to marriage where né/née may be used instead? I'm seeing this not as a rule change but a clarification that aligns with the rest of MOS:BIO, but if there are cases where it doesn't work I'd appreciate being educated about them. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The current guidance to use either born or formerly came from a compromise solution achieved in this RFC, which discussed the different connotations born can have for trans individuals. I have no objection to testing if that consensus has changed (in either direction), but I suggest it be done through an RFC.--Trystan (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't located that discussion. I've revised again to reflect that RFC; however, I also went back to "prior name" in one instance here so as not to have a soft implication that "former name" was connected to use of "formerly" (which was the assumption I was working under). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so that we have everything on the table at once: yes, the 2015 RfC mandated "born" or "formerly", but it didn't mandate specific guidance about when to use one or the other, nor did it come to any particilar conclusion about the possible connotations of "born".

Also, the most recent prior discussion of this guidance, which resulted in the status quo text and determined the current selection of examples, was this one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Newimpartial, I think with the revisions above there's nothing in conflict with either of those RfCs, but the changes still add some clarity, including the Avoid example, in response to the concerns CapnZapp raised in the "please explain (GENDERID examples)" discussion. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well.--Trystan (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just slow today, but I'm struggling to understand what the strikeouts at the start are meant to communicate. What would come before "For example?" Both suggestions are struck out. What would that be an example of? - Astrophobe (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, those were parts of the initial draft struck in response to comments and questions. The striking of everything but "For Example:" was because others felt the proposed line was too repetitive of an existing paragraph that wasn't being considered for change. So, now "For example:" would follow the existing "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Any further thoughts/concerns/edits, or does this look good to deploy? Clean (hopefully) final version (with the existing, unchanged preceding) below ... CapnZapp, EddieHugh —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. For example:

• From Laverne Cox: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
• From Rachel Levine: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
• Avoid: Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980) ...

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". For example:

• From Chelsea Manning, notable under birth name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) ...
• From Elliot Page, notable under former professional name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...

Comment - I don't blame you for not knowing the tedious background, but many editors would regard your change to the final intro paragraph, from should only be included if to In the case of .... should be included as substantive and, given the background, even as requiring its own RfC. (The former only sets limits on inclusion, while the latter positively mandates inclusion when the condition is met - at least, that is how many of us read that policy language.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. Both the existing text and the revision use "should" with the same limitation on inclusion (when the person was notable under the former name). That said, does this improve it for you? "If a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under their birth name or a former professional name, stage name, or pseudonym, only then should that name be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's marginally better, but I'd be much more comfortable with, "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable under that name." Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that works for me (and has been inserted above). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Can that be changed to "in the lead" rather than specifically saying the lead sentence? For example, if someone was somewhat notable under their former name and if their lead sentence is already stuffed with more notable aspects of their life post transition then we might not want to put the former name in the very first sentence. I think it would be best to make this a "best but not mandatory" MOS practice. Springee (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID currently specifies "in the lead sentence." MOS:FULLNAME says "should usually be given in the lead sentence," so there is wiggle room elsewhere in MOS:BIO... What do others think? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Tcr25, I have concerns about Rachel Levine being used as an example above. She was an academic researcher into eating disorders pre-transition, and published a number of articles in medical journals under her birth name. Obviously pre-transition she was a lot less notable than now, but I'm not sure she was entirely non-notable – and I think that's a rather different situation from someone like Laverne Cox, who as far as I am aware was a complete nobody pre-transition. A person might be interested in Levine's academic career/research/publications, and a person who wants to pursue that interest would need to know what name she published much of her work in that area under. By contrast, a person's reasons for knowing Cox's birth name couldn't be anything other than interest in celebrity trivia. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Notable in the guideline links to WP:GNG, which is a specific and well-defined threshold to meet. The consensus at the subject's article seems quite stable that she was not notable under her former name, so I think the example stands.--Trystan (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling either way. If there's an alternate person you can suggest who is relatively high profile and would serve equally well to illustrate things, please suggest them. That said, and as Tyrstan noted, the consensus seems to be that Levine fits the case of not notable under her prior name. (She's also one of the existing examples on the article, so she's not a new example here.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think examples in the MOS should be really clearcut cases. I agree Laverne Cox is such a case but not convinced that Rachel Levine is one. I don't think the consensus on Levine's article is necessarily dispositive as to whether it is a "clearcut case". If we can't find another example to replace it with, I think just having the Laverne Cox example is enough. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You can see the discussion above why it is desirable to have more than example to show there isn't a single set format. I'm not opposed to changing the example, but would need some suggestions about who to use instead. In the meantime, since the Levine example doesn't change what's already in the MOS, I wouldn't hold up the rest of the changes over this example. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the repeatedly-estsblished consensus at Talk:Rachel Levine that her pretransition name is not notable, and its consistent exclusion from the article, I think the example is a good one. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that discussion seems to have died out on this, I've moved the stable version of the examples and intro text to the MOS page. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"should only be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article if they were notable" would be less ambiguous as "should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable". That would also match the previous wording. EddieHugh (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I find the present text less ambiguous than the prior language, for what it's worth. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The first makes the inclusion conditional; the second highlights the condition to be met for inclusion. I think the effect are the same either way (the only reason to include a deadname is because the person was previously notable under it), just maybe a difference in which you stress. Neither feels more or less ambiguous to me. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The ambiguity: is inclusion to be in the lead sentence and nowhere else if the person was notable under that name ("only... in the lead sentence"), or does inclusion in the lead sentence require the person to be notable under that name ("only if... notable")? We mean the latter, I think. EddieHugh (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I restored this phrase to how it was ordered before the recent changes. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CONTEXTBIO doesn’t make mention of sex (or gender), but it seems like there would be no reason not to treat it the same. We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”, except in cases like “first woman to win a Nobel Prize” (and so on). Am I missing something, or is this sort of consideration so obvious to be CREEPy? — HTGS (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist” — but we do categorise them (Category:Women's association football players, Category:Women scientists) and thus we should define them as such. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames I am not talking about categorization, but about the text (and specifically the lead sentence) of a biography, per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. And specifically, I am wondering out loud whether CONTEXTBIO should explicitly advise against including gender in the lead sentence. Whether or not people are put into gendered categories is of no concern to me. — HTGS (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Would this idea also apply to trans people? Would we no longer state “X is a trans-female soccer player” or “Y is a trans-male actor”? Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would assume that in most cases of trans athletes, their gender would be central or pertinent to their notability. This may also be true of trans people generally, but it would still align with people like Rachel Levine, who is notable (largely) independent of her gender, and whose lead paragraph currently does not mention that she is a trans woman.

  FWIW I didn’t pose the question with trans people in mind (I had just made this edit … is a New Zealand female rugby union player) so a carveout for trans bios would be fine by me. Eg, a footnote like “for trans individuals this guideline may not always apply”. But I do feel that CONTEXTBIO's current wording (gender … should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability) would cover it well enough for the good judgment of good editors. — HTGS (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  And, to be especially clear, I was (and am) posing an open question. The addition of gender seems to logically follow for me, but reasonable minds may differ. — HTGS (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you need to avoid Bill Gates III? ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the question. Do you mean that we should avoid referring to "Bill Gates III" at all, or possibly not use "William Henry Gates III" in that article"?

Relevant MOS guidelines include MOS:NAME, MOS:FULLNAME, MOS:JR, WP:COMMONNAME.

Mitch Ames (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, an extra paragraph was added to WP:JOBTITLES in this edit, likely a response to a dispute I had with the editor over applying JOBTITLES to position leads following the use of "The". There was no discussion over this paragraph so unsure whether it is against consensus or a worthy inclusion. Or simply put, can such addition be checked, it seems to be a rewording of the third point above the examples table but excluding the exceptions, does this paragraph now argue that it should be capped even after using "the" or "a"? Third point above, stated it can be capitalised when it is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article). DankJae 00:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

These need to be discussed. The current wording is STABLE. Changing guidelines whilst involved in a dispute related to those guidelines (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#user:Skyerise) is incredibly poor form. GiantSnowman 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not providing proper nationality context when possible leaves readers confused. I proposed that several uses of "usually" be change to "where possible" to prevent intentional omission of relevant nationality (-ies) by recalcitrant editors who assume every reader is going to know the relevant football nationality rules. The way it is being done is totally unclear. Skyerise (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; we have literally tens of thousands of articles where the lede states 'X is a footballer. Born in X, they represented Y at international level' and as far as I can recall nobody other than you has ever said it is confusing. GiantSnowman 16:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Question: is this dispute about what categories to use or about how to phrase the opening text of the article? Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In a way, both. Having the nationalities clearly stated, rather than assumed from football rules (note that the players on other than national teams are treated differently and typically state the nationality up front), leaves no ambiguity about which nationality categories should be included. The way it is being presented makes it unclear where the subject is playing as a national and where they are playing as an expatriate, making it difficult to select or verify the correct categories. Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so the next question is: does it matter whether a player is playing as a national or as an expatriate (and if so, why does it matter)? Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise is not correct here. A player with unambiguous nationality will be described as e.g. 'English footballer', regardless whether they play at club or international level. A player born in country X but who plays for country Y due to (most often) parentage will be described as above. This is how it has been done for years, covers tens of thousands of articles, and has never caused confusion (as far as I am aware). GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also perhaps worth noting that the expats almost certainly have press documenting their actual citizenship, but the players of "unambiguous nationality" (the ones for whom all documented life activities occur within some particular country) may well not, because it's so obvious that nobody feels the need to say it explicitly. Unless we have a source explicitly stating that they are a citizen of some country, or stating their birthplace in a jus soli country, all we can go on is where they flourished. So leaving it somewhat ambiguous (calling them an "English footballer" rather than a "citizen of the UK who plays football for England", say) can be an accurate reflection of our sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My complaint is that, contrary to what GiantSnowman has stated, is that at least some articles, no nationality is being stated before the profession as indicated by WP:CONTEXTBIO. Saying something like "born in X, plays for Y", where the subject is a citizen of both, requires that the reader know that "plays for Y" implies "is a citizen of Y". There is no logical reason for not being explicit. There is a reason for being explicit - without this even an experienced editor who happens to know nothing about football may misconstrue what categories are appropriate. Obviously, a reader who knows nothing about football will not necessarily come away with the fact that the subject holds dual citizenship. That's the whole point of WP:CONTEXTBIO - to make sure that the context is clear without assuming knowledge on the part of the reader. Reverting the clarification of nationality is edit-warring that verges on vandalism (since the OP called me a vandal for trying to improve the article). The only possible problem I see here is if they were born in a country that requires them to relinquish their citizenship when repatriating, but that can be determined from the relevant nationality law article.It's my understanding that very few countries require this in these modern times. Skyerise (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody besides GiantSnowman have a problem with my revisions to Kenneth Paal and Eduardos Kontogeorgakis. Is there some valid reason not to follow WP:CONTEXTBIO here? Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as has been explained to you here and at WT:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi All, There are numerous discussions going on both on wiki talk pages, via wiki (near) edit wars and within the art-world and in the media regarding reclassifying Ukrainian born persons (artists, chess players etc), current labelled as Russian. This could also impact other persons subject to historic colonial, conquered and other disputed areas. I think we need some clarity and potentially some individual ruling in some cases. So, can someone provide some expert guidance on the MOS.

Example Talk:Kazimir Malevich born in Kyiv, then part of the Russian empire, to Polish parent (does not clarify where they were born), studied in Russia, calls himself Ukrainian, was part of a Russian school (style of art, not educational)

Cheers 2404:4408:638C:5E00:75C2:43D3:364F:F481 (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue, by no means limited to Ukraine. I have ancestors in Europe whose birth places changed names as borders shifted, e.g., Gavrylyak, Polish White Russia. In such cases, should articles use the name at birth? The name at the time of writing? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The article should give historical names and current names - example: “He was born in what was then Oldname, Russia (now Newname, Ukraine…”)” If necessary, explain it in more than one sentence. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is what I would have said, if Blueboar hadn't beaten me to it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY states that the opening sentence should refer to the country of which the person was a citizen when they became notable. It also says "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted."

I looked at Kazimir Malevich and I noticed that the opening sentence says he was a Russian avant-garde artist, with the hyperlink to Russian avant-garde. While his citizenship cannot have been Ukrainian at a time that Ukraine wasn't legally a country, this does not stop him being a member of the artistic Ukrainian avant-garde. He is the first person named on the Ukrainian avant-garde page so was certainly notable for it. So for this specific example I wonder if a formulation such as

Kazimir Severinovich Malevich (23 February [O.S. 11 February] 1879 – 15 May 1935) was an artist in the Ukrainian avant-garde...

would be more informative, less contentious, and remain consistent with guidance. I don't know if a similar formulation would help for the other discussions you mention. --Mgp28 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, reading the whole first paragraph for Kazimir Malevich it seems he is considered an artist of both the Russian avant-garde and the Ukrainian avant-garde, so what I suggested might not help. Either way, given that Russian avant-garde is a single hyperlink, the word Russian already appears to be being used as an adjective for the art movement not the artist, so changing the word order as I suggested might at least make this clearer. --Mgp28 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mgp28 I am not sure at all that your statement "x wasn't legally a country", is the correct approach, forced or coercive citizenship is not necessarily what I would regard as my guide to "real" nationality or the heart is.121.98.30.202 (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In this case, where an artist was clearly contributory to both Russian and Ukranian avant-garde movements, those facts seem more relevant to the context of the artist's life and importance than any direct statement about the artist's citizenship and/or nationality. I think Mgp28 is therefore likely to be on the right track. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Could some outsiders please comment on what is the proper way to introduce Christopher Columbus (1451—1506) when taking into account WP:MOSBIO? On the talk page there's been a year-long continuous discussion over whether Columbus should be introduced as 'Genoese' or 'Italian', which are the two most frequently used adjectives in literature. There is a general consensus that Columbus came from the Republic of Genoa, one of the Maritime republics on the northern Italian peninsula, though his origins are sometimes disputed (see the article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus), and he later moved to Iberia working for the Crown of Castile. There's also plenty of sources that suggest the origins of Italian nationalism can be traced back to the Renaissance which was already underway in Columbus' lifetime. My position has been to introduce him by 'Genoese', and I've tried to impose a middle ground solution by removing nationality altogether, but such edits always get reverted back to 'Italian' instantly. WP:MOSBIO has been introduced to the discussion only recently, but there is ongoing discussion over the proper interpretation, with some even questioning the guideline itself. Machinarium (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I will take a leaf out of the long story over at Nicolaus Copernicus (go trough the talk-page archives if you want, but it's a tedious read)...and would say that labeling him as a "Renaissance explorer" might be an approach that could at least be tried (if it hasn't been tried before, I haven't looked). Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm interested in reading the discussion that led to Native American citizenships being added to CONTEXTBIO, but I can't seem to find it. Anybody know of it's location? – ².O.^Boxing 07:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed here: [3]. Looks like there were no objections and even an approval (from me). I've restored it on the page, since it was discussed when it was added, we should have a discussion as to whether to remove it. Pretty sure it comes from a related Wikiproject's existing standards. Skyerise (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We just (last month) had a longer discussion about this on one of our various noticeboards … but I can’t locate which noticeboard it was on. Consensus was mixed. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed it's getting harder and harder to find old stuff. So many changes since the early days... Skyerise (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I found what Skyerise linked above, the proposal to upgrade it from a footnote to an example, but I can't find the discussion that lead to it being added as a footnote in the first place. Seems contradictory to the rest of CONTEXTBIO to me (and at odds with the general understanding of citizenship and nationality). I'm hoping there's some discussions I can read to get a better understanding. – ².O.^Boxing 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On the underlying issue (and this restoration), I would observe the following:

(1) I agree with the argument made in the discussion Skyerise linked that indigenous identities in North America (and probably in many other places) are best understood as nationality/citizenship, not as ethnicity;

(2) for Canada at least, I disagree that citizenship (as opposed to nationality) is always the relevant framing; it seems to fit better for First Nations but less well for other indigenous groups (Métis, Inuit);

(3) while the example presented is fine on its own terms, it doesn't necessarily represent a "best practice" that could be applied to other indigenous biographies (a problem that also confronts several of the other current examples with respect to other BLPs, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't disagree with Native American being viewed as such in North America, but Europe doesn't recognise their nationalities or tribal citizenships. There's also the article on Native Americans in the United States, which first describes them as Indigineous peoples, and that link says, The Indigenous peoples of the Americas are the inhabitants of the Americas before the arrival of the European settlers in the 15th century, and the ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples (bolding mine). That pretty much fits my (and probably many others outside of North America) understanding of Native American; it primarily relates to ethnicity/descent and doesn't relate to nationality or citizenship (that would be American).

That being said, I agree with the format used for Wilma Mankiller as it's directly relevant to her notability (and noting the tribe in parentheses is informative), but certainly not for Donna Nelson, a notable chemist. I think any guidance would be more apprirate as a sentence or two in the ethnicity and religion part. Whether or not people view it as ethnicity or nationality/citizenship, it's clear it isn't on the same level as citizenship to a soverign state, which I believe is the spirit of the guideline. – ².O.^Boxing 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Tribal membership is a complex issue. But where it can be determined that the subject is a member of a a tribe which is considered a sovereign nation, they should certainly be described according to their membership in that nation. Some tribes do not have that status, see List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States. I don't know whether any of this applies to First Nations. It is also my understanding that at least some nations at some times have had an open border policy with respect to indigenous peoples. My recollection is that England was one of the countries which extended this courtesy, though of course everything changed everywhere after 9/11. Skyerise (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I will wait to hear more and probably reply again tomorrow (unless asked a direct question, per my editing restrictions), but I do think the spirit of the guideline is somewhat at issue here. I see two pieces of relevant text that can be used to discern this "spirit":

• In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, and
• Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

I have seen editors pull back and forth over two main points of disagreement about these passages:

• some editors will gloss the first point as though it said, "place the person in the context of their country of citizenship or residence", while others take the language more literally and allow for more variety of outcomes;
• some editors will take the second point as though it established a very high bar for the mention of anything that does not correspond to a nation-state citizenship, while others do not interpret the text this way.

While editors aren't always keen to acknowledge this, much of the resulting disagreement has to do with what editors are or aren't willing to acknowledge as "nationalities". It is clear to some editors that Welsh is a nationality meriting first-sentence mention in most cases, while not acknowledging equivalent status for Catalan or Quebecois nationality. To some New Zealand editors, it may seem evident that Maori identity should be a nearly-universal, required first-sentence mention in relevant biographies, but this might not be obvious to others. And so on.

What I think we nearly all agree is that it is against the spirit and the letter of the MOS for editors to seek sources for family background and to insert hyphenated identities in article lead sections based on such references. But it seems obvious to me, from a Canadian perspective, that when indigenous people carry their indigineity as a highly visible aspect of their identity, that that form of national belonging should be presented in an article lead, and that any wikilawyering along the themes of "only one nationality can be included"/"it should reflect a recognized Westaphalian state" ought to be set aside as un-encyclopaedic, IMO.

Also, I would point out to Skyerise that while First Nations in Canada have a status that is essentially similar to "Federally recognized tribes" in the US, the respective statuses of Métis and Inuit indigenous people - while also constitutionally entrenched - operate along different principles.Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That's where my issue lies, and I see it like a WP:CONLEVEL issue; the US made a local decision that the wider community doesn't agree with or recognise. Consensus is against. Tribal nations do not have absolute authority or external autonomy (as demonstrated in Tribal sovereignty in the United States). By definition, they're not sovereign nations. Now, I understand there's slightly differing definitions of a sovereign nation/state, but the ones I've seen (including the definition under international law) have included having absolute authority and the ability to enter talks with other sovereign nations (foreign powers). That's what I'm basing my stance on; if they're not legally recognised as a soverign nation/state, and nationality/citizenship relates to soverign nations/states, then there is no nationality/citizenship. Internationally, that is literally the case; the EU considers tribal passports "fantasy passports", which means at least in Europe, their US-recognised dual citizenship does not exist. The two instances I could find of international travel--which would imply some kind of legal recognition--were in reference to tribal lacrosse teams; one was refused entry in to the UK in the mid 2000s and the other travelled successfully to Ireland within the last decade, but I don't find that very convincing when looking at the context (publicly invited by a government sporting body for a competition).

I think I'm in agreement with Newimpartial's point about when indigenous people carry their indigineity as a highly visible aspect of their identity, as long as the nationality/citizenship to the relevant sovereign nation is in the first sentence. – ².O.^Boxing 22:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the recognition of North American first nations by the U.S. and Canadian governments is any more of a local decision that the wider community doesn't agree with or recognise than the UK/FIFA decision to recognize Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as we have discussed at my Talk. I also don't think it is up to Wikipedia editors to decide who are or aren't sovereign nations, nor am I aware of any basis in WP policy to assign nationality exclusively by selecting among Westaphalian states. That isn't actually what the policy text in question tells us to do, it isn't what our articles do now, and I haven't seen a formal proposal here to change policy and practice to insist that this is what we should do, either.

Certain editors believe that all, or nearly all, biographical articles should provide a Westaphalian assignment of nationality of their subject, while other editors believe that the relevant country, region or territory is not always a national state, and that it is up to sources not editors primarily to decide which national identities are relevant to a subject's notability. But if there is a strong argument against the inclusion of Indigenous identities in the lead paragraph for biographies where they are strongly emphasized by high-quality sources, I certainly haven't seen such an argument in this section (nor does existing policy provide the basis for one, AFAICT). Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Best not lump Canadian indigenous and American indigenous people together. Sovereignty is not recognized in Canada in the same way. We have guidelines at indigenous Wiki project... but these are antiquated American style views.[4]. Moxy- 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't mean to lump Canadian indigenous and American indigenous people together. I do maintain, though, that in both cases national identities have been documented in RS that may be relevant for the lead paragraph of a biographical article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Having nationality recognized by the country they inhabit is not the same as International recognition ( no passports) same as the Quebec nation simply National recognition with zero International implications. That said the example giving is to link Native American and or First Nation etc... then to link their tribal identity. This seems like we're linking Native American and First Nations all over the place for nothing more than a link that does not explain anything more than the tribal link would about indigenous heritage. Moxy- 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Newimpartial here. As a member of the Indigenous Wikiproject, we deal pretty much daily with editors who don't understand the differences between citizenship and heritage, and who don't know how to accurately write about these things. Having the Wilma Mankiller example in this link has been very helpful. Even if the section needs to have some of the other entries compressed or removed, I am strongly advocating for putting it back. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit adding a section on nationality include the referenced phrase. Is there any objection to adjusting that, like the other similar guidelines here, to be explicit about exceptions where the subject still has a strong connection to a previous nation? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Presumably you mean these edits by User:Skyerise. I see that Skyerise has since been using that section as a bludgeon to erase the national origin of people who grew up and were educated in one place but now work in another, making the lead give the false impression that these people were always of the nation they happen to live in, even in cases where we do not have evidence of their current citizenship. For example, Vida Dujmović, from the former Yugoslavia (if I remember correctly Herzegovina, not Croatia?), educated in Croatia, edited by Skyerise to say she is (only) Canadian. She moved to Canada as an adult and still works there. By now she may well be a Canadian citizen. But we do not have evidence of that, nor do we have evidence for what the answer would be if you asked her what nationality she has or what country she is from. If you asked the same question of me, the answer would probably be "it's complicated". A clause saying "most people have one nationality" is obviously true, in the abstract: greater than 50% of the world's population has not changed nationality, I think. But it is ridiculous to apply that clause to the minority of people to whom it is not true, as if we can only accept an oversimplified picture of the world where "most" somehow has morphed into "all".

What I would like to see is a much more explicit policy that, for people for whom the question of nationality is in any way unclear (there is more than one country they have been associated with), we refrain from stating a nationality without explicit sourcing for that citizenship. Otherwise, we can say things like "Yugoslav-born computer scientist who works in Canada". To do anything else is to guess, and guessing is something we should avoid in biographies and especially in BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a much more explicit policy that, for people for whom the question of nationality is in any way unclear...: Guessing on one's nationality is already covered by WP:V and WP:OR. —Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:CONTEXTBIO, back when the shortcut used to be WP:OPENPARA, has always been worded to prefer the use of a single nationality. Back when it was at OPENPARA, it had nearly exactly the same examples as I restored. At some point the material got reorganized and the examples got lost in the reorganization. The examples I added are pretty much what was there before the reorganization. I know Asimov was used at the first example in the original examples. The other examples may use different people than the original examples... The original reason for this - yes, I was around during early discussions that led to the guideline - was that nationalists and revisionists of various stripes want to "claim" the person. Thus there were edit wars between Americans and Russians over Asimov. The short version is: there is no reason to mention a country in which the subject simply resided without becoming notable for anything. The guideline also accounts for people whose citizenship is unknown but who reside in another country at length with obvious employment. They can't do that in the US at least without a green card. And that's why the guideline states "or permanent resident". While I personally don't add nationalities where citizenship is not clear, it is completely within the guidelines to call someone who has taught at Harvard for 20 years an American - even if they were born elsewhere, retain their original citizenship, and are only a permanent resident of the US. In the original discussions, the key was: where did the work for which they are notable mostly occur? If it is predominantly in a single country, that's the context that supported them while they did the things for which they became notable. Only if notable work was done over multiple countries should we even think about adding a second nationality. The guideline only cover the first sentence. There is no bloody reason to say "Yugoslavian-born Canadian" when we can say "is a Canadian blah blah. Born in Yugoslavia, he moved to ..." The "nationality+profession" is used for both short summaries and a quick check on proper categorization, which are two reasons for preferring a single nationality in the lead sentence. Skyerise (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason to say "Yugoslavian-born who works in Canada", in exactly the example I gave. Because we do not have sourcing for any one citizenship. So to state a citizenship we would have to guess. We should not guess and we should not encourage guessing. It is very different from the case of Asimov that you cite: for Asimov, he came to one country (the US) as a child, and we have a source for him becoming a citizen of the US as a child. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it seems footballers are some sort of special international citizen with different rules - or at least so said @GiantSnowman:. However, while GS claimed that there are different guidelines for footballers, they did not link to any such guideline. So I am not sure whether such an alternate guideline even exists. If it does, I'd be happy to follow it if someone would be so kind as to point it out to me. Meanwhile I'm just skipping footballer articles when they come upon 'random article' Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

An alternative is to NOT MENTION nationality in the first sentence - at all: “Joe Blow is a footballer, currently playing for Puddlesby United” … “Jane Doe was an acclaimed actress, best known for her staring role in the silent movie ‘Hamster Capers’.” Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? It's much less informative and much less clear. The second example runs afoul of WP:PEACOCK - which frequently happens when the nationality is not present: then they are "famous", "prominent", or "acclaimed" rather than American or German. Skyerise (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Because usually a subject’s nationality has little (or nothing) to do with what makes the subject notable. The first sentence should focus on what makes the subject note worthy. It should focus on what they do or did… not where they came from. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also because often for people who have flourished in multiple countries (as is very common in academia) we do not have sourcing for their citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

And we don't have to per "or permanent resident". The academic born in Europe who has lived and taught in the US for decades may reasonably be described as American even without a citation for naturalization. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No. Stating a single nationality in the lead is unambiguously a claim that the person has a single nationality. In the cases we are discussing, it is often false and even more often unverifiable, and you are actively pushing for the inclusion of falsehoods and unverifiable claims in our article leads. In the case of someone who has one citizenship but works in another country, or a dual citizen, or someone who has held multiple citizenships while performing notable activities, we should not push the false narrative that they are entirely of one nationality. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Just as a footballer's citizenship can be determined from football rules, permanent residency in many countries can be determined from length of residency and employment, at least in the US; though residents of Commonwealth of Nations countries I think can work in any CoN country, and I don't know how the EU handles such things. If you think we should not do this, then perhaps we should start a discussion about removing "or permanent resident of" from the Context section, though its been there as long as I can remember. Skyerise (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. Do not do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to comment on footballers, I believe the real-world issue is that at any one time, players can belong to one and only one national team - they must have a passport in their national team nationality, but of course they may have passports in other nationalities and their country of residence or of work need not correspond to their national team nationality. In this instance, it would be an unfortunate surprise to readers if the national team nationality were not prominently presented in the arricle; in some cases it may he the greatest claim to significance of the player, according to the RS. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What I am seeing is a misunderstanding between ethnicity and nationality and citizenship. Moxy- 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This is intented as a reply to me, so I will ask what misunderstanding you see. "FIFA nationality" is a strict subset of legal citizenship - it could also be understood as a subset of nationality of occupation. Obviously, nationality of residence and nationality of occupation are distinct concepts. But for people who are notable precisely in relation to a certain form of nationality (e.g., national team membership), should Wikipedia not continue to present this consistently in biographical articles? I don't know what "misunderstanding" you have detected. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Americans are unlikely to differentiate between ‘citizenship’ and nationality’ in everyday language, this is not the case in other countries. Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, and only in cases where it is verifiable and relevant to the article. For most articles, place of birth denotes nationality. When it comes to the United States, U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals. Still, not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. Moxy- 15:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

We should not let footballers drive our guidelines for non-footballers. The fact that international footballers play for a national team, and are required by FIFA to be citizens of that nation, gives these people a definitive nationality that many other expatriates and emigrants do not have. We should not base our guidelines on the false assumption that nationality is as easy to determine for other people as it is for footballers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I commented on footballers above it was only to point out a key characteristic of that case (that they may be notable for an activity that is dependent on exercising a particular nation's citizenship), not as a paradigm applicable to non-footballers. Also, I would point out to Skyerise that footballers are in fact a very specific demographic in that they may exercise another citizenship more frequently in their personal or professional lives than they do their national team citizenship - but the latter may be highly relevant and thetefore feature in the opening paragraph (q.v. Carleigh Frilles).

As I pointed out in my recent contribution to the discussion of Native American nationality, I have seen editors disagree not only about the application of the nationality guideline but about its spirit as well. (Moxy's comment above, Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, is an example of what I referred to in that earlier post as a gloss, simplifying and transforming the guideline into a principle some editors support but which policy text does not actually stipulate.)

I would like to point to four biographical articles about Canadians that handle the issue differently, but each of which makes sense in the specific case: Jonathan David, René Lévesque, Mary Simon, Buffy Sainte-Marie. None of these correspond in detail to any of the examples Skyerise added to the MOS, but each seems to me to reflect the interaction between high-quality sourcing and Wikipedia policy in an appropriate way.

TL;DR - I don't think there is "one right way" to handle the diversity of cases of nationality in biographical articles, and I'm also skeptical that the list of examples added late last year are especially exemplary. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that nationality can be defining for some people, ethnic origin can be defining for some people (probably fewer), and neither can be defining for others. Furthermore, for many article subjects neither of the above are verifiable. While I understand the desire for standardization, I think that neither, either or both should be included only if 1) verifiable and 2) defining for that individual. Buidhe public (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The original issue, as I understand it, was people claiming the subject for their side (ethnicity, nationality, whatever). For a subject that has verifiable connection to their birth country, including BirthCountry-CurrentCountry seems natural. The guideline should focus more on what fits the subject rather than defending against crusading editors - with that defense being covered as a special case "when there is serious contention." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to not use any such descriptions in the intro of BLPs or bios-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality in the lede is important context for a biography. GiantSnowman 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus behind the section Skyerise added in November

I seem to have missed it, so could someone point me to the on-wiki interaction that established the consensus that was then documented in the series of edits under discussion above ([5])? While I see some useful clarification among those edits, I also see a good deal of confusion and an editorial preference to move further away from the sources of BLP articles than any previous consensus or community practice would require. Could someone clarify this, please? Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we move away from reliable sources? That seems like WP:OR and no discussion anywhere on Wikipedia can validate such an approach. Slywriter (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I, for one, am not suggesting that we can move away from reliable sources. I am suggesting, rather, that the added policy text encourages editors to depart from following the reliable sources in many cases. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also interested in finding the discussion that lead to these additions, specifically the Native American example. I found this proposal from November with only one reply from Skyerise before it was added. It's probably worth noting that CorbieVreccan was the one who added the footnote in March 2022. I had a look in the WP:IPNA talk page archives but couldn't find any discussion there. I'm still presuming there's one thats eluding me. – ².O.^Boxing 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I posted on this talk page. There were no objections. [6] Skyerise (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Native American wasn't in the previous examples. Considering there doesn't appear to be consensus for something so contentious, I'm going to remove that one until its been appropriately discussed. I don't really have much comment on the other examples; they're close enough to the previous ones and seem to accurately reflect the guideline. – ².O.^Boxing 08:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Determining 'which' nationality to use in a bio, has at times been a thorny topic. Do we go with "birth country"? The country the person lived in most of their lives? The 'only' determining factor, would be what do reliable sources do, per individual. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be naive of me, but don't we just follow reliable sources? Or is the issue these are all database entries deemed notable that have no RS coverage? Slywriter (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Then there's the United Kingdom situation, which can certainly be thorny. Some individuals prefer to be called British, which they're called as such in reliable sources. While others prefer English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish, which they're called as such, in reliable sources. But, that's another rocky area. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is that different sources have different standards. Many sources are reporting ethnicity instead of nationality, using terms like Italian-American, which is ambiguous. We should not follow such sources, but rather follow our own Manual of Style. Skyerise (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Err no... we follow sources, not our MOS. If our MOS disagrees with sources, the MOS is wrong and must be corrected to conform with WP:V and WP:OR. Slywriter (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The MoS is not wrong. Whether to present nationality alone or combined with ethnicity is an editorial decision. Another publication's MoS may permit such constructions, or even encourage them, which is why they present the material that way. Neither our or their MoS is "wrong", they are simply incompatible. We do not "follow the sources" just to put ethnicity unnecessarily and inexplicably in the lead sentence. Better to take a whole sentence to explain it, usually in the early life section. Otherwise every black American will be described as "African-American", which conveys too little information to be clear. Were they born in America or Africa? If an African-American moves to Africa, are they now an American-African? Wouldn't white people who moved from the US to Africa also be American-Africans? It's best to unpack into ethnicity and nationality, and follow WP:ETHNICITY. Really. 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that I know being hyphenated-American is important to the subjects of two biographies I take an interest in. They are proud of their origin, have been back to inspire those in their country and have even attempted to play for their country-of-origin national team. The current guideline strongly discourages leading with their (well documented) hyphenated status when it is a key part of their identity. The MOS should not do so, IMO. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic pride is specifically why ethnicity is not encouraged in the lead sentence. In such a case I'd suggest detailing why they pride themselves on their ethnic heritage as an Italian-American (or whatever) later in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why discourage it if it is key part of who they are? I can see discouraging it if the editors are using it as an expression of their own view on matters independent of the subject, but if the subject is active in their birth country (it's not necessarily ethnic) it seems a good way to help establish "who they are." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not so much people who are notable for their ethnic pride, but rather people who might possibly be of some ethnicity, maybe, if you guess by surnames, and Wikipedia editors with a lot of ethnic pride who want to highlight that supposed ethnicity everywhere they can find it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Your addition of nationality examples in November had the edit summary: "add examples of presentation of nationality according to the committee-written guidance". For reference, can you provide a link to the old version where these came from, or a link(s) to relevant discussion for the specific wording. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba:, the MoS pages have been moved and reorganized so much that I cannot find them. I remember discussions leading to the examples being added (vaguely as I am elderly), and remember the examples being in the guideline in 2010 - 2012, when I was mostly working on New Mexico topics and Taos art colony biographies, before the whole MoS page and subpage structure got renovated. At some point during that renovation the examples got removed. I am sure they were there as I have been following these examples since about that time. At one time they were at the shortcut WP:OPENPARA, but that's been re-targeted several times and I suspect deleted at least once as I remember it existing before the current redirect was created. I continued to use it to point to the examples for some time, not realizing they weren't there anymore. Though perhaps I am just getting old and forgetful... I've also been unable to find a discussion leading to their removal, so I think the removal was probably inadvertent. I think examples are good to have, though perhaps some of the wording and intent can be improved, since I had to write them anew from memory there may be differences from the original that may need to be addressed? Skyerise (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If I look at WP:OPENPARA's history, the shortcut was created on 19 December 2010‎. The examples at the MOS on that date mostly match the examples currently at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Opening paragraph. I didn't find an explicit set of nationality examples from before.—Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the discussion before the main section was added. But for the Native American bit with Wilma Mankiller: There was a lot of dispersed discussion leading up to it, at various article talk pages where the same issues kept coming up (as I referred to above), and at the wikiproject. When it was proposed on MOS talk, there were no objections. So for Squared.Circle.Boxing to say it was "contentious" doesn't line up with what happened. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Dual nationality: hypenate or "and"

In the examples added on 13:05, 15 November 2022, there's two examples for dual nationality that use "and" and discourage hyphenating:

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician

For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.

• Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor

This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.

However, these examples were added to the MOS only shortly after they were changed in the respective bios:

• 12:51, 15 November 2022: Schwarzenegger changed from "Austrian-born American" to "Austrian and American"
• 12:57, 15 November 2022 Lorre changed from "Hungarian-born" to "Hungarian and American"

These were not stable versions. However, per the policy WP:PROPOSAL:

Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.

Do the changes reflect a standard practice? Are there examples of where this has been followed, prior to the MOS change? It seems to contradict MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES:

For people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when using the combination adjectivally and a space when they are used as nouns, with the first used attributively to modify the second

The changes still might make sense, but I don't think we should rely on WP:SILENCE as consensus for this.—Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As for contradicting dual nationality, that guideline make sense everywhere but the lead sentence, where it leads to ambiguity because it is mostly used there for combining ethnicity with nationality, which is a different thing. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

When describing dead people as they relate to achievements, records and currently-living people, what tense should I use? Specifically, for Puti Tipene Watene, we currently have “he is the only person to both represent the New Zealand national rugby league team and become a Member of Parliament” and “He is the great-grandfather of rugby league player Dallin Watene-Zelezniak” (emphasis added). If there’s general agreement on the right way to phrase these, I think it would be worth adding them to the Tense section, even if only to guide confused souls like me. — HTGS (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think 'is' and 'was' respectively for the two specific examples above? GiantSnowman 21:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Right you are, GiantSnowman. Once someone "enters the record books", that part of them leaves the body to seek its fortune as a historical figure. Same name, whole other game. A grandfather is more like a lawyer or acrobat, where the sentience itself must be "in the flesh" to "do the job". Even then, though, it gets tricky. In the context of a family tree, ancestors and descendants still are exactly where they've always been, in pages like record books for relatively unimpressive accomplishments. When we start talking kings, queens and those thought to have perished in submarines, things turn drastically more convoluted and the likelihood of a short and clear way to put it for everyone to understand just ceases to exist. But yeah, think "place in history" vs "person on Earth" for a good "rule of thumb". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The first one could be made less inelegant by using the present perfect: ...he is the only person ever to have both represented...and become.... (Conveniently, become is both the present tense and the past participle.) That puts the overt action in the past but is formally in the present tense, which is appropriate because the possibility of someone else doing the same thing has not closed. If the NZ team and Parliament no longer existed, then "was" would be correct. --Trovatore (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

First ever, only ever, both too wordy. Everything is always ever, by default, it's right there in the name. And "and" conveys the idea of two things just fine, forget "both", I advise. Aside from that, you might be on to something with "become". Good luck, rulemakers! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

At O.G. Anunoby, his full name is verifiably sourced as "Ogugua Anunoby Jr."[7] MOS:FULLNAME reads:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials).

However, MOS:JR says:

Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources.

Should "Jr." be included in the lead sentence's full name, if it's not part of the title i.e. WP:COMMONNAME? —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It must be used in cases cases where the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources. Hence John McCain starts with "John Sidney McCain III", his father John S. McCain Jr. with "John Sidney "Jack" McCain Jr.", and John S. McCain Sr. with "John Sidney "Slew" McCain". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason for requiring suffixes to be commonly used, a higher standard than we have for other parts of a full name, such as obscure but verifiable given names e.g. Elizabeth Stamatina Fey (Tina Fey)? —Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:: You recently made edits that introduced this restriction for reliably sourced full names in the lead sentence. Can you comment if this was the intended effect. Was there a wider discussion on this topic? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I can only view a limited portion of the article, so I can't say if that sports column is in my view a RS that the Jr is used. It certainly doesn't seem commonly used in his case. As for the edits, I simply made clearer, by changing "well-attested" to "commonly used" what was the case, that such suffixes should only be used if commonly attested to in reliable sources. That's hardly new in the MOS. There are too many cases of people throwing in a Jr. because the father had the same or a similar name and there's no reliable source saying Jr. was ever used. I think the distinction you are looking for is that the "obscure but verifiable" parts of a name are legally part of the name but the "Jr." is a disambiguator, not part of the name, used to distinguish between two people, which is generally dropped at some point without a legal change of name. Are you saying that one column by a sportswriter in the Sun makes the suffix "well-attested" but not "commonly used"?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. The source says: He’s actually Ogugua Anunoby Jr., son of a scholar, brother of a former NFL player. If I understand your concern correctly, editors should not WP:OR that a person legally added Jr./Sr. to their name. I am familiar with David Arseneault Jr., whose WP:COMMONNAME is referred to with "Jr.", but where it's dubious that it's part of his legal name, since he has a different middle name than his father. With Anunoby, his father is not publicly notable, so there's no conflicting evidence that their middle names dont match, and there is no reason to believe "Jr." is dubious. In my experience, people's middle names and suffixes are not commonly referred to in reliable sources, but are generally presented on WP as their legal name if reliably verifiable. While there is reasonable doubt to not include "Jr." as part of a legal name like with Arseneault, I think "commonly used" can be too confused with COMMONNAME, setting an excessive bar, in Anunoby's case. Anunoby's page title should remain without "Jr.", but it seems reasonable that it's part of his legal name, as we would treat a source if it mentioned a middle name instead. —Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that even "well-attested" is calling for something of higher magnitude than "reliably sourced". How would the "reasonable doubt" be established? Omission of the "Jr.", in Anunoby's case or generally, would prove nothing. Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

An edit summary at Anunoby said "32 of the 33 references used omit the suffix"[8] Of course it will, when it's not his COMMONNAME. The MOS change put new emphasis on the lead's full name, when MOS:JR before was only referring to a page title and the use of WP:NATURAL disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I would see if there is support for Jr. in sources not used in the article, especially league, team, and from networks like ESPN. If they don't use the Jr. then the single sports columnist starts to look like an outlier. I'm not sure that the parallel between middle names and Jr. is appropriate, a source is not likely to synthesize a middle name but might use a Jr. or Sr. without much thought when they're discussing the father and he has the same name as the notable son. That doesn't mean the writer's discovered what the rest have overlooked, that he uses a Jr. No matter what the wording of the MOS, a single source would seem scanty there. Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Granted, I made up that classification because I don't know what the correct classification is but that is the pith of my question. How should we best handle the pronouns of those that have expressly admitted that they don't care?

For us to not care in the article makes a mess of things and can cause confusion in reading the article.

For us to enforce a pronoun against the expressed desires of the subject seems disrespectful.

Do we litter the article with "(he/she) said" or "s/he said"? Do we default to "they" (despite the desires of the subject)? Padillah (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• If the subject has not stated a preference, follow the sources. Note - not any one specific source … you need to look at the pronouns used in aggregate by lots of sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd largely second this. The only thing I'd add—and this is strictly hypothetical, but so is your question :) —is that we should be careful to distinguish between "a subject not caring what pronouns others use to describe that subject" and "a subject not expressing a gender self-identification." I.e., there's a distinction between "I go by he/him, but I don't really care if people call me she/her" (in which case the article should use "he/him" pronouns) and "I have absolutely no preference as to my pronouns."--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    My apologies for not making clear:

    • The subject has explicitly expressed that they don't care what pronouns are used.
    • This is not hypothetical. This is in direct response to Chris Tyson and their lack of interest in their own pronouns.

    Padillah (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

    • My mistake! I misread the "made up that classification" as implying the issue hadn't presented itself. So, assuming no preference as to pronouns has been made, then I'd say combine -sche and Blueboar's suggestions. If the article is already one thing, consider leaving it in place, but if a clear majority of reliable sources use another, switch to that. (By default, I realize that approach is likely to leave assigned-at-birth pronouns for people who transition, but if they're genuinely declining to self-identify and, instead, saying they prefer any pronouns, then I think "leave it as is" makes the most sense.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Jerome Frank Disciple: In case of Chris Tyson all RS, from what I've seen, use they/them. (see my responses at Talk:Chris Tyson)

      Also, what do you think of the notion that what Tyson's pronounces is doing should be treated as a neopronoun (to me it seems to be in that spirit), which would warrant they/them usage under MOS:NEOPRONOUN. I think in a situation where there wasn't a clear or unanimous usage in RS then NEOPRONOUN might be best to follow, which would result in they/them usage. Though, that is getting into the hypothetical. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

      @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:—if that's the case, I'd probably follow that! (Don't want to imply I'm somehow an authority on the subject, but I think my "proposed" solution of "in case of no preference: keep as is unless a clear majority of articles use certain pronouns" rule would endorse "they/them" if all of them do. :) ) As to the neopronoun issue ... I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you twice in one thread. I don't think I have enough subject-matter familiarity to give an informed response. It doesn't strike me as entirely unreasonable—in my experience, the "generally keep the article as is" rules can create cycles of edit warring—I remember, way back, there used to be frequent bouts over American/British spellings. "In case of no preference, use 'they/them'" certainly might be a cleaner approach!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(e/c) In the past, when it's come up that someone is fine with any pronouns and has no preference between the pronoun people had been using and some other pronouns, articles I'm aware of have kept using whichever of he or she they had been using (there being no reason to change), e.g. Rebecca Sugar's article uses she (and has a footnote that she uses either she or they). As discussed on her article's talk page, some people think all nonbinary people use they, but that's not always the case. In the case that prompted this, someone was referred to as he pre-transition, came out as gender non-conforming and said any pronouns were fine. If we were to speculate about the WP:FUTURE, then given that the person is on HRT I wouldn't be surprised if the person later expresses a preference for she or they — starting out with "any pronouns are OK" to be as accommodating as possible, and later realizing and expressing that only one specific pronoun is right, is a common trajectory. But that's something we can accommodate if it happens; right now, the person has said "any pronouns" are fine, the person's friends have kept using he, and sources have either used he, used they, or avoided pronouns. One editor interprets GENDERID as recommending they/them. I don't see that it recommends any change at this time. -sche (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: with due respect to your response, I'm not aware of any sources that use he/him in regards to Tyson. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Of the seven articles I could find (that were not other wikis or pure fan pages) four of them use he/him.

The biggest issue I have in defending this is the lack of RS coverage. I'm beginning to think this point is moot when compared to the notability of the subject. As far as I can tell (from a quick Google) Chirs is notable for being on MrBeast and being trans. For WP that's not enough. @-scheand @Iamreallygoodatcheckers you have both posted your opinions, both here and on the talk page, let's give others a chance to weigh in and develop this discussion. Padillah (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

We need to find a better formulation for opening sentences. The first sentence should focus on what makes the person notable… and in most cases the person’s nationality is a secondary characteristic, not what makes them notable. Most people are primarily known for being an academic, or a singer, or a business man (etc)… not an American academic, or a British singer, or a German business man. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like most encyclopedia, has already decided that nationality is important to convey up front. This is a totally separate discussion which should not be attached to my RfC. Start your own RfC about it. I'm changing the heading and heading level. To differentiate your tag-on from the my question. Pretty sure this is a non-starter, but hey, go for it! Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s common sense that national identity is intrinsic to who someone is as a human being, not their job. Trillfendi (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If nothing else, the discussions currently visible on this page should make it clear that there is no clear consensus among editors what national identity means. Some editors assume that the relevant national identity for BLPS is always, or nearly always, represented by a national citizenship (and this is clearly the case in some instances - such as members of national football teams - where citizenship is directly tied to Notability). Other editors are more interested in following the sources, and the sources will often frame BLP subjects in more varied ways, emphasizing region or territory rather than Westaphalian state, and sometimes invoking national identities that may, for example, include Indigineity.

Some editors seem comfortable to exclude WP:V information, such as birthplace, from the lead section while being equally comfortable making what amount to WP:SYNTH assertions about nationality (assuming that someone who has lived somewhere for a while must have citizenship or permanent residency and have thus acquired a "national identity", for example). Some editors hold to a Westaphalian principle in most cases while not seeing the treatment of UK subjects (for whom the specification of English, Welsh or Scottish nationality is typically required even for non-footballers) may reflect a practice relevant in the case of other multinational states.

So I might personally agree that national identity is typically a defining characteristic for most contemporary living people, but that personal opinion doesn't help guide in (1) deciding how a person's national identity should be determined and (2) deciding what level of source support is required for inclusion of this information in the lead paragraph. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

deciding what level of source support is required for inclusion of this information in the lead paragraph: At a minimum, it must be verifiable. —Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

For the reasons laid out by Newimpartial and Blueboar, we really need to pay attention to how sources describe the subject and follow suit accordingly. If RS do not emphasize an individual's nationality, neither should we. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In answer to the question: in most cases, no. Place of birth can be obtained from the infobox and body. If nationality is more complicated than that, the details can be provided in the body and (per 'lead summarises body') summarised in the lead if appropriate. There can't be many people who are notable for their nationality and we enter a quagmire with identification by region/people/religion, etc... taking it out of the opening is a clean solution. EddieHugh (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really find the argument that nationality/citizenship doesn't tell the reader important information about the individual's notability. On the contrary, it usually conveys where the person is/was notable. Saying a German business man can convey geographic information about the subject as well as just the citizenship/nationality. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The MOS:CONTEXTBIO guideline reads:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.

It seems the de facto standard to achieve this has been to state nationality in the lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that country, region, or territory doesn't necessarily equate to where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. The second part seems to mean almost exclusively Westphalian state, which would equate only to country. There are many cases where the region or territory may be more pertinent to identity and notability than country. See the prior example about Carles Puigdemont or the arguments on this page about Wilma Mankiller and whether or not tribal citizenship trumps Westphalian state citizenship. In some cases, nationality may not be directly relevant to their notability; for example Carsten Höller was born in Germany and apparently still holds German citizenship, but grew up in Belgium, made some of his early notable art in Italy, and now lives in Sweden. Is he a "German artist" because of his passport? An "Italian artist" because of his early work? A "Swedish artist" because that's where he lives? Or is "European artist" a better description absent any WP:RS where he is labeled German, Italian, or Swedish? Even when nationality/citizenship may help explain where a person is/was notable (per TulsaPoliticsFan's comment), is an adjective the best way to do it? For example, John Edward Bouligny's first sentence names him as "an American politician who was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing the state of Louisiana." Is "an American politician" really necessary there? Even if a reader wasn't sure if Louisiana was part of the United States at the time, it's clear he served in the U.S. Congress, so that should clue them to his nationality. In this case "American politician" is also ambiguous because he was elected as a member of the American Party (aka the Know-Nothings). Maybe the party affiliation is appropriate in the first sentence, but then it's not an indicator of his nationality. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be strongly in favor of a well-written RFC to de-emphasize nationality in cases where it is not closely connected with the biographee's notability. Most political figures should probably have nationality in the first sentence, but I see no good reason for it for, say, scientists and mathematicians. In many cases arguments over this piece of trivia become the most contentious aspect of the bio, which is just silly. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the cases where a one-word description is contentious or over-simplified, the location of their notability can be described with additional sentences later in the lead. FWIW, nationality in the lead sentence appears to be the norm in Encyclopedia Britannica. —Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The location of their notability???? Mathematics and science have no location. Well, I suppose some sciences are about location-specific things, but not necessarily where the person studying them comes from or works. --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The guideline says "should usually provide" (and there's anyways WP:IAR), so use common sense for exceptions. Perhaps "location" can apply if one does most of their research in a particular place e.g. their home country. —Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a reason it's linked from WP:CONTEXTBIO. The intent is to give the reader a quick idea about the where context. When is covered by parenthetical dates. Every reporter knows that who. where, and what, are essentials. Ask yourself - if you as a reader were just doing a quick check for context ... was he Polish or British? ... and really only intend to read the first sentence... what would you expect to come away with? How far into the article are you willing to read? If an automated process collected first sentence into an index, would it have enough info to give a quick idea of the whole context? Skyerise (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the hypothetical RFC I would support might well comport a change to CONTEXTBIO as well. I haven't really read that guideline so I don't know whether it also would have to change, but that would certainly be on the table.

I don't see why a "where" context is necessarily always key to bios. If the person was known for things of universal importance, then they really have no "where". --Trovatore (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

How is the "where" context not necessarily key to a biography? Every person lives in a place, a where, somewhere. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But why is that place important? Specifically, important enough to go in the first sentence? Sure, there aren't a lot of people who are complete cosmopolitan nomads (there are some, but for now we can consider that a corner case), but even if someone lives in a particular place, why should that place be one of the most important things the reader should know about the person? --Trovatore (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The status quo text of CONTEXTBIO seems to imply a logic something like, "all lives are lived somewhere, therefore BLP articles should open with a statement about citizenship or resident status of the subject". This logic does not seem to some of us entirely consonant with the WP:5P. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

But is nationality the best way to provide that where context? "Polish" or "British" might indicate where, but not definitively. If Pawel Tumilowicz were to meet GNG, "British businessman" would describe where he is active, but would misstate his nationality. "Polish businessman", as he's described in the Telegraph article, is correct about his citizenship, but not his area of activity. "Polish-born English businessman" or "England-based Polish businessman" would be most accurate (providing both nationality and geographic information), but would be discouraged by the "single nationality" guideline and could be ambiguous if "Polish-born English businessman" is taken to mean a change in citizenship. I think part of the problem here is that "British" and "Polish" as an adjective can describe both a geographic context and nationality or citizenship (as well as ethnic group), but WP:CONTEXTBIO specifies that nationality is the one that matters, even though it isn't always the best indicator of where. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the long-standing wording "Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable." I'd go with "Polish businessman based in England". We don't allow abbreviations like don't - why should we insist on abbreviating what we say in the lead sentence with hyphens? It just makes the details unclear. The idea here is quick clarity. Why should we begrudge the inclusion of the single word "in" as "too long"? Do you really mean to say that 3 to 4 extra characters is too high a price to pay for clarity? Skyerise (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is more to drop the "Polish" rather than the "England". --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think "Polish businessman based in England" is fine. What I would object to is what was stated in the #Most living people will be described with a single nationality... discussion: it is completely within the guidelines to call someone who has taught at Harvard for 20 years an American - even if they were born elsewhere, retain their original citizenship, and are only a permanent resident of the US. In the original discussions, the key was: where did the work for which they are notable mostly occur? If it is predominantly in a single country, that's the context that supported them while they did the things for which they became notable. Per that sentiment, Tumilowicz would be labeled "English businessman" (he presumably became notable in England, where he'd been living for a dozen years).

If I'm following you correctly, your main objection is to hyphenated nationalities (Polish–British in this case, which doesn't seem to be how Tumilowicz (or RS) refers to himself), but the prior discussions and the straight reading of CONTEXTBIO also lean into the idea that we shouldn't say something like "Polish businessman based in England" (or "Yugoslav-born computer scientist who works in Canada" to pull an example from the other thread).

The point I'm concerned about is that most people may well have one nationality, but nationality/citizenship isn't always what's relevant to their notability or identity. Adhering to The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident, the Dalai Lama would be described as Indian, not Tibetan, which is ridiculous. (Yes, there is conditionality in the CONTEXTBIO statement, but "in most modern-day cases" implies that exceptions will be rare.) People should be described as they describe themselves and/or how WP:RS describe them. Sometimes this will mean a single nationality; other times it may be a regional or ethnic (hyphenated or not) adjective or a more complex phrase. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion from Skyerise's RFC above. The question on-point here is, should we call out Tumilowicz's nationality in the first sentence at all? What's wrong with just dropping "Polish"? Of course his nationality can be treated in the body, maybe even in the first paragraph, but why does it need to be in the first sentence? --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a lot of overlap in these. I'd agree that nationality isn't always going to be needed or appropriate, but the where notability occurs may be relevant. So the conflation of nationality and location in CONTEXTBIO remains relevant (which is why it's been pointed to several times in this discussion). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality is important - it's defining, and the majority of categories are nationality related. Removing from the lede serves no purpose and would result in literally hundreds of thousands of articles having to be amended. It's not an issue. GiantSnowman 19:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Who says it's "defining"? What does that even mean? --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think they're referring to WP:DEFINING since they're talking about categories. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not under the impression that an attribute needs to be presented in the lead sentence for the category system to work. Also, if the way the current category system works for biographies depends on WP:OR, then maybe the problem isn't with CONTEXTBIO? Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah it is not clear what the problem is with having nationality in the lede? GiantSnowman 06:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, nationality is an important characteristic that I'd prefer listed for every subject. Ortizesp (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So first of all, the direct question is not about the lead, but about the first sentence; these should not be conflated. The problem is that any ambiguity becomes a battleground for nationalists, and it gets pretty tiresome. As long as we can defer discussion to somewhere later in the lead, maybe even in the lead paragraph, we can usually come to some reasonable formulation, one that doesn't make nationality more important than the things the person is actually known for.

As for many articles "having to be amended", I'm not advocating for a rule that would require removing nationality from the first sentence in cases where it's non-contentious or when it's actually a major part of the subject's notability. I would just de-emphasize it, make it clear that leaving it out of the first sentence is also a valid choice in cases where the source of the person's notability is not closely tied to nationality. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

But there is already flexibility in pages where it doesn't make sense in the lead sentence. MOS:CONTEXTBIO says In most modern-day cases.... It's a guideline, not a policy, and even for those WP:IAR always applies. "What about..." exceptions don't preclude a general guideline from existing. —Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sure, there's flexibility in principle, though in practice going against a guideline is a heavy lift even when the justification is pretty clear. I'm not really looking for a radical change here. What I've observed is that, on a repeated basis, large fractions of the bandwidth in editing discussions are consumed by arguments over nationality and other forms of group identity, on bios of persons where these are largely beside the point. I think it would be helpful to tweak the wording of the guideline to tone down emphasis on these.

One possible solution would be to state explicitly that, when nationality is ambiguous or complicated, it may be desirable to leave it out of the first sentence, and explain the complications later in the lead section. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with equating nationality wirh citizenship, and then putting a poorly sourced statement about citizenship in the lead sentence, is fairly obvious, no?

I also think insisting on a national state as first sentence "nationality" (unless the subject is from Wales or Scotland) while ignoring how high-quality RS actually desctibe the biographical subject is pretty clearly problematic. Doing so in service of the category system would seem to put the 5P upside down, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Question is - Can nationality be applied to all bio pages? That's a mighty big task, to get a consensus for an across the board application. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTBIO does say "in most modern-day cases." A living person is going to have, in most every case, a clear place where they were born, a citizenship (although they may have more than one), and a place where they live and work. For a many people, all three of those may be the same, but for many others they aren't. All of these will likely be included in a bio article, maybe in the lead section, but "nationality" does a poor job of describing which of those is relevant in the first sentence of a bio article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment Where a subject is only - or mainly known in a particular locale,(US or UK for example) and only covered by local sources, addressing a local audience, nationality will often not be mentioned at all - since it will be assumed to be known by that audience. This obviously isn't an indication that the nationality of that person isn't important. I'm inclined to agree with those that say nationality, along with the where and when of birth and upbringing, and similar info is basic biog info - the number of people for whom such info isn't relevant and/or interesting is probably tiny(even if their life develops mainly elsewhere and/or in a different cultural environment). Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Either nationality, country of birth (unless the country of birth was merely accidental because mother was accidentally or by-force temporarily away [vacation, quarantine, displacement, etc.]), citizenship, or all of the above should definitely be clarified in the lede sentence. Follow RS descriptions if necessary, but must list at least one of those. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Fundamentally relevant information to bios. One of the first questions a reader is going to have is what nationality is/was a person. Different approaches may be relevant for different articles and depending on sources. E.g. an ex-patriot might have "American-born" rather than "American" and some people born in Scotland might have "Scottish" while others might have "British". There is no one-size fits all for this, a bit of common sense is needed, and correspondence how the person is described in sources. Some articles may not need to state it at all. Again, common sense and individually tailored treatments are appropriate. WP:NATIONALIST clowns can be dealt with as they arise. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I propose that the nationality examples recently removed be restored. I ask that we break the discussion into two parts: first support or oppose !votes for whether we should include any examples. Second, discussion to resolve the exact wording and presentation of the examples to be added. Accordingly, I've put the most recent version at the top of the subsection. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support There have been a few recent RfCs that have used the examples here to find consensus. This should be restored immediately and then any discussions to change should happen after. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support the principle of having a few examples, though the actual text and examples need further discussion. For a start, the introductory text talks about living people, yet all but one of the examples given are dead. The native American example also appears to be controversial and ought to be discussed separately. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is already an example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples, with Cesar Chavez shown with "was an American labor leader..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I hadn't seen this RfC and already reverted the removal. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Nationality examples

Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases). Examples of how to handle historical subjects vary:

The simplest example is someone who continued to reside in their country of origin:

• Daniel Boone (November 2, 1734 [O.S. October 22] – September 26, 1820) was an American pioneer and frontiersman

The second example is someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country:

• Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992) was an American writer

  Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance.

In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician

  For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.

• Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor

  This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.

Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. Indigenous people's citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.^[a]

• Wilma Pearl Mankiller (November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American (Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

Finally, in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted.

• Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance polymath, active as a mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic canon

  Copernicus's nationality is disputed, so it is omitted.

Notes for examples

1. ^ For additional guidelines on naming conventions and sourcing Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, see Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities.

The above is a starting point for discussion. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - unless explicit consensus is obtained somewhere for Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the guideline shouldn't be saying that most living people should be described with a single nationality. This is true whether or not editors want to include a list of examples. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The examples flow from that "single nationality" point and I don't think that it's necessarily correct in every situation especially when the lines around what counts as "nationality" aren't settled. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's not true that most people never have more than one nationality? Just trying to understand why you think it's an issue... it would be easy enough to modify that to say "Since most people are only citizens of their birth country, most subjects will be described with a single nationality." I never intended it to be prescriptive but rather descriptive. I would have thought that obvious logic, but apparently not... Skyerise (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not you realize this, but your modified proposal now imports the assumption that nationality equals citizenship: because X fact about citizenship, therefore Y rule about nationality in articles. I would not regard this as obvious logic, and it is not really a claim supported in the status quo of the guideline.

Also, the modified proposal carries the (probably unintended) implication that people who are not (and perhaps never were) citizens of their birth country, or people who had one citizenship at birth and obtained others later, will be described with multiple nationalities. I'm not sure this logic is in line with community consunsus, either. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is a problem my original wording does not have. Are you just wikilawyering because you don't like the proposal? Can't tell. Skyerise (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I was simply responding to your modified proposal. The problem with your original wording is that there isn't evidence to date that the community supports it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise, no, the issue is that their nationality (in the sense of the nation-state in which they were born or live) may not be the most relevant thing in the intro especially if the direction is that a Westphalian state nationality is the only thing that should be listed. Depending upon the person, their regional, ethnic, or religious identity will be more relevant than their citizenship/residence. For example, a strict reading of single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status (modern-day cases). would have the lead for Carles Puigdemont describe him as a "Spanish politician" instead of (as it currently does) "a Catalan politician and journalist from Spain." His identity and notability are tied up with Catalonian independence, not his Spanish citizenship. As others have noted in the myriad discussions and threads here, we should follow WP:RS and shouldn't insist upon a Westphalian state nationality in the first sentence when it may not be the best way to describe someone. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent example to add! Skyerise (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I was looking for more writing on this and found two wikipedia essays that may be helpful. This one (Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality) is originally from 2007 and seems to have been received poorly. This essay (User:Mr248/Citizenship and nationality) was written in 2021 as an attempted rewrite of the 2007 essay and I thought was super interesting and may be helpful in building some consensus here.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove Daniel Boone There is already a basic example showing "an American" (Caesar Chavez) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples

Remove Isaac Asimov MOS:ETHNICITY already says: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability., and MOS:BIRTHPLACE says Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability However, there may be cases where it is tied to their notability. Anne Frank, an WP:FA, reads ...was a German-born Jewish girl ... Chris Lu, a WP:GA, reads ...is a Chinese American political advisor...—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger and Lorre Are there other exisitng examples that show support for "and" over hyphenated dual nationalities? As discussed at #Dual_nationality:_hypenate_or_"and" (above), those two bios were changed within the hour before the MOS examples were added. Also note that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES supports hyphenating.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove Nicolaus Copernicus Already multiple examples at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § First sentence examples that do not use nationality.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. In addition to Bagumba's demolition of these examples... the first example is wrong: Boone isn't described as American in that sentence; he's described as an "American pioneer", which is linked as a single phrase. He was also born before the US was created, so can't be an example of "someone who continued to reside in their country of origin". In the second example, "continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country" is too open to interpretation: what does "identify as a citizen of their adopted country" mean? What evidence is needed to support it? For Schwarzenegger, "avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is ... about dual citizenship"; is it? He wasn't an Austrian politician and he wasn't an American bodybuilder, so I don't see how this construction has reduced ambiguity. Around half of Lorre's talk page discusses his nationality, so this is a shaky example (Hungary didn't exist as an independent country at the time of his birth). In the final example, "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted" is wording to be avoided: it's encouraging the inclusion of nationality when it isn't relevant. And "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race"... great (although what does "status" mean?) ... (as with the other examples) what about the rest of the world, outside North America? And the opening – "Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently reside and have citizen or resident status" – jumbles nationality, residence and time. EddieHugh (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: Please do explain this IMHO unfounded revert. And please note: We also have the Nixon example in the preceding text, which is resumed in the table as well. Hildeoc (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! First, in reviewing this, I did notice something I missed the first time. When User:Surtsicna reverted you [16], it was because you suggested pope could be capitalized even if not used as a title.

But I still wonder what your addition does except extend the table. By my reading, MOS:OFFICE isn't complicated or ambiguous on this point. Prior to the table, it says that positions are not capitalized when referred to generically and are only capitalized in certain circumstances, included when used as a title or to address a specific person. It then provides quite a few examples, pope included, to illustrate both those exceptions. Then, the table provides three different examples of formal positions, showing where they would and would not be capitalized. Your proposed inclusion ... just added a fourth example. But what extra insight or helpfulness did it provide?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you could say the same for the "president" examples, couldn't you? And considering the fact that pope is often falsely capitalized (as in my previously erroneous example ... was cronwed Pope) when deemed solely a title, this fourth example for the sake of clarification probably would not really hurt, would it? Hildeoc (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

First, is position often mis-capitalized? I haven't seen that—and, frankly, I'm not sure you adding a mistake to the MOS (and being promptly reverted) shows that this is a recurring issue. Second, and more importantly, even if the pope is often mis-capitalized, is that because the MOS is unclear or because the editors mis-capitalizing it haven't reviewed the relevant portion of the MOS? I strongly suspect the latter, and adding an extra example to the table will do nothing to change that. You haven't stated how the MOS is not sufficiently clear as is. Are there long debates I'm not aware of in which people argue about whether the pope should be capitalized according to the MOS?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are you being so fastidious here? Check out this or that, for instance. And why don't the president examples seem to bother you, even though they are already invoked in the text preceding the table? Hildeoc (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

... I'll be honest I didn't expect you to link to random grammar articles on whether the pope is capitalized. I meant on Wikipedia—but fair enough! My fault for being ambiguous. My position is that we don't need a fourth example to the relatively longstanding three that we have—specifically, that the example offers no clarity not already offered by what's been there. In theory, we could also have new rows for many positions—attorney general? pastor?—but none of these examples would add clarity; they'd be redundant and detail for the sake of detail. Happy to have other editors weigh in if they think the pope row is an improvement.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I recently got an edit reverted (see here) in an article about a university where I changed "Professor" to "professor" in front of a person's name.

I was linked MOS:PEOPLETITLES, which states: "Overview: Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name".

However, the section in "Titles of people" called "Academic or professional titles and degrees" specifically states "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title".

The capitalizations I changed were simply of professors, not people known as "Professor [Name]". I'm wondering if my initial edit was correct here, as I'm a bit confused now. Any help is appreciated, thanks so much! HeyElliott (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually hadn't noticed that portion of PEOPLETITLES before. From memory, I had thought that the policy applied to subsequent mentions ... but I may have to go through some articles I recently worked on and fix that! Either way, I do think your edit was mistaken. "Professor" is being used as a title in the diff you link—even in your version; you're just making it a lower-case title (which MOS:JOB allows for "commercial and informal titles", e.g., "OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan". So, if the issue is that academic titles shouldn't be used, then the appropriate edit would be to say, for example, "and Patrick Nuttgens, a professor" ... not "professor Patrick Nuttgens". If it is permissible to use "professor" as a title on first mention, I'd read the guideline to require capitalization.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense, thank you! So since it states that academic titles shouldn't be used, it looks like I should edit it to say "and Patrick Nuttgens, a professor".

Thank you again, and I hope you have a great day! HeyElliott (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course "Professor" should be capitalised in front of someone's name. I agree the section in MOS:PEOPLETITLES is confusing, but I believe what it actually means is that we should not refer to someone as "Professor Smith", but only as Smith (and also that we should not include academic titles inline in the first line of someone's article). It's perfectly acceptable to include an academic title when referring to someone in an article not about them for the first time using their full name (Professor John Smith), just as we would include a military rank (General Sir John Smith). "Blah, a professor" just looks ridiculous, incidentally, and is completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the follow-up input. I'm not sure I'd agree with the "ridiculous" comment ;) (after all, it's not that unusual to list a job description after a person's name— "John Smith, a professor at UCLA, said" ... "Jeff Smithy, a construction worker at a nearby power plant, left ..." etc.) But otherwise, your understanding of the section was what my recollection was; I just have a hard time squaring that with the text of the section. If this guideline only covered subsequent use, wouldn't MOS:SURNAME be sufficient? It says: "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only – without an honorific prefix such as 'Mr.', 'Mrs.', or 'Ms.', and without academic or professional prefixes like 'Dr.', 'Prof.', 'Rev.', etc. – or may be referred to by a pronoun." Given that, under your interpretation, what's the point of MOS:CREDENTIAL?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that "a professor" in American English tends to be a euphemism for "an academic". Whereas elsewhere "professor" is only an academic title restricted to the most senior academics (full professors in American parlance) and is not used as a generic term for academic staff. You could say "John Smith, professor of English" if he does indeed hold a chair in English, but "John Smith, a professor" is certainly not a good alternative for the far more natural "Professor John Smith". I agree with MOS:CREDENTIAL being fairly pointless, except where it refers to the first line of a biographical article and use of postnominals for degrees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have made some changes that I think clarify what most people understand MOS:CREDENTIAL to be getting at, and how we seem to apply it generally. As always, correct me if I am wrong. — HTGS (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, to be on the safe side, I did regret that edit. Ultimately, I'm concerned that it touched on far more than what was discussed here (changing the policy for post nominals and also suggesting an "attachment to the institution" change that I didn't see anyone here discuss—and, based on what we did articulate, that rule wouldn't be consistent with my understanding or Necrothesp's understanding). Maybe those statements are how we apply the policy generally, but I'd like to see a bit more evidence. I think we should probably discuss the specific changes before we make them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Jerome Frank Disciple. I appreciate that not every change I made was discussed—and in fact, much of it wasn’t a direct response from to this discussion, but an attempt to make the guideline reflect what I see as convention and good practice—but what I hope is that none of it was unreasonable or disagreeable. If you disagree with the particulars, please revert those, but sometimes it’s just better to let the guidelines move forward, rather than hold a debate on every word. If you are amenable, would you consider putting back the changes that you would agree with? Or otherwise let us know which changes go against your own preferred practices? — HTGS (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I realize sometimes shortcutting the deliberative process can be far more efficient, but I also think we have to take the pains of deliberation when necessary, and I'm currently leaning towards thinking that it's necessary here, though as a compromise I've tried to work back in some of your proposal. As I said, I know you made a claim about how your proposed changes reflect how "we seem to apply" MOS:CREDENTIAL generally, but I'm wary of that claim given the lack of examples. My more specific concerns are: First, why did you take out "at their first mention" from the post nominals section? Are you aware of many articles that include post nominals after the first reference? Second, I think the language of the intro you added didn't make much sense. "For the subject of biographies, [academic titles] ... should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title." ... Did this mean, essentially, "The subject of a biography should only have an academic title attached to their name if that subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title."? If so, I'm okay with that, and I've made that change, but I think that the wording I used is clearer. If you meant something else or you disagree, obviously feel free to revert me. Third, I don't think your placement made much sense. Why was the new guidance on academic titles (i.e. relationship with the institution discussed) included after the discussion of post nominals, and not in the first paragraph? Also, are you saying the titles should only be used on pages related to the institution? Doesn't that go against the School Project guidance?--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully it’s evident that I wanted to parse the division in how we treat the subjects of biographies and how we might introduce other people (typically experts) in other pages (whether the biographies of other people, or not). As the two paragraphs run, I wanted to make clear that the first was for subjects of bios, and the second for other people.

To your questions:

1. Did you mean that I added "at their first mention"? I added this because I don't see that for the typical case where we mention, quote or otherwise include a person, that we need to give their title more than once. At best, this is a principle that maybe we could leave unsaid (per WP:CREEP), but I don’t subscribe to CREEP as much as many others, and it fits easily enough in there where we are (trying to be) being quite clear in how we credential people.
2. Yes. 100%. I don’t find your version as clear, but as far as I can tell, they mean the same thing.
3. I genuinely didn’t have any good idea where to put that (Academic and professional titles ([eg] Professor Margaret Doe) should only be added if the person has a relationship to an institution being discussed.), so I just plonked it on the end. I thought it obvious that it should not be relevant to subjects of their own biographies. Please do rearrange within that second paragraph if you have a clearer way to put it.
   As to the actual addition: our attitude is generally “don’t add credentials or titles without good reason”, but, per above, there is clear interest in keeping (eg) “Professor Patrick Nuttgens” on the University of York page. Affiliation to any pertinent institution seemed the best reason to include such titles; there may be other reasons.

Oh and to be clear, I’m entirely happy to be disagreed with, or corrected on phrasing, but I didn’t have a clear impression you did disagree, and I would hate for us to have to deliberate on such wording for no reason haha. — HTGS (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

My mistake on "at their first mention"! I'm okay with that being re-added. Also, I'm in favor of some of that paragraph being clarified, because quite frankly the use of "subject" is confusing. "Post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the subject's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject" ? I'm still a bit confused by the third point there. I'm on the move but I'll come back later and see if I can parse it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! There's a new RFC on MOS:GEDNERID, based on the discussions regarding "next steps" in the above RFC. Link to the village pump discussion. The RFC will capture 3 topics, a broader inquiry than the above RFC, and, as to two of the topics, it will include multiple options. Thanks everybody--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the agreement on asking these questions? There's a lot of discussion above, but I don't see agreement, and now the questions – not agreed on – have been raised on another page. I don't see this as being a respectful approach. EddieHugh (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize! Certainly wasn't my intention to be disrespectful. When discussion died down on the the above RFC (which was an RFC as to the proposal ... that spent a fair amount of time discussing what should happen next ... and then pivoted towards whether deadnaming should be limited at all), I decided to be bold and just suggest a different RFC. (I thought it might be a bit too much to essentially have an RFC for what an RFC should say, particularly bearing in mind that everyone is free to propose alternatives to an RFC's proposals!) I worked with User:Sideswipe9th, who proposed the last RFC, split the inquiry into three questions, and tried to incorporate proposals or ideas that were mentioned above and that were discussed in the discussions I had seen. Fortunately, the newest RFC has attracted a fair amount of attention and—at least for now—it appears a consensus might be possible on each of the questions—with other users suggesting one beginning (I can't emphasize enough it's very early) to look like a SNOW close. Hope you can participate!--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th's proposal