The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

---

Initial proposal

The guidelines currently say:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out.

I find this illogical and dislike the suggestion that encyclopaedic information should be omitted. It's also extremely inconsistent to apply such a guideline only to transgender people. Bill Clinton was certainly not notable when he was William Blythe; Portia de Rossi was not notable when she was Amanda Lee Rogers; and Chuck Lorre was not notable when he was Charles Michael Levine.

Of course, all of their articles mention their former names, and I think most people would agree that to not mention these birth names would be contrary to everything the encyclopaedia seeks to be: according to WP:ABOUT, "The ideal Wikipedia article is well written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge."

So what's the difference for transgender people? Is it believed that the subject of the article themselves might find the mention of their birth name offensive? Or that someone else might on their behalf feel offended? Well, Wikipedia is not censored, and certainly feelings of offence that we imagine the subject of an article might feel are not a sensible reason to suppress verifiable information about them. The subjects of articles should not have any say in how facts about them are reported. After all, if the feelings of article subjects are of concern to us, then it should not just be transgender people who we look out for. Chuck Lorre's article reports that he said "as far back as I can remember, every time I heard my last name I would experience acute feelings of low self-esteem", and yet that last name is reported.

It seems to me that someone's birth name is pretty much always of encyclopaedic interest if it is known, and their own personal feelings about their birth name are seldom known to us and are not relevant in any case. Thus, I would suggest that this guideline be omitted. What does anyone else think? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, making the fact that they're transgender THAT obvious could encourage discrimination against them. Maybe you can do it when discrimination against LGBT people has decreased. 2601:2C1:C004:4900:BD04:8B7D:BB53:4F01 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that you're opinion as a transgendered person, or are you purporting to speak on their behalf?2001:56A:F567:3700:D9A0:2729:376:D853 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Would that be relevant? I'm sure both kinds of people are taking on both sides in the following discussion. ~Mable (chat) 12:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: The difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed assumption does seem relevant. Do transgender people whose birth names are already publicly accessible by a simple web search care if we mention it the same way we do for anyone else? Or do we have a bunch of people saying we know what’s best for them? Or do we have FUD over the notion that editors will go to extreme lengths to dig up largely unreported birth names, which shouldn’t be posted on Wikipedia anyway? These questions matter. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is certainly not FUD. In fact, transgender people have been fighting to keep this information from becoming publicly accessible. In New York, for example, it is now possible for a transgender person to have their name-change application and order sealed by the court and the publication requirement waived, due to the potential danger associated with publicly "outing" a transgender person. There may not be a public record connecting their legal name to their birth name. So yes, they do care, and no, you cannot assume this information is publicly accessible. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: The FUD comes in with worrying that our editors will deliberately expose these people in violation of WP policy. And that a style guideline would be the only thing standing in their way. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Our policies are normally designed to encourage diligence in finding reliable sources so that we can take obscure information and disseminate it widely. For Laverne Cox, the subject's birth name was included based on one relatively minor source, which later removed it at the subject's request. Following its inclusion in Wikipedia, it started appearing in a number of other sources, with USA Today specifically acknowledging they got it from here, citing that as evidence that the name is "out there". Meanwhile, most reliable sources didn't publish the name. Critical examination of the operation of our normal policies and their effects on this complex issue shouldn't be dismissed as FUD.--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What does "deliberately" have to do with it? As Trystan notes, it's possible for a Wikpedia editor to cause harm to a transgender person without specifically intending that harm. And I was directly responding to your initial statement, which was to ask whether transgender people care if this is mentioned or not. You have been given a very clear answer, which is that yes, at least some of them definitely do care. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: Your reply started off by countering (or perhaps misinterpreting) the concern about FUD over editorial misconduct. I thought that was your main point, and that the rest of your reply was in support of it.

@Trystan and Shelbystripes: I didn’t think we were talking about the possibility of WP editors outing people whose previous identities were not public knowledge. I thought WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:BLPPRIVACY, et al. strictly forbade us from doing that. But it sounds like we need to look at clarifying policies like WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and WP:V rather than a style guideline; the concern here isn’t where in the article the content is placed, but whether the content is appropriate to include in the article at all. I mean, if BLPPRIVACY isn’t clear enough to the point that we’ve had a domino effect from unintentional violations, the MOS is the least of our problems. And that’s way out of the scope of this page.

But back to my original point in this thread: Yes, it matters whether the person posing concerns is speaking from experience or not. It’s relevant. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50:My initial comment was providing feedback to (1) your question of whether transgender people actually care about the publication of such information, and also (2) the matter of whether such information is publicly accessible, which you presupposed in your comment about FUD. I agree with you that the larger issue of whether to provide this content at all is beyond the scope of this, but I was addressing your (incorrect) assumption that such information is always publicly accessible. It is not. This relates to the larger point of FUD, and how transgender people feel about this issue, in the following respect: It is fair to assume that transgender people do, in your own words, "care if we mention it the same way we do for anyone else". It is fair to assume this because there are active and public efforts by transgender individuals (such as in the story I linked from NCTE earlier) to limit the publication of their birth name together with their current legal name. Because this position, taken by many in the transgender community, is well known and public knowledge, it is categorically not FUD as you have suggested. At least, since you suggested FUD as the opposite of transgender people caring about this kind of mention. And yes, I do also have personal experience interacting with transgender people that supports this. Perhaps that clarifies my point, which is that many transgender people do care about this issue, because they do not want the prominent publication of their legal name together with their birth name. For purposes of this discussion, I guess that's all you need to focus on, but there it is. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: I was addressing your (incorrect) assumption that such information is always publicly accessible—I made no such claim. Any such information which we are ever permitted to publish anywhere on Wikipedia is publicly accessible. (Put another way, if a transgender person’s past name is not readily available to anyone interested, that person is excluded from the question.) The FUD I referred to was over a hypothetical concern that malicious editors would violate that basic tenet because our users are a bunch of transphobics (note: I’m sure they’re not, as a rule). If that concern is not hypothetical, if our editors have harmed people by wrongly publishing private information as Trystan pointed out, then any and all discussion on the matter here should be shelved until that massive problem is properly addressed. And if I haven’t explained this before, the questions in my initial reply here were meant only to show why it mattered who was voicing the concern raised at 22:06, 1 June 2016. I hope I have now sufficiently clarified my previous comments.

As for the efforts to conceal former names: I have no doubt that there are also transgender persons who have no qualms about revealing the fact that they’re transgender or revealing their former names, because people are individuals. There are also non-transgender people who would prefer to have their former names or identities stricken from any public record. That’s a case-by-case issue, not one for a sweeping rule, especially not one that singles out a class. But again, this is not the time or place for this discussion. so that’s the last I’ll say on that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That’s a case-by-case issue, not one for a sweeping rule, especially not one that singles out a class. Except that we have rules for very good reasons, and one of those reasons is to avoid harm. So if there's something that could be harmful in some cases but not others, the logical conclusion there is not to avoid adopting a rule, the logical conclusion is to adopt a rule that protects against harm when it's necessary permits and allows case-by-case exceptions where appropriate. That does seem to tie into the current discussion, too. Any rule we adopt should avoid a default position that encourages the highlighting of birth names of transgender people, because it can be harmful to do so in many cases. We can create a rule that allows exceptions, on a case by case basis, but it's still important to discuss and agree on what the default position (in the absence of a "case-by-case" exception) should be. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It does tie into the current discussion, but that discussion is in the wrong place—it belongs at WT:BLP or somewhere more general, not at the talk page for something that has no say in matters of content. If a name is allowed in the article by all relevant policies, I see no problem including it in the lead. I also see no problem moving past names from all BLP leads, or establishing some sort of recognizability threshold. Basically, again, I see no reason to single out a class of people in a style rule, as if they’re the only people who might have reason to hide a past identity. They’re not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

*Support: I'd tend to agree here. Seems like political correctness overstretched in an area that compromises on article quality. NottNott|talk 22:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Going to expand on my comment seeing as I'm likely to start a full discussion regarding this.

The issue is in the clear exception made to the usual policy just because someone is transgender or non-binary:

1. Current policy states that someone who simply changes their name has to have their former name included regardless of how notable that person was at the time.
2. Why should there be an exception for transgender/non-binary people?

I feel as the larger debate must consider whether anyone who has had a changed name must have their former name(s) included in the lead section, and how this would impact on article quality. Leaving the policy as it is and giving unjustified preferential treatment toward transgender and non-binary people just makes an unnecessary distinction in trying to not cause offense as well as compromising on article quality. NottNott|talk 22:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As of 00:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC) I'm retracting these comments I have made nearly two weeks ago. I'm not doing it because my intentions were wrong at all - I'm doing it because this post was poorly worded in a way that could make me seem transphobic. I have received a fair share of comments throughout this RfC that I want to address now.

1. I support the LGBT rights movement fully and unequivocally. I possibly should have mentioned this to begin with as some editors have seen this as some conservative Wikipedian POV-pushing some backwards philosophy that hates LGBT people - I'm far from this. I feel as if I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer like that in any contentious topic as supposedly we comment on policy, not people in RfC's - but perhaps it's better to be clear now.

2. My main issue is with the wording of the policy, not the implementation of it as it is right now. Transgender people shouldn't have a policy written in their interests that applies exclusively to their group while entirely avoiding concerns regarding former names that any other BLP could have. I feel as if this politicises the wiki in relation to recent advances in LGBT rights rather than making any attempts to create a more neutral policy. Transgender people are not to be talked down to so they are not to be given special treatment in this way - this only serves to undermine their cause as if they're extremely special people who have to rely on exemptions naming them specifically in policy.

• The exception should be made the rule. This avoids politicising policy almost as if it is slanted toward pro-LGBT groups rather than impartial like it should be. If naming anyone in the lead section can potentially cause disproportionate harm to that person per WP:BLP then it shouldn't be done. Always make sure that all former names in a major BLP are included in the article body - WP:NOTCENSORED. If someone is relatively unknown but still has an article, former names aren't relevant to their notability and so shouldn't have to be included at all.

• As a rule of thumb, my opinion doesn't support changing the way content is written in articles whatsoever, rather I only have an opinion about how the policies are worded in Wikipedia namespace - this means WP:MAIDEN and any other guideline related to naming in the lead section would remain the same. These policies don't harm the person.

3. I started this RfC as a bold edit because the original IP poster (79.158.212.99) wanted to start a discussion but probably didn't know how to start an RfC. I didn't ever feel like repealing the policy entirely was the right choice but to me and in my eyes this was the IPs RfC. The IP never explicitly mentioned the lead section of an article, so there could well have been a misunderstanding that he thought this applied to the entire article (instead of just the lead). In that case, that's fairly funny considering how such a long thing started over a small misunderstanding

I didn't start this RfC wanting to overthrow all the established conventions of biography writing. I also don't come from an article creation background by any means. I simply feel that firstly Wikipedia is not a platform for social change (policy should be worded neutrally) and that any issues regarding naming in articles can be reworded to work in every BLP's interest rather than just one group. If anyone wants to respond to me about what I've said here it's probably best done on my talk page as this RfC is too full now. But I simply won't tolerate anyone not assuming good intentions on my part - I've been an editor for three years now and both the integrity of the wiki and my small space in the community itself mean a lot to me. Thanks for the time. -NottNott|talk 00:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: Thanks for that. I can see that you meant well, and have learnt from this.

However, there are still a lot of things which you still seem to misunderstand, and that's why you have received a fairly critical response. For example:

• You still link to WP:NOTCENSORED. If you read it, you'll see that's not relevant, because it's about the sensitivities of readers. This issue is about protecting the privacy of living people.
• You made a bold edit in good faith converting a proposal into an RFC ... except that you appear not to have read the instructions on how create a WP:RFC. It requires a neutral question, which was not the case with what you did here.
• This is not and never has been about politicising policy or wp being a platform for social change. It is about the BLP policy not to do harm to living people.
• That principle of not harming people may require us to treat different situations differently. There is no policy requirement to do everything the same way. Maybe a common approach is appropriate, or maybe not; some analysis of the pros and cons is needed, but the BLP priority is not to do harm to living people.
• You write above that you ((support the gay rights movement)). Fine; that's your right, just as you are entitled to oppose gay rights. But this discussion is actually not about gay rights, so that's irrelevant here. It is about avoiding harm to transgender people, who may or may not be gay ... and about avoiding harm to others.

Anyway, thanks for the rethink. Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for the message. Firstly, noted about WP:NOTCENSORED - thanks for that. On the RfC - the title is neutral yet the initial two posts weren't - good faith error as the first RfC I've written. It was hastily constructed during recent changes patrol, but next time I'll bear this in mind.

I reject the idea that this discussion isn't about being a 'platform for social change' as seen in your comment "[...]"privileged" and "preferential", which really are bizarre terms to apply to a group which endures such horrors as a 50% lifetime rate of being sexually assaulted". This could just be described as loaded and preferential to one point of view and could be considered POV-pushing. Using emotive language about something as serious as sexual assault as leverage to state that my view is wrong certainly doesn't indicate you've assumed good faith. This feels like the assumption like I have an agenda to punish LGBT people, and I'd truly hate for another editor to actually see me like this.

With that said, I often use LGBT and 'gay rights' interchangeably as many people do - I've corrected this in my post so apologies if you've misunderstood me there. Also this is totally WP:HORSEMEAT and doesn't improve the wiki so I'd suggest that it's left at this. It's 2:14am for us Brits and we need our rest -NottNott|talk 01:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel as if I haven't said enough, and I haven't made it clear enough how I'm standing my ground here. You've messaged enough editors with similar wiki-lawyering comments to make it clear you're not in this entirely for the BLP concerns - you're more interested in pushing the perceived concern you appear to have for the transgender community.

You shouldn't have to create a formal bulleted list to address your concerns. Claiming that I use WP:NOTCENSORED or start RfCs correctly does not undermine my argument any further. If you truly couldn't infer that 'gay rights movement' implies 'LGBT rights movement', you may be in need of a WP:WIKIBREAK more than you think. Editors shouldn't have to dot and cross their i's and t's to this degree.

You shouldn't have to link to a page listing the rates of sexual abuse toward transgender people to advance your argument. This shows an extraordinary assertion on your part and another editor may have quit over this. This isn't the type of judgement I like to see from an admin, and competence is required. -NottNott|talk 07:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNot: you seem angry, but please focus. It's not complicated, and there's no wikilawyering involved. The policy at WP:BLP is about the simple principle of avoiding harm to living people. Both the IP who made the original proposal and many others who commented lost sight of that, and chose instead to prioritise their personal preference for treating all BLPs in the same way.

You're still on this "platform for social change" thing, which is an attempt to politicise the harm issue. The issue here is nothing to do with whether transgender ppl should be protected from discrimination, or get legal recognition of their gender, or be allowed to use public toilets, or any of the other political battles out there. It is simply about the harm that may be done by giving undue prominence to certain types of private information. Whatever anyone's views on the broader politics, they don't belong here.

When editors choose to describe an editorial guideline to avoid that harm as "privileged" and "preferential" towards the potential victims of that harm, that's a prejudicial politicisation of the concept of avoiding harm. That's why it was relevant to point out the sorts of harm that happen to this particular set of living people. If you choose to view US govt data about the victims of crime as "emotive" and "loaded", take it up with the US govt.

As to competence is required, I had wondered about quoting it wrt to your actions here ... but I thought it more helpful to simply list some of the ways in which you had misunderstood the issues. I still think that's a better approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I fully support the WP:BLP policy and due care must be taken. I also think the intention behind the current policy as written is positive and fine. I don't support changing the levels of protection afforded to transgender/non-binary people in practice in articles, just the way it is worded in WP space in a way that BLP concerns can be extended to more groups of people. Giving BLP protection to transgender/non-binary people exclusively doesn't make much sense, as deadnaming can happen to many groups of people including names of those divorced, religious reasons or other subjective reasons. There is little editorial loss to removing these names in the lead of these articles and it may better enforce WP:BLP in extending the presumption of privacy to more groups of people.

We're both human beings and suffer from confirmation bias. You may see "privileged" and "preferential" in bad faith as if I'm trying to escape WP:BLP - I can totally understand that. I see the fact that you felt it necessary (not the actual contents of the link itself, they're just facts) to use something as serious as sexual assault to try and assert that I'm wrong is offensive. You said it yourself that real world politics have no place here, so using an example like that is unnecessary to building a good argument and feels rude. Your original reply to my first message as seen below simply throws me into hot water when it could have just nudged me toward explaining my views a bit better. No other editor felt it necessary to be this assertive in replying to me as it's pretty clear I'm acting in good faith. -NottNott|talk 14:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: there should be an exception for transgender/non-binary people for the simple reason that per WP:BLP we try to respect the privacy of living people, and avoid causing unnecessary harm.

Your description of this as giving giving unjustified preferential treatment is an extraordinary assertion, which you don't even try to justify against the policy requirement that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy":

1. You assert that this is "preferential treatment", which I believe is a false assertion.
   It is different treatment, but your use of the loaded word "preferential" implies that this is something which would be generally preferred, but granted only to one group. That is not the case: by far the largest group of people who change their name are married women, and I am not aware of any general preference amongst married women to keep their birth names private. However, there is a strong desire among transgender and non-binary people to do so: they have different needs, and face different issues in their lives.
   This is not a matter of "preferential treatment"; it is a matter of treating people differently depending on the impact of Wikipedia's coverage on their lives, in accordance with WP:BLP's principle of respecting privacy and not doing harm.
2. You assert that this is "unjustified treatment", without considering the reason why it is sought. The disclosure of previous names of transgender people (known as "deadnaming") is far more critical to transgender/non-binary people than to the rest of the human population, because it is routinely used as a form of harassment by transphobic people who seek to deny the identity of trans people. There is a whole major section of policy on the presumption in favor of privacy for living people, and WP:DOB imposes restrictions on even publishing the full name of a living person, because of the risk of identity theft. It is policy to consider entirely withholding basic biographical information which may lead to the victimisation of people in this way, so editors are instructed to "err on the side of caution". However, you simply reject by assertion (with no explanation) the existing guidance to extend a similar but lesser courtesy to transgender people -- not by witholding info, but simply by reducing its prominence.

So, NottNott, remember that the policy WP:BLP requires that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Note the word "must" in each.

By not even considering those issues wrt trans people, your !vote is invalidated because it contravenes policy. The closer closer of this discussion is obliged to discount it, and to discount the !votes of other editors who similarly contravene policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Limiting the "different" treatment to only one subset of the people who desire that "different" treatment is, in fact, preferential treatment of that subset. It isn't relevant that subset A has a high incidence of people who so desire while subset B has a low incidence (and you're ignoring subsets C, D, E, etc. entirely). For example, why is the "different" treatment not offered to cisgendered people who changed their name to disassociate themselves from childhood abuse or from a former lifestyle that does not correspond to their current religious beliefs? Anomie⚔ 15:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anomie: there is something highly prejudiced -- to the point of hostility -- about the application of the "preferential treatment" label to a small measure for the protection of a category of people who experience extraordinarily high levels of discrimination, harassment and violence. Do you apply the same sort of hostile terminology to disabled people who get to use a wider car-parking space?

You continue to miss the point that the redaction of previous names is not something sought by most people who have changed their names (e.g. many married women would actually oppose that removal of biographical their info). So it's a skewed logic to label as "preferential" something which many people would not want. It's like calling out the "preferential treatment" of paraplegic people who get to use wheelchairs all day when the rest of us have to walk. Most such people would much prefer not have a wheelchair ... just as most trans people would much prefer not have had a previous name which could be used to harass them.

Sure, there may be good reasons why other groups of living people might want previous names to be redacted, or to be displayed less prominently (as we do for trans people). I see nobody in this discussion opposing such a move, and if someone wants to propose other exceptions then per WP:BLP we are obliged to consider it. I really hope you are not going to argue that our encyclopedic purpose would somehow be undermined if we failed to try to prevent further harm and distress to someone who had experienced childhood abuse. Please don't disappoint me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any exceptions (and find such exceptions detrimental to the encyclopedia) when we can easily make the exception be the rule and improve the situation for everyone. It seems to me that you're so focused on protecting this one group that you're ignoring everything else and twisting definitions of words to try to discredit anyone who doesn't directly agree with you. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anomie: I am not, as you claim, focused on protecting this one group. I am focused on the policy in WP:BLP that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". That is the policy ... but the preference expressed by you and some others that we must have a one-size-fits-all styleguide is not policy.

If you don't like being called out on terminology like "preferential treatment", then don't use it. Any reasonable consideration of harm to living people takes account of their different circumstances, and how different people different protections from harm. Referring to that as "preferential treatment" is your linguistic choice, not mine ... and it is terminology designed to make protections for vulnerable people appear to be "special privileges".

If you don't like being called out on that terminology, then don't use it. There is plenty of more neutral terminology, such as "exceptions" or "differential treatment".

I now see that you support proposal A below, which might be a viable alternative. But in this section you are arguing unconditionally against the removal of the existing guidance, regardless of whether anything replaces it. That would be a very bad outcome for trans people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl and Anomie: There are could be many cases of people changing their name and feeling bad because it is included in their biography. There is plenty of variety here and everyone's case is different. You can't appease everyone - but the current policy only makes concessions to appease the transgender community. As Anomie says, we can make the exception the rule to try to improve treatment of everyone - it's about equality. I'm (believe it or not), very supportive of LGBT rights - I'm by no means conservative in this area but at the same time I don't think this should grant them automatic privilege over other groups of people. For the record my opinions shifted from 'repeal the policy' to 'extend policy to all BLPs' pretty quickly in this RfC simply because I hadn't considered that option minor retraction as of 00:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC), idea that I wanted to 'repeal the policy' in a malicious way out of line with policy is something I'd have rejected on the spot - I also wrote congruently in line with views expressed in my original post to this RfC in this response. My intent was certainly not to avoid the important WP:BLP no matter how poorly worded this might seem, apologies, as well as editors who understood issues surrounding the LGBT community better came forward to explain their view.

I use the word 'unjustified' because one group is given blanket coverage for all cases whereas every other biography isn't given any consideration into their own personal circumstances. I use the word 'preferential' because it is preferential treatment toward a group of people - this isn't dumb 'transphobia' for no reason as you seem to read it as. On a case by case basis it should be argued WP:COMMONSENSE applies, but ammending the guideline would still improve standards for all BLPs. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 18:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: as with Anomie's stance above, I had misread your position as supporting the removal all efforts to limit the damage to transgender people, and I am happy to accept that was not your intent. Proposal A might, as you hope, provide the same degree of protection, though I'm not yet sure about that: the removal of any direct mention takes attention away from the very grave risks which some people (esp transgender people) face when attention is drawn to their former names.

However, much of the language you have been using plays strongly into the hands of those who refuse to consider possible harm. Please remember that the policy objective wrt BLPs is not some sort of equality of treatment, regardless of circumstances -- the objective is to avoid harm to living people, and there is no reason in principle to require a one-size-fits-all approach.

For most trans people, the disclosure of their former names in any circumstances is a highly destructive act, because that disclosure provides harassers with a crucial tool. Similar risks may apply to other circumstances, but they do not apply to most name-changes. That's why there is a case for differential treatment.

So, whatever your intent, the language of "privilege", "unjustified", "preferential" etc has the effect of characterising trans people as seeking some sort of huge boost over everyone else when they are simply seeking the avoidance of damage in an area where they are unusually vulnerable. In supporting their calls for some restriction, I am not trying to do anyone down or place anyone in a less advantageous situation, which is what is implied by the language of "privileged" and "preferential", which really are bizarre terms to apply to a group which endures such horrors as a 50% lifetime rate of being sexually assaulted. I am simply trying to ensure that the pursuit by some wikipedians of some abstract, non-policy-based principle of equality through identical treatment does not cause further harm to living people. Far too many of those commenting in this thread are much more concerned to achieve identical treatment than to prevent harm to living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: This RfC only covers mentions in the lead section of an article. Because you say disclosing former names is highly destructive, are you opposed to the disclosure of former names in the main body of the article as well? note: preparing for exam - response might be late -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: that's mostly a separate discussion, which as you note is outwith the scope of this RfC.
My concern with the lede is that placing a deadname in the lede gives it vastly more prominence. It's not just that it places the deadname in that crucial first part of the first screenful of the page, making it much more likely to be read than something further down. As I note a few days ago a deadname in the lede will also be displayed in google searches. Look, for example at a Gsearch for Cherie Blair or Christine Hamilton: in each case, google places the en.wp biog near the top of the list of search results, displaying the former name in the snippet of lede. That's why this discussion is so important for privacy.

Similar considerations apply to usage of deadnames in infoboxes, because that data is harvested as microformats which can be used in many contexts for machine-driven analysis.

Returning to your question, I note that the current guidance at MOS:GENDERID is unhelpfully vague. I wouldn't support a complete ban, but I think there should be some sort of proportionality test, balancing the dangers of disclosure against any broader relevance. Given the BLP imperative to consider harm to living people, it should not be acceptable to include a deadname simply because it is verifiable from some obscure but reliable print source; Wikipedia has the capacity to change an "outing" from a minor local breach of privacy to a global breach, and I see no case for that sort of outing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where we differ is that you seem to think we need an explicit policy about transgender deadnames specifically, rather than a policy that urges appropriate consideration of harm (per WP:BLP) for all subjects regardless of cis/trans status (such a policy might use transgender harassment as an example of potential for harm). And your persisting in debating terminology that tries to paint your explicit exemption as not really being an exemption and lack of an explicit exemption as really being discrimination. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – The guideline does not suggest "omitting" this information, merely not placing it in the lead in bold print. I agree that we should not do this, as the guideline specifies, when a person was not notable under said prior name. It simply adds clutter. No one has suggested, anywhere, that the birth name should not be included in the article at all. It would likely appear in an "early life" section. However, that doesn't mean that we go against the WP:BLP policy and highlight an irrelevant past name in the lead, in a way that questions the legitimacy of the person's present identity. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So you'd omit Bill Clinton, Portia De Rossi and Chuck Lorre's birth names from the relevant lead sections? Under what criteria would you consider a birth name "irrelevant"? In what way does specifying a birth name question the legitimacy of the person's later name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't necessary information. If the person was notable whilst having the name, then it should be included in the lead. Otherwise, it is just cluttering the lead with information that is not relevant to the person's notability. The lead section is a summary, and highlighting an irrelevant name that existed only when a person was not notable in the first sentence of the article is giving that name WP:UNDUE weight, suggesting that that name has more significance than it actually does in the wider context of the person's biography. This does not align with WP:NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 23:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Their date of birth is also completely irrelevant to their notability. It is, nonetheless, a vital biographical detail that it makes no sense to omit. Would you omit the birth names of the three people I mentioned in their articles? Under what criteria would you consider a birth name "irrelevant"? In what way does specifying a birth name question the legitimacy of the person's later name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RGloucester: Currently anyone with a changed name regardless of their notability at the time must have that not notable changed name included in the lead. This in theory also clutters the lead giving weight to the previous name. Perhaps this forced inclusion of previous names is the issue. NottNott|talk 23:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No one, again, has suggested omitting any biographical detail. This is merely about the first sentence of a biographical article. The threshold is that of notability. If a person was notable under an old or alternative name, then that name should be included in the first sentence of the lead. If they were not, then it should be left to the body of the article. This should apply to anyone, not merely transgender people. It does not make sense, at all, to clutter the lead with names that have nothing to do with the notability of the subject of the article (I would support changing the guidelines to this effect). As far as "specifying a birth name", this is quite clear. In the case of transgender people, as opposed to others, placing the name chosen by a transgender person's parents in the first sentence of the article, bolded, when that name has nothing to do with their notability, i.e. the reason for their having of an article, gives WP:UNDUE significance to their birth name in the context of their notability and biography, and strikes me as an attempt to delegitimise the person's transition, and nothing more. It is one thing if the person was notable under the old name, but if they were not, there can be no good reason for including it in the first sentence of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You're not answering my questions. So that I can understand your thinking, can you please tell me if you would omit the birth names of the three people I mentioned in their articles? Under what criteria would you consider a birth name "irrelevant"? In what way does specifying a birth name question the legitimacy of the person's later name? And how does your logic apply to birth dates or places? What is the good reason to include those that is not a good reason to include their birth name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made my reasoning very clear, and I shan't repeat myself. Read from the third sentence of my last comment prior to this one. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not just answer the questions? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"The threshold is that of notability. If a person was notable under an old or alternative name, then that name should be included in the first sentence of the lead. If they were not, then it should be left to the body of the article. This should apply to anyone, not merely transgender people". Specific discussions on whether a person was notable under a prior name can be decided by consensus at an article talk page. That's how I'd change the guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So, specifically for those three people that I mentioned, what is your opinion? Should their names be mentioned? How does your logic apply to birth dates and places? and how, as you claimed earlier, does mentioning a birth name "question the legitimacy" of a later name change? I really don't understand why you are refusing to outline your thinking like this. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about those people, so I am not fit to comment. On the rest, I have made myself very clear. I shan't engage in this discussion further. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't know anything about Bill Clinton? I'm impressed. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

B @79.158.212.99: As a new editor you're likely unaware of the policies and guidelines that more experienced editors will be well aware of. WP:Notability is an important policy that covers whether an article is worthy for inclusion on the site. Remember to WP:Assume good faith and respond calmly - this isn't a battleground. I can support this proposal but being hostile to established editors is unacceptable. NottNott|talk 00:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile. A discussion is no use if views are not made clear, so I was asking RGloucester to clarify their views. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@RGloucester:: Your suggested revision would never work, because WP:Notability is not an intra-article content inclusion guideline, only a guideline for whether a topic can exist here as a stand-alone article. There is no connection at all between that guideline and encyclopedic relevance within an article. The guideline exists to prevent people from creating new articles on garage bands, random academics, small businesses, and neologisms, and has nothing to do with whether a celebrity's hobby garage band can be mentioned in her article, a non-notable academic can be mentioned as co-author of a cited paper, the name of a small business can be mentioned in an article about a mass-shooting that took place there, or a neologism can be given in a short list of neologisms coined by someone who is in part notable for their inventive use of language. One of the principal uses of WP:N is to cause topics that fail its qualifications to be merged into parent topics that do not. This could never happen if failing WP:N meant the content had to be deleted entirely. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is the applicable policy with regard to whether non-notable information is retained in a parent-topic article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think, in general (not just concerning transgender individuals), the rule should be: If the birth name was something they were actually notable under (such as with Caitlyn Jenner), their former name should be included in the lead. If it's reliably sourced but they only became notable under their new name, the name they're notable under should be used in the lead, and the body of the article should contain information about previous name(s). And of course, if it's not reliably referenced, it shouldn't be included at all. That should be true of anyone who uses a pseudonym or has legally changed their name; it shouldn't be specific to transgender individuals. We should never deliberately exclude entirely information about a real name or previous name if it's supported by reliable sources, but that doesn't mean it has to go in the lead if it's not actually one of the most significant points in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support: For quite a few reasons, the wording should not have the word "notability" in it. Notability is not a content matter (and we are dealing with a content issue par excellence here). It's a technical description of our inclusion criteria. Per the notability guideline, notability is only used to determine if we should have a separate article for the topic, and not the content of any existing article. Either MOS:BIO is in conflict with that guideline, or it uses the word "notability" in some other sense (highly confusing in the Wikipedia environment). From the content point of view, it makes no sense to argue that we include or omit content from the time before the subject was notable. Once again, notability is not a content guideline, and it becomes crystal-clear when we consider such content: hardly anyone is notable when they are born, lead their "early life and career", and so on, and this information is regularly included in articles and rightly so. If the person did something before or after there was "significant coverage [about them] in reliable sources that are independent of [them]" is utterly irrelevant. The word "notability" aside, the spirit of the current MOS passage is, as NottNott points out, in conflict with the rest of the guideline, or at best, a rather unfounded exception to the rule. It begs the question: why is the birth name seen as unwanted by some in the lead? If it is a matter of a profound change in identity accompanied with respect for privacy, we should turn to BLP policies rather than our style guide. WP:BLPPRIVACY lends itself to discussion on this, and concludes that it all boils down to the availability of such information in reliable sources. On a final note, RGloucester is arguing for an option (all birth names should be omitted in the lead) that is not on the table at this RfC, and it would require significantly stronger consensus to overturn that steadfast guidance of the MOS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability is merely a concept, and there's no reason why it can't be used for content just because its primary use is the inclusion criteria. Indeed, notability already plays a key role in the application of BLP policy to categorization (WP:BLPCAT) and lead paragraphs (WP:BLPLEAD). -- Irn (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that there is, because the idea has been discussed about thousand times in the last 15 years, and the clear consensus is that notability is, and only is, an inclusion criterion for a full article, and does not affect inclusion of material in a parent-topic article, which is based on encyclopedic relevance, a matter largely left to editorial consensus at an article (but within the bounds of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:TRIVIA).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that, as I pointed out, that's not true: when implementing BLP policy, notability matters. See, for example WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPLEAD. -- Irn (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Read how notability matters. WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPLEAD refer to whether the info is "relevant to the subject's notability". Here the proposal has "only when the person was notable prior to coming out". Prior notability is a non-issue here; subject is either notable or not. I'd say changing to something like "only when the prior name is relevant to the subject's notability" might address SMcCandlish's concern. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If using the word "Notability" causes a problem... Just substitute that word with "Noteworthiness" ... It means the same thing, without the confusion of wiki-jargon. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Or use other wikijargon that fits better, like "encyclopedic relevance". One slight problem we have is that a "WP:Relevance" guideline never did materialize, so any wording like "relevance", "pertinence", "noteworthiness", "non-indiscriminate nature in the context", etc., is going to have some element of wiggle room. At any rate, Dicklyon and Blueboar's gist is correct: Avoiding use of "notability" at all, or properly clarifying with something like "relevant to the subject's notability", would resolve my objection to Irn's proposition. And that objection still stands despite BLPCAT and BLPLEAD, which are also tied to relevance to the subject's notability, and do not ban inclusion of a piece of information in the encyclopedia at all just because the datum itself does not pass WP:Notability. Anyone who doesn't get that does not understand WP:Notability and needs to re-read it carefully.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - when a transgender person changes his/her name, it's a denial of that person's birth identity; to compare this to someone changing his last name out of respect of the man who raised him/her (Bill Clinton) is, n my opinion, inappropriate. You could perhaps make this claim for a person who "intended to reinvent herself" (Portia de Rossi). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand what you're arguing for here. Should people's birth names be given, or not, or are you suggesting that it should depend on the reason that they changed their name? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. People who changed their name out of denial of some aspect of their former life (gender, religion, etc) should have this wish respected, unless they were already notable under their old name (e.g Chelsea Manning); peopl;e who's name change was not a denial of their original identity should have the old name written in the lead. (I think this should apply to women who lost their original last name when they got married). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • All name changes are a denial of original identity. How can they not be? How do we ever actually know what the wishes of an article subject are, and why should we respect them in any case? Conscious disrespect, I am not advocating, but attempting to consider feelings which may be unknown and unknowable seems very problematic. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • According to the article on Clinton, He changed his name out of respect of the man who raised him, not of denial of his birth father. Calling him William Jefferson Blythe III would be undercategorizing him, not miscategorizing him. Calling Dana International Yaron Cohen would be miscategorizing her, because she changed her name to Sharon as a denial of her maleness. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
          • You see, I think you're attempting to put way too much meaning into names. Personally I doubt you known enough abut Bill Clinton to say that he changed his name 100% for reason X and 0% because of reason Y, nor do I believe that you can claim with such certainty why Dana International changed her name. And we are not talking about what we call someone now, we're talking about whether birth names should be mentioned for everyone who has changed their name, and if not, why not. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Current wording works as-is for people who are transgender as well as those who are not. To address one of the examples the IP has been badgering RGloucester with above: There is no real need to have Bill Clinton's birth name in the lead of his article, of course it should be in the body, but it is neither relevant to his notability, nor adds anything to the understanding of him that would be relevant to have in the lead of his article. This is the case for most subjects who are notable after a name-change, regardless of the circumstances. Likewise for people who are notable before a name-change, then yes that generally should be mentioned in the lead. Either way, Birthname is a subsection of the MOS which is an editing guideline (not a policy) listing best practices, it can be ignored on case by case basis subject to local consensus at the article if there is a need to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The current wording is "In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given [in the lead sentence] as well", with a specific exclusion for transgender people. Are you suggesting that the exclusion for transgender people be extended to all articles? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah I see what you mean. Well yes I would still oppose removing the specific exemption for transgender people unless it was extended to everyone equally. EG: "Where subjects have changed their names - birthnames should not be in the lead unless they were previously notable under that name." would replace both sections. Cant complain about special treatment, it makes no restrictions on discussing the name change in the body of the article, and where necessary the birthname will still be included in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • But why should birth names not be mentioned in the lead? You say that Bill Clinton's birth name doesn't add to the understanding of him; why, then, should we mention when or where he was born? These are similarly unnecessary, by that logic. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Why should it? The lead is a summary of the article, it is not required (and is generally frowned upon) to go into detail regarding everything in the article. Arguably lots of biographies would be improved by leaving the non-essential biographical data to the infobox's and the body of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Speaking as a trans person who has changed their name (legally as well as socially): Referring to a trans person by their previous name (deadnaming) is a form of misgendering, and can cause emotional distress (gender dysphoria). Cisgender people who change their names do not experience dysphoria, so the situation is not analogous (though they may experience discomfort with their previous name for other reasons). Even if the trans person's previous name can be found by searching online, there is no need to emphasize that name in their Wikipedia article if they were not notable before they transitioned. Funcrunch (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that it would be absurd to imagine that all transgender people feel a particular distress about their birthname that is not shared by any non-transgender person. I further think that we, generally speaking, have no way of knowing how a person with a Wikipedia article feels about any of the facts that appear in it, and I do not think they should have any say in it anyway. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't say "all" transgender people feel distress about their birth-assigned names.. But gender dysphoria is a very real condition that nearly all transgender people experience, and misgendering can exacerbate that condition. Even if a particular trans person does not mind seeing their previous name, displaying that name prominently in a Wikipedia article - for a person who was not notable before transition - sets a precedent that it is permissible to refer to trans people this way. Wikipedia leads appear prominently in search engine results, so this site has a responsibility not to cause unnecessary harm. Funcrunch (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Obviously I know that gender dysphoria is real. But I don't believe Wikipedia articles set the precedent you claim. Do you have any evidence of harm being caused in this way by Wikipedia articles? 79.158.212.99 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I do not take it as obvious that you or anyone else knows that gender dysphoria is real, or understands what it entails. As an editor active on the LGBT Studies Project, I see denial of that condition and other trans-related issues all the time. As far as evidence of harm, I don't have a citation on that immediately to hand. Funcrunch (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  It's WP's job to present properly sourced, encyclopedically relevant facts, regardless whether the subject would like to expurgate some of it. Otherwise we would never include anything controversial. The difference under discussion here is much like the difference between including Winona Ryder's high-profile shplifting arrest, and dwelling on a misdemeanor someone was convicted of a decade before they ever did anything notable. And it isn't even that cut-and-dry. Pre-notability facts can become relevant when the off-WP world gives attention to them and increases their interest level in the public mind.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  I question the validity of your comparison. Changing one's name in the course of gender transition is not in any way comparable to committing a crime, even independent of one's notability. There needs to be a compelling reason to include information that can potentially cause avoidable harm to a marginalized class of people. The public's curiosity about a trans person's gender history is not a sufficiently compelling reason. Funcrunch (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  So substitute another comparison. I provided a birthdate one below, and could generate 20 additional ones. It doesn't matter whether the genesis or nature of the fact in question is comparable or not; what matters is sourcing and encyclopedic relevance. The crowd that wants to always include old names is making a mistake in that regard. So is the crowd who want to expurgate them no matter what. They're both extremist positions that are not doing any relevance analysis, which is always going to be case-by-case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do find this an interesting question. I can't say much about deadnaming people in a lead section; it's honestly somekind of awkward balance of mental health and consistency in a world where "original name" is seen as something "official", but I would like to make a comment about bolding a deadname in the lead section. I would strongly oppose to doing that, as a bold name is usually a name under which a person may be known. In case of a transgender person that is only really known by their real name, this just isn't the case for their birthname. I suppose you could make a form of legal name argument ("it's their official name!"), but seeing as legal name changes exist, this just seems rather moot. Honestly, in general, a deadname is just not the same as another kind of birthname. It's difficult to figure out how to mention it in an article if mentioned by reliable sources. ~Mable (chat) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal mischaracterizes the current practice as omitting encyclopedic information; the current guideline merely excludes said information from the lead. The current guideline adequately applies the BLP policy to the leads of articles on non-cisgender people, and I see no reason to change it. -- Irn (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That seems to me to be what the current practice is. In the article that led me to post this request for comment, the person's birth name has been repeatedly removed ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), and is not currently mentioned at all in the article.[21] 79.158.212.99 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Nah, if a name has been meaningfully reported upon by media in any way, it should be reported. I wasn't able to check on Monroe's name in the example you gave, as the media are censoring themselves, but we just describe whatever the media publishes. If you have a reliable source for Monroe's birth name, feel free to add it. Is the mentioned Daily Mail article still out there? I wonder if an archived version of a web page is allowed as a source on Wikipedia if the page was taken down because of its content... Hmm, all interesting questions, but probably outside of this RfC's scope. We're currently discussing using a deadname in a lead section. ~Mable (chat) 17:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • People have added it several times, citing reliable sources such as the subject of the article themselves, and it's been removed. That's why I started this discussion, rather than just adding it back. But thanks for the invitation to start a flame war! 79.158.212.99 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  If the subject themself has been raising their old name, in publication, that should just be the end of the discussion. No one can hope to make a WP:OUTING or WP:UNDUE claim in such a case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support some loosening of the current wording; there is a middle ground. The problem here is that we're discussing a false dichotomy as if it were real, a binary choice between never including the old name in he lead unless the subject used it when after they became notable, or always including it if it can be sourced, no matter what. This is pretty silly, and is not how we go about things. We include things in the lead based on relevance to the readership. Ergo, if an old name was not used by the subject when they were notable but has itself become fairly commonly known, it is encyclopedically relevant and belongs in the lead. If it's ancient trivia hardly anyone knows or cares about, it does not belong in the lead, and it might not even belong in the article at all. The current wording is too restrictive, and the proposed change may be a little too permissive. But this really doesn't have anything to do with transgender issues; we would asks the same question about, say, a cis-male newscaster whose birth name was something different because his mother remarried when he was an infant. If the old name had no real impact on the life-course of the subject, it is of no encyclopedic value, and is just indiscriminate trivia. However, a name change made as an adult probably does not qualify as being so trivial; otherwise we would not include the maiden names of married female subjects who changed their names upon marriage, nor would we include the legal names of celebrities with stage names/pen names.

  TL;DR version: Use WP:COMMONSENSE. The hyper-progressive and the ultra-conservative camps both need to stop trying to use WP as a social issues advocacy platform. People who want our articles to be encyclopedically complete and accurate are not theocratic transphobes, and those who don't want our articles to be full of trivia, or of WP:UNDUE dwelling on private lives, are not political-correction police. The one side needs to refrain from demonizing the other, and the extremists in both camps need to stop trying to recruit here. Most editors are pretty centrist on matters like this, and this is good.

  PS: "Is it believed that the subject of the article themselves might find the mention of their birth name offensive? Or that someone else might on their behalf feel offended?" is a good question to ask, about where all this fist-shaking is coming from. Absent the subject (in a verifiable interview or in a verifiable self-publication) stating that people even mentioning their old name is a source of stress, the argument that it must be is WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on the part of LGBT language-change activists. And such a sourced statement wouldn't necessarily affect our coverage, anyway; a statement by someone that people mentioning her age or year of birth would be stressful to her would not prevent us properly noting the information with reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I appreciate such arguments. Whether we add a name to the lead section specifically should be all about what the sources do. Besides some mean-spirited outings, I don't believe most other reliable sources really make much of a point of someone's deadname unless they were well-known with it... but if they do, then it should probably be mentioned in the lead section. ~Mable (chat) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• sort-of support I'm seeing a lot of discussion above concerning gender changes which seems entirely divorced from the seeming reality that hardly anyone who has declared a gender change and has an article only became notable after that and not because of that. The three cases I know of right off (Manning, Jenner, and Walter Carlos) became famous/notorious before and without reference to anything about gender, and it's unfair to the reader not to use the older and generally more familiar name right off. Likewise it is reasonable for users of pseudonyms to mention the real name right off it is well-known. I could support something that said that little-used birth names, etc. should not appear in the lead, but that's not what it says now, and that's not the intent of what it says now. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This rule change would not affect the people you mentioned: as they were notable before they came out, they have their deadnames in the lead section in bold letters. The idea of the current rule is indeed that little-known names shouldn't be noted in the lead section if they can result in dysphoria, but if that isn't phrased appropriately, then it probably should be changed in some manner. ~Mable (chat) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well yes but wikipedia doesnt operate on hypothetical conditions that someone *might* suffer from. Otherwise if we are going that route my previous suggestion to extend the same consideration we give to transgenders should be applied to everyone who has changed their name, due to the potential PTSD the abuse victims (a common cause of legal identity changing) might suffer from being reminded of their previous names... RGloucester above also seems to agree unless someone was notable under their previous name, it should be in the body, not the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support the birth name, or legal name, should be in the lead as in formerly XXX or born as XXX. We are not censored and we are not politically correct, we are an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We've discussed this previously and some of the primary objections to blanket directives to include non-notable deadnames are (1) they're not notable and we don't include non-notable private info about living people (e.g., how we treat spouses' and children's names), (2) many MOSs for other outlets suggest not to include the names (most notably GLAAD's guidelines), and (3) the use of deadnames is often considered offensive by trans folks and thus using them should be limited to cases where it's important. The current guidelines are the result of compromise, discussion, and consensus. I see no compelling reason to change them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The preferences of an advocacy group have no bearing on our manual or style.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: NYTimes then ([22])? Reuters says to always user the person's name. Even Buzzfeed ([23])? GLAAD is an advocacy group (like SPLC or ADL), but they're an authority on the matter and heeded by many major journalism outlets (one example of glaad coverage: [24]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Not directly no, but indirectly yes. Our content is based on information from reliable sources, so as word usage by such sources changes, it will bleed into our content here. We maintain a neutral point of view, do not censor, and do not misrepresent or revise historical facts. Disallowing the inclusion of "deadnames" in articles would distort those core values we hold dear. We do what we can, when it is reasonable, for example: using pronouns that a subject prefers for periods of time after their transition, as the usage of gender pronouns in modern English has adapted to be inconsistent with physical sex.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: before referring to Wikipeia's core values, you would do well to check what they are.
You cite WP:NOTCENSORED, which you appear not to have read. It is irrelevant, because it refers to withholding info to avoid causing offence to readers ... whereas the issue here is the possibility of harm and distress to the living subjects of articles.
The relevant policy is at WP:BLP, which requires that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Note the word "must" in each: it means that consideration for the subjects is mandatory. You are breaching that policy.

You claim that Disallowing the inclusion of "deadnames" in articles would distort those core values we hold dear. That is an irrational claim, because you seem to believe that BLP is not a core value, and you similarly pay no attention to WP:UNDUE ... and it is irrationally hysterical hyperbole, because reducing the prominence of a piece of info is neither revisionism nor censorship.

It is already policy at WP:DOB to consider withholding the full names of living subjects, and to always withdraw them if requested ... yet you refuse to extend the same sort of courtesy redaction to trans people's deadnames, and you even climb on a high horse to wave banners of "core values" in your opposition even to the more modest step of simply lesser prominence to the deadnames of trans people.

This is a form of indirect discrimination, because it imposes a requirement which disprortionately disadvantages one group, without any consideration of reasonable adjustment. I cannot know whether your intent is transphobic, but since you refuse to avoid harm to trans people make reasonable adjustments to the prominence of names of trans people even tho it is policy to actually withhold such info in other cases, effect of your refusal is transphobic discrimination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: WP:5P.
My views don't breach WP:BLP.
I said "in articles" not "in the lead".
WP:DOB doesn't state "to always withdraw [full names] if requested". "courtesy redaction [of any] people's [former names]" = censorship in some cases.
I have no problem with an argument for changing the manual of style for all people. However, I do have a problem with the notion that specific courtesies should be codified for certain groups of people when unnecessary, because there is no reason the same courtesies shouldn't be extended in the same way to others in this case. Personal dislike of former names isn't exclusive to transgender and non-binary individuals.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: This is not complicated.

It is policy that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment".

It is not policy that all topics must be treated with a mechanistic equality of content and presentation.

Your reasoning breaches BLP because you give no weight to the possibility of harm to transgender people which may arise from giving undue prominence to their previous names. In fact, in all your many posts on this page, I don't see a single attempt by you to analyse the nature or depth of that harm. Your commentary on it seems limited to downplaying it as "personal dislike of former names", which is a gross understatetment.

It is policy that "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. You reasoning pours contempt upon the privacy of transgender people, by dismissing it as unworthy of consideration because the issues there doesn't apply to everyone. There is nothing in BLP which or any other policy which prevents us from considering how privacy affects different people in different circumstances, and respinding as aproporiate.

You link WP:5P; good idea, and I hope you read it. You will not find in there anything some assertion that it is some sort of "core value" that previous names should be displayed, or that they should be displayed prominently. That is an editorial decision.

You claim to be trying to even-handedly apply the same rule to everyone, but that approach can create indirect discrimination. The English Citizens Advice Bureaux explains the concept well: "Indirect discrimination is when there’s a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others." By not considering that worse effect, and giving no weight to use of former names as a tool to harass transgender people, you are promoting a form of indirect discrimination.

You claim that you object only to the fact that transgender people are the only group currently given this courtesy. That's no defence; if there are other groups of people or sets of circumstances in which prominent display of former names would cause harm or distress, we should consider those too -- we are in fact obliged to do so by that BLP requirement that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". There is no policy to say that any such courtesy must be applied without exception to every living subject, regardless of circumstances.

It is already policy that certain courtesies should be extended to particular groups of people. For example, WP:BLPCRIME gives greater privacy to people who are not public figures. Similarly WP:BLPNAME demands caution in publishing the names of family members of notable individuals. Even if the information is verifiable, there is a proportionality test ... because of the fundamental BLP requirement that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered".

You appear to be taking a mechanistically rigid view of equality, as if the same actions would have the same effect in all cases. I have no idea why you are so fixated on the abstract principle of identical treatment, because it is clearly inapplicable in everyday life ... and this whole discussion is about living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Follow the sources. What is or isn't relevant is not an arbitrary choice to be made by WP contributors. As with everything, we must follow the sources. If a name is well-known enough to appear in reliable secondary sources, it should be included. Similarly, if the name cannot be found in secondary sources, WP:BLPPRIVACY tells us it should not be included. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Mixed It is clear that names which make too clear that a notable person whose prior name no longer would seem rationally applicable to the person as they now are would appear to be properly estopped from being in the lead, but, also clearly, where major sources generally mention the other name, still belong in the body of the biography.

I disagree that "transgender or non-binary" names are the only category which should be singled out, and that the goal should not be "political correctness" (which is altogether an amorphous construct IMO), but the general principle that information about individuals should be carefully written in a manner to avoid harm to anyone, living or dead, and not restricted to gender issues (which appear to have different opinions in different places and different times).

Thus my suggestion that we make a general statement about names where current reliable sources do not generally give the "prior names", and not specifying any particular category of name. Collect (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Extend the notability rule to all biographies. While issues of naming are particularly sensitive with respect to transgender people, I don't think their biographies need particular treatment in this regard: mentioning their earlier name does not amount to a misgendering as long as the former name is identified as such. But there are good editorial reasons not to distractingly highlight a very obscure former name, and I propose that we adopt this practice for all biographies: if a person is not notable under a former name, mention it only in the article body and not in bold.  Sandstein  14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Although after reading Funcrunch's comment above, I must strike part of my comment, but maintain my view that it is a good idea to extend the present practice to all biographies.  Sandstein  14:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Since some editors seem to object to using the term "notability" in the way I proposed above, and which has now been taken up by other editors, I thought I'd make clear what I meant by it. Notability is how we determine whether a person (or other subject) deserves an article on Wikipedia. Usually, a person becomes notable for doing something of significance that reliable sources have identified at some point in their life, as opposed to being notable at the time of his or her birth. When I said "If a person was notable under an old or alternative name, then that name should be included in the first sentence of the lead. If they were not, then it should be left to the body of the article", I meant that if a person became notable (i.e. began to be covered by reliable sources as having some kind of significance) under a name, and then changed his or her name, that name should be included in the lead. If a person became notable under a name that was not his or her birth name, i.e. reliable sources never referred to this person directly by his or her birth name (as opposed to mentioning a 'born as xxx'), then that birth name should not be included in the lead in bold print, and should be left to the body of the article. I hope this can make some sense. RGloucester — ☎ 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - While these matters should be considered on a case-by-case basis, our purpose here is to write comprehensive biographies, not to make our subjects or readers "feel good." Carrite (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply. Straw man, Carrite. I see nobody arguing that the purpose is make anyone "feel good". The concern is here is to not do things which make people feel bad, unless they are proportional to our enyclopedic purpose. This accords with our policy at WP:BLP, which is very clear in the lede:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment

The subsection WP:BLPPRIVACY is clear about the general principle of restraint wrt to private, personal information. The essay "avoiding harm" sets out at WP:NOTATABLOID why "the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account", and WP:HARM#TEST suggests some ways of making that assessment. This guidance simply applies those general BLP principles to a group of people who face a prtucukar set of issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The one thing that seems to be missing from this conversation is an explanation of why we parenthetically highlight the former names of article subjects in the lead sentence. The most obvious reason is that our readers may not be aware that the subject of an article has changed names, and may search for our article on the subject using the prior name. When the reader does this, he/she will be redirected. It is important to highlight the prior name (and to do so in the first sentence of the article) so that upon being redirected, the reader quickly and easily understands that "Oh, Yes, I have reached the article I was searching for... the subject has undergone a name change".

Doing this is especially important to do when the subject of an article is noteworthy for something he/she did when using the prior name. In such cases, the likelihood that a reader will search for the subject using that prior name (and will be confused when redirected to an article entitled with the new name) is high. However, I think it should be done in every case where the subject has changed names.

In other words, highlighting prior names has nothing to do with our acceptance or rejection of the subject's gender identity... it has everything to do with how best to aid our readers, and how best to present them with necessary information in a clear cut and informative manner that limits the potential for confusion. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • I agree with this idea of why a person's alternative or former name would be placed in bold in the lead section, but wouldn't this also imply that if a person is not known under a former name at all anymore - they became notable after their name change and have kept their former name basically a secret - it has no place in the lead, as no one would search for it? ~Mable (chat) 16:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm in favor of SMcCandlish's nuanced approach. Fdssdf (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The birth or previous name is simply a verifiable fact about the subject. It may be present in other sources and its omission from WP would sever the logical link with those sources. The personal preference of the subject is not relevant for information about them. −Woodstone (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As I've said before, the rule about including birth names in the lead should be consistent for notable people, we shouldn't discriminate based on gender.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose removing it all together, support a rewording (edit conflict) The idea that neutrally applied policies are unproblematic is untrue. A neutrally applied policy can still be discriminatory, e.g., in Loving v. Virginia the state of Virginia defended its ban on interracial marriage by stating it applied to everyone, and the same in Lawrence v. Texas and in Obergefell v. Hodges and in Brown v. Board. In all these cases, these laws have been overturned because they have disproportionate impact.

The common thread is that rules applied consistently to everyone can cause disproportionate harm to particular groups. That is not to say the current wording is best but that the arguments for abolishing it all together are unconvincing and are just as heavy handed as the current wording. I very much agree with SMcCandlish, and while I personally disagree with deadnaming trans people, this is an encyclopedia. And that means we should cover it in the lead if it's critically important to the person and in the article if it's important. If it's not important, why are we including it? Just as trivia? As a way to mark trans people? This discussion needs a nuance and self analysis that seems largely lacking. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• "If it's not important, why are we including it?", could be said of all birth names, not just in regard to those of subjects of a certain gender (though I think birth names are of encyclopedic value because they aid further research at the least, though off topic, because this discussion isn't about whether or not to include birth names as a whole).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

while I support the idea of a rewording in general, none of the proposals seem to strike my fancy so I struck that part of my !vote above. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 16:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not including the name somebody changed is not the same as including 'william' for 'bill'. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support The reasoning for this exemption comes down to that some transgender people see the use of their former name in any context as denying the validity of their now-expressed gender identification, regardless of whether the use of the former name is actually intended as such or is a simple statement of historical fact. I don't see that as a convincing reason to have a special rule that only applies to this one group of people. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Excluding such verifiable information can be very confusing to readers. We are here to serve our readers with history about a person. We do not edit our BLP articles based on how the subject wants them to say, citing policies such as WP:COI and WP:V. Often this has lead to problems. And we don't correct them until the subjects complain publicly about their Wikipedia articles. All a transgender person wants is for other people to treat them like normal people. Treating transgender people and cisgender people differently not only is a form of discrimination, it confuses readers. SSTflyer 01:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The attempt to create a contrast between transgender people and "normal people" is not pretty.
    What transgender people want is to be recognised in the gender in which they live their lives. Deadnaming undermines that, and it is a problem particular to transgender people. Claiming that everyone should be treated in the same way is like saying that there is no problem with steps at the entrance to a building, because everyone has to use them. No problem to a fit person, but it's an insurmountable barrier to a wheelchair-user. Different people have different needs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • We are here to serve our readers, not to avoid annoying transgender people. We keep a lot of reliably sourced, WP:BLP-compliant information about living people which may be seen by them as harmful or detrimental towards their safety and/or reputation. When the subject complains about such information, in most cases we ignore the subject and even sanction them for violating WP:COI policies. Just because the subject feels threatened due to information we include is no reason to remove such information. SSTflyer 16:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
      • We are indeed here to serve our readers, but policy is not to titillate them with trivia and policy is also quite explicitly clear that we are not here to cause harm to living people. The policy WP:BLP is very clear that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Giving undue prominence to previous names does cause harm to trans people; the practice of deadnaming is well documented as a form of harassment of trans people. This problem very rarely applies to non-trans people (e.g. women who have changed their name on marriage), and it is because of this distinction in real lives that we currently have a distinction in how we write about trans people.

If this proposal is accepted, then not only will the deadname be given great prominence on wikipedia pages; it will also be displayed in gogle searches. Look, for example at a Google search for Cherie Blair or Christine Hamilton: in each case, google places the en.wp biog near the top of the list of search results, displaying the former name in the snippet of lede.

I am aware of no reason to believe that this causes any harm to Blair or Hamilton, but it does cause real harm to transgender people. The policy WP:BLP is full of examples of situations where editors are advised to exercise restraint in coverage of living people, e.g. those notable for only one event, those who have been victims, people accused of crime, etc. Why are some editors so averse to exercising restraint wrt transgender people? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. We have a good essay on the underlying principles: WP:Avoiding harm, particularly the section WP:NOTATABLOID. In the case of transgender people, there is ample testimony from transgender people and their allies that deadnaming of living people is a hurtful and destructive practise ... so where a previous name is available, it should not be given excessive prominence. In some cases that may mean that info is ion the lede; in other cases it may mean that it is in the body of the article; and in other cases it may mean omitting viable info. The current wording may be clumsy, but the principle is sound. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Above you used an analogy about providing a ramp for wheelchair users. Let's extend that analogy. Right now we have a ramp, but only people in wheelchairs are allowed to use it. Anyone who can't climb stairs but isn't wheelchair-bound is out of luck, they're forbidden from using the ramp that they could easily traverse. Is that really a sound principle? Anomie⚔ 19:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. In practice, we should always do what's best for our readers, rather than what we imagine might be preferred by some article subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP places a very clear obligation on us to avoid doing harm to living people who are the subject of articles: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
    Why are Andrew Lenahan and some other editors so keen to ignore that obligation in this case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I completely agree with RGloucester and BrownHairedGirl's clear statements above. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Broadly support some loosening per SMcCandlish. We should be able to come up with a wording that covers ALL names, on whether the old name is relevant, widely covered in RS etc. As I say below, it being well known public information that one had a previous name is not the same as being well known while one used that name. If one of the best known things about a person is that they had a previous name (for whatever reason), why exclude that from the lead. If their previous name/identity is largely unknown, why mention it at all? Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As a few folks have mentioned above, there are serious BLP concerns with including the former names of transgender people when they weren't notable under that name. It's a pretty common tactic of anti-transgender activists to dig up the former names of transgender people and persistently refer to them by those names, even if they were never notable under that name; this is generally done to try to delegitimize transgender people's identities, and can cause significant emotional distress both to the transgender person in question and other transgender people who come across this stuff. If Wikipedia had a general policy of including the former names of transgender people, I can see editors digging up old, obscure court records and newspaper announcements to find former names and using them as sources to include the names in Wikipedia, thereby lifting a former name from relative obscurity to one of the first Google results for the person. Given Wikipedia's fairly low bar for notability and that many notable transgender people will be notable for unrelated reasons (and their transgender status may not even be well-known in their area of notability), a policy like this could lead to some very bad outcomes for the living transgender people we have articles about. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While I accept that this kind of special case is not ideal, this is one of the contexts where it is, at least for now and the near future, among the least bad alternatives. To give an example (hopefully without enough details to allow identification), a transgender acquaintance of mine who transitioned over 30 years ago has a Wikipedia article on the strength of their notability as a writer. The article lead makes no direct mention of their being transgender or indeed their transgender rights activities, though the transgender rights activities are given a couple of sentences in the main body of the article, and another sentence briefly mentions that they are transgender, in relation to some biographical details about the start of the subject's writing career, before the subject transitioned and a decade or more before the earliest of the works that are generally regarded as making them notable. This seems about right to me - the works for which the subject is primarily notable have little visible connection to their transgender rights activities (still less their transgender status) and almost always seem to be discussed without reference to these. However, at least one definitely reliable source notes that their earliest works were published under a name which is obviously of the other gender to their present one (presumably their birth name), and an arguably reliable source, from the time at which they transitioned and since put online, actually has an announcement of the change of name from the previous to the present one. The main proposal above would therefore come close to disallowing any challenge to an edit inserting the subject's birth name - which is clearly at odds with the subject's current gender and thus a blatant indication of their transgender status - ahead of all actual reasons for their notability. It may be useful to put some basic information into an article lead, that is not strictly relevant to a subject's main grounds for notability but that people may want anyway, that we should generally do it - but not if it is then, however unintentionally, likely to distract readers from the actual grounds for notability or strongly colour their view of them (and I accept that transgender status may not be the only thing that does this - suggestion of illegitimate birth certainly would have done at some times in the past though, I think, no longer does). Some of the alternative proposals below would probably mitigate this problem, but I do not think that any of them would actually remove it. PWilkinson (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment In practice, the issue has often not been about whether any reliable source can be found for a person's name at birth, but how much effort we are going to go to dig up such a source. When the media in general have refrained from using someone's birth name, do we follow the general standard and not include it (or at least, not emphasize it), or accept the minority of sources (often more politically conservative ones) as meeting verifiability and follow their lead? In one article, the subject's birth name was published, then subsequently removed from an online source. The question was whether to continue to use that as a source supporting inclusion or not.

There are many sorts of verifiable facts that we don't include in articles based on societal standards of privacy and what is considered encyclopedic. This is clearly an area where there are rapidly evolving standards.

I haven't seen a lot of exploration of what makes a little-known previous name a valuable addition to an article's lead. In cases where editors are going to great lengths to find a source for the birth name, I'm not convinced it adds any value to the article at all. The purpose of including it in bold in the lead is to let someone know they have arrived at the right article. For obscure former names, that doesn't apply.--Trystan (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I like this point of view a lot, and think this is probably the most important thing to keep in mind while amending this guideline. ~Mable (chat) 20:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose because if you had a friend that changed their name from Jenny to let's say Jacob it would be very hurtful and disrespectful to introduce them as Jacob formerly known as Jenny. Now I know some of you are going to say "Well we have to be politically correct and blah blah" first of all that's a very transphobic thing to say and no we don't have to be politically correct because we here on wikipedia rely on the subjects gender identity. Do we have to be accurate? Yes, but we need to respect the subjects privacy and I believe the current guideline is fine and is really only used in a handful of articles. A perfect example would be CeCe McDonald, her birth name is not mentioned in the lead section because she was not notable before coming out, her birth name is irrelevant and not necessary to include. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@JayJay: Generalize your statement a bit, "[a] birth name [should not be] mentioned in [a] lead section[, unless the subject was] notable [before they changed their name, as their] birth name is irrelevant and not necessary to include", and it could be argued that way in regard to all living notable people. That is a reasonable argument. The argument to treat a certain group of people differently, because not doing so would "be very hurtful and disrespectful" and "we need to respect the subjects privacy" (as if the privacy of a particular group of people is more important than that of others), "compromise[s] our integrity as an impartial reference work" (the last quote steals some succinct phrasing from 67.14.236.50 below).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: Oh hey, you quoted me! Just to be clear, that comment of mine did not necessarily represent my own position, but was meant to hopefully more clearly represent yours. It seems like I was successful, so that’s good to know!
As for me, it does bug me that some editors here seem to be more concerned with protecting the rights and welfare of transgender people than with just people. Because non-transgender people are people too. Also, I think it’s ludicrous to cite privacy concerns regarding publicly known names (or otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed in Wikipedia in the first place). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@JayJay: CeCe McDonald may be a bad example of this as it seems like the article doesn't mention her deadname at all. The lead section of this article doesn't contradict this change of rules. ~Mable (chat) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current wording is a decent compromise and I think we should stick to it. There is no reason that we need to draw attention to non-notable deadnames in the lead. Mentioning them in the body is adequate. To emphasize them in the lead is disrespectful, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need to tread carefully here. The systematic placement of birth names in bios could easily lead to inadvertent (or intentional) outing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This discussion is being brigaded by an off-site hate group who is actively encouraging people to create meatpuppet accounts to rig the "vote" (which shows they don't understand Wikipedia). They are a notorious transphobic hate group who have a history of participating in doxxing, harassment, and threats of violence against trans people. This is the post from the hate group, where they explicitly instruct people to "Vote SUPPORT". MarleneSwift (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose omitting that sentence with no other action (the only thing proposed in this non-neutral non-RfC) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly per the points made by RGloucester. Unless the subject was notable before their transition (such as with The Wachowskis) there is no reason to include their former name in the lede. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. The main "oppose" argument is based on BLP policy, but these guidelines apply to all biographies. If this is opposed for BLP reasons, then the guideline should at least be modified to living "transgender and non-binary people". StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I was wondering about this. I honestly don't know if privacy-issues are still kept in mind for deceased subjects. I would assume there would be some protection due to a close relation with potential family, but I wouldn't think former names would be in any way protected under such a guideline. ~Mable (chat) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that WP:WEIGHT would come in to play. If a preponderance obits and other sources consider it notable enough to mention the person's deadname/birthname, then we should include it too per WP:WEIGHT. Mind you, WP:BLP does have WP:BDP along with it for the recently deceased. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trans people have an uphill battle for dignity in almost every culture in the world. To start with most doctors have little clue what to do when a baby shows genitalia that are in any way ambiguous. For as long as modern medicine has been practiced damaging surgeries to "correct" such ambiguity have occurred and still routinely happen. Where a child does find non-invasive surgeries have been avoided they still have to navigate a world that will often reject them both as a boy and a girl. Sometimes leaving them psychically scarred for life. Then growing up they usually face a gauntlet of discrimination which leaves them with bad vs. poor choices in any kind of life to lead including what kind of closet can they live with. Unless someone explicitly have stated they are fine with their former identity splashed across the www for the world to know about, it should been omitted in any way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:15A1:8773:456D:8253 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with the sentiment, but the people you're describing are intersex. Some intersex people identify as trans and some don't. Funcrunch (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. If they weren't notable under that name, then it isn't important enough to go in the lead. WP:OTHERNAMES makes it clear that we're only supposed to include significant other names in the lead, and a name that they were never famous under is, by definition, not significant. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Split the difference: no general rule Once someone has changed their name for any reason, we should generally use the new name. The prominence with which the old name should be featured depends on a case-by-case analysis of how notable their old name was, and is particularly ill suited to general rules in a guideline. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Only because the discussion is of mention of the person's birth name in the lead section. I think it is encyclopedic content, and if reliably sourced is not unduly offensive, derogatory, defamatory or any such thing. The Bill Clinton argument is interesting (no one knows him as "William Jefferson Blythe III"), but I would turn it around and question why his birth name should be included in the lead; the current wording of the transgender guideline is in my opinion something that should be expanded to other people who were never widely known by the birth names. If, say, the lead section of our article on the Wachowskis didn't mention the names by which they were known when they made their best-known film, then we could call political correctness gone too far, but that is clearly not the case, and the current wording explicitly recommends the opposite. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose What is the point of this suggestion? To single people out, to be petty and mean? this just seem like a pointless act of bigotry. Artw (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically, the argument being made here seems to be "WP:NOTCENSORED!!1" and "political correctness gone mad!". Neither is a good reason to include information in the lead of an article that is not critical to an understanding of the subject. Exercising editorial discretion and considering the needs of our readers first is not "censorship". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose, and not a MOS issue As soon as birthnames (or anything else) become contested content, what to do with them becomes a content question (specifically the appropriate WP:WEIGHT for the info, under WP:NPOV which is the supreme content policy on Wikipedia) rather than a style question. This is especially sensitive for BLP's but is not limited to them. The lead sentence of an article is the most visible place this info can possibly go, not only giving it undue prominence for readers of the article, but also splashing it into the search snippets shown to users of off-wiki search engines. For some other types of biographies (e.g. Mark Twain's) the birthname is uncontroversial "metadata" so then its placement is more like a style issue. This discussion at most tries to recognize that when transgender people are involved, it's likely to be a content issue and should generally be treated as one.

  It never occurred to me that there was a strong convention of putting birthnames into the lead sentence anyway. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthname (Michael King) isn't mentioned until the MLK article's "Education and early life" section, 5 paragraphs into the article, after the TOC, and and not in the lead section at all. I'm quite sure it's been that way for years at least, and the article is quite well developed so it's not an oversight. That all seems perfectly fine to me. There's no high importance to these birthnames unless they figure heavily into the RS about the person. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support in cases where the individual's birth name is common knowledge, i.e. published in an extensive number (more than just a small handful) of reliable secondary sources. We don't need to go out of our way to deadname people, but we also don't need to exclude information just because the subject may dislike its presence. If our biographical articles catered to the subjects, we'd be excluding a lot of less favorable information about people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or a celebrity's PR team, and to act otherwise is a disservice to the reader. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody is talking about excluding the info. The discussion is about whether to put it in the lead sentence of the article instead of in the article body, when the person was not notable under the old name. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposed change for a variety of reasons, including those laid out by RGloucester and those noted by Kaldari and EvergreenFir. Also, as Irn notes, "The proposal mischaracterizes the current practice as omitting encyclopedic information; the current guideline merely excludes said information from the lead. The current guideline adequately applies the BLP policy to the leads of articles on non-cisgender people, and I see no reason to change it." (Is this section/proposal still open for comment, or has it been superseded by the subsequent sections?) -sche (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Why should the lead sentence include information from before the person was notable? WP:Summary style applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Procedural Break

• Comment This section as I understand is to see if any changes are necessary to the current guideline and multiple proposals have been made. Seeing the huge amount of input on this issue already it seems that there will be no consensus on this issue. Does anyone else think that this RfC should be closed as Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJay (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 June 2016‎

  I do, and I think we should have a no-vote discussion on the issue. We need to figure out what to propose before we try to talk about any proposal. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  I think the !voting has given us a good hint on that.

  1. All former names in the lead, without exception (original RfC proposal).
  2. All former names in the lead, except transgender deadnames (no change).
  3. Former names in the lead unless it might somehow harm the person (not explicitly proposed, but seems to be a topic of discussion).
  4. Former names in the lead only if the person received significant coverage in reliable sources under the name (proposal D).

  We should be clear that none of these would preclude mentioning the former name elsewhere in the article when relevant, just whether it belongs in the lead section. Anomie⚔ 14:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  3 seems the most sensible to me. 4, I would modify to “if significant coverage in reliable sources used the name” (for instance, if sources say, “John Doe, formerly Jane Doe, …”). The rationale being, if reliable sources have no problem mentioning the name, neither should we. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  3 - my contention is in the wording of the policy in WP space, nothing with implementation as it is. Seems like the best compromise. -NottNott|talk 14:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think voting here is going to do much good, this was brainstorming for a followup RfC assuming that this one gets closed as having been hopelessly confused. Although I will say the one concern I have with #3 is that "harm" isn't actually defined in policy anywhere; for example, I see no mention of it in WP:BLP besides one passing mention in the lead. Anomie⚔ 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Anomie: About that… if a former name is mentioned in multiple significant-coverage sources (i.e. if Googling the subject is more than likely to reveal a deadname), wouldn’t any potential harm have already been done? Wikipedia wouldn’t really be able to do anything about it. How much does the fact matter that the information is out there and readily accessible? (Has this been discussed before? I feel like it’s too obvious not to have done.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester and BrownHairedGirl. Neljack (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  @Neljack: Please see WP:PERX and WP:AADP#Per others. If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it would be very rare for this to need to be in the lead sentence unless they were notable before the name change. I could maybe see it where the fact they are TG is why they are notable, but even then, I don't think it important enough to be in the lead sentence. I suppose there could be a case where the name change itself is why they are notable (?) in that case maybe, but as with all guidelines and even policies, we write the rules so they work 98% of the time and take the other 2% as needed. Hobit (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All changed names mentioned in lead only if it is relevant to the subject or carries enough weight (proposal A)

Many multiple people have (rightly, in my eyes) suggested that all changed names regardless of how they came to be should only be mentioned in the lead section if that person was notable under their former name. I propose changing the WP:BIRTHNAME guideline to say this:

Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject was notable under that name.

Anyone is welcome to tweak the wording of that proposal above for flow/consistency - but the idea must remain the same.

• Withdrawn See proposal D. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 16:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC) *Support as proposer. -NottNott|talk Notify me with ((re)) 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support – I was actually trying to write a suggestion quite like this, but I still feel like there's missing something. Perhaps applying common sense in certain situations would solve any issues that this guideline may bring, but I imagine that it may be slightly edited in the future if such things become apparent. Either way, I much prefer this version compared to our current guidelines. Former names (or deadnames, as it may be) can always be reported upon in infoboxes and article prose if mentioned by sources. ~Mable (chat) 19:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: What is the exact version you'd suggest? Or is it just a gut feeling? If you have any improvements to make to the wording definitely do so. -NottNott|talk Notify me with ((re)) 19:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is more of a gut feeling than anything else: I refrained from making such a suggestion myself because I wasn't able to write anything good. My worry relates to the difference between being notable when you have a name, being notable under a name, and having had a highly noteworthy name. I don't know if that sentence even made any sense, which is where my problem lies with improving the suggestion further. Sandstein may have made an improvement to it, though. ~Mable (chat) 20:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Like the difference between a show name, a legal name, and (long shot) having a name that someone else was notable for but since you also have it, it's also notable? If I'm wrong I didn't get the sentence, but you should certainly elaborate on it if you can and believe it's an important idea. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 20:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I imagine there may be situations where a person has changed their name legally before they had gotten in any way notable, but are still commonly referred to by that name. Or other such situations, I'm honestly not really sure. I'd rather see this guideline in action and see what kind of issues may arise first. ~Mable (chat) 20:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral for now I still have feelings^[clarify] about notability being applied to article content. But not enough of a problem to object to this. I'll think about it more and maybe come to a conclusion. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Oppose as worded Lest important is that I share some of the concerns above about notability being applied to article content. Most important is the use of legally changed their names which can be a problem. Many people (not just trans people) don't legally change their name or cannot change legally change their name. Requiring some sort of legal process (which may not exist or be required in some jurisdictions) instead of secondary sources calling them by a particular name seems ill advised. If "legally" were removed I'd no longer object, but I'm yet to be sold on this proposal. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I mistakenly left reference to legality in the proposal - using the current WP:BIRTHNAME policy stating subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth as a stem to write that proposal. Sandstein has proposed a much better version that omits legal status below, and I've replaced it in the current proposal. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, although the wording is not concise. I suggest: Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject was notable under that name.  Sandstein  19:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Just pasted your version instead. Concision is hard for me. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I would prefer the former name not be included in the article at all in the case of trans people who transitioned before becoming notable, for reasons I explained earlier. But I don't have the energy to respond to (further) charges of WP:ACTIVISM right now. Funcrunch (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the text of this proposal keeps changing, this is the specific wording I'm supporting (with above caveat): "Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject was notable under that name." Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support per my reasoning in the section above. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - If this will allay concerns about "fairness" or "discrimination" regarding specification of trans/non-binary folks, than I'm fine with this. I see no problem with expanding the language to include all BLPs. As noted elsewhere, LEAD and DUE are what should really be considered here and this proposal satisfies those. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support If a name change is not relevant when the article is about a transgender person, a similar name change is equally not relevant when the article is about a cisgender person. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think this would help improve readability. That William Jefferson Clinton was named William Jefferson Blythe III as a child is suitable for mentioning in the relevant section of the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead section, let alone the first thing mentioned in the lead sentence.--Trystan (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support with the removal of the word "only". The wording "... should ... only ..." does not allow much flexibility. It's like if the former name is notable (e.g. Bruce Jenner), it must be mentioned, while if it is not notable, it must not be mentioned. This may cause excessive discussion over whether the former name of a trans person is notable or not, wasting time which can instead be used to improve the article itself. SSTflyer 01:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Brainfart. Thanks Godsy for reminding that this proposal applies to WP:BIRTHNAME instead of transgender people. No need to change what is WP:NOTBROKEN. At the very least, such a proposal should not be bundled here. SSTflyer 05:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Woodstone below - The inclusion of birth names in the case of subjects who have changed their names at the first mention (i.e. the lead) within biographies has been in place since at least 2005, Special:Diff/20403072. They aid further research and help reduce ambiguity. It is a good encyclopedic practice to give readers this factual information right off the bat if it is verifiable (especially for historical individuals). This also raises the question of whether maiden names should be included in the lead if they were not notable by that name. This major change would affect many articles, and is another topic altogether, which really should have been in a section of its own. At the least, the WP:CENT listing needs its wording changed, and WP:VPPOL needs another notification.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural objection: The proposal in the heading and the proposed wording do not match. I would support what the heading says (two inclusion criteria), but not the one-criterion version in the text of the section (especially since the criterion given there does not match either of the two given in the heading). I already covered why in the previous section; nutshell: Former names that were used pre-notability are often still encyclopedically relevant, and this will be a case-by-case determination, as with most other relevance questions, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Almost no-one is arguing they are not encyclopedically relevant to the article, just not significant enough to be in the lead when they were not notable under their previous name. The guidelines on what should be in the lead already reflect this but not explicitly. Can you honestly argue Bill Clinton's prior name is so relevant to his notability it needs to be the first line in the article? Besides, this is a MOS discussion, ALL mos guidelines can be amended on an article case-by-case basis depending on local consensus. This is merely a change to the guidelines for best practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree Clinton's birth name should not be in the lead in his particular case, because it verges on obscure trivia. This will often not be the case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – more or less per SMcCandlish, and "notable under that name" still conflicts with what "notable" means in wikipedia, which has nothing to do with a name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This proposal is almost the opposite of how the discussion started. The birth or previous name is simply a verifiable fact about the subject. It may be present in other sources and its omission from WP would sever the logical link with those sources. The personal preference of the subject is not relevant for information about them.−Woodstone (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support One of the arguments in the discussions above is the implication of special treatment. By extending the courtesy applied to Trans people to all those who have changed their name, we remove that implication and respect the deadnaming issue for Transgenders. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, this would mean that the "maiden" names of, for example, First Ladies in the U.S. could not be mentioned in the lead. Or an actor's real name as opposed to their stage name would not be mentioned. Ridiculous. Randy Kryn 10:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Propose amendment to address some concerns above: Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if it is relevant to the subject's notability. I hope this might be able to alleviate some of the above concerns about usage of the term "notability". RGloucester — ☎ 13:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It would for me, but we still have the problem that it starts by proposing two criteria then does a bait-and-switch to just one, which matches neither of those originally stated. I.e., this alt. proposal is hopelessly self-confused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given by SMcCandlish, Randy Kryn and SSTflyer. The notion that any REAL biography would not very early on give the name at birth is ridiculous, and in the case of wives, insulting. The notion that the person needs to have been notable under a prev. name is completely different to the person's prev. name being well-known, which I could support and which would not exclude wives, stage names or other well known name changes, but would still protect gender or other name changes which are not 'in the public sphere'. Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Mostly agree. Bill Clinton's birth name is of encyclopedic interest due to the source coverage. A name not used since infancy might not be encyclopedically relevant to include at all for someone else, though. The insistence on including abandoned birth names in particular seems to be a habit of celebrity fandom. I've had three legal names, and if I had an article here I would expect it to include the second (the one I had in high school), but not the one I was born with, which isn't relevant to much of anyone but my biological parents when they divorced during my infancy. Lots of adoptees are in a similar position. The case-by-case nature of such questions applies whether there was a gender realignment or not. But if RS have taken an interest in a former or alternative name, that is sufficient reason to include it here, often in the lead depending on frequency with which it turns up in sources. So, for most bio subjects who are "celebs", that will include their legal names, which most often will also be their birth names. For someone like a notable chemist it probably won't, because few if any RS will ever mention it. Basically, it's important to remember that "birth name", "legal name", "maiden name", and "former name" are not synonyms, they just have a high probability of coinciding for people who have had multiple names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Include birth names of trans people in the lead if it should be in the lead (proposal B)

Per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents...According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.

So I propose the following wording:

In the case of trans and non-binary people, include birth names in the lead only if it is part of the most important article content

I think this satisfies a number of problems that have been raised:

1. Others have raised issues with using notability as the guiding factor, and I think this satisfies that.
2. It creates a guideline specifically for trans people but it is not exclusive to trans people. MOS:LEAD applies to all leads, this only serves as a guideline for a specific (yet commonly confusing) case.
3. It requires the name be significant enough to be included in the body of the article, preventing the inclusion of the name as trivia.

Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The current wording of this proposal (In the case of trans and non-binary people, include birth names in the lead only if it is part of the most important article content) is nebulous. As I commented above, if a trans or non-binary person was not notable before transitioning, I don't think their former name belongs in the article at all. But I'm not going to fight over that point at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I see the vagueness as a feature, not a bug. Whether the former name is important enough to be included in the article at all is decided on an article by article basis. If it's not worth being in the article, it can't be in the lead. If it is important enough to be in the article (say, in the case of Caitlyn Jenner), but not the most important aspect (as decided on an article by article basis) it still shouldn't be in the lead. But I get that you're repeating yourself at this point, and I don't want you to feel like you need to do that. This was more of a clarification than me trying to refute you so I don't intend to start an argument. I get this wording might not please everyone, and that's fine. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal doesn't make anything explicit about people who have changed their name in general - if you replace In the case of trans and non-binary people to In all cases of someone with a changed name then it becomes very similar to the first proposal. If the issue is of WP:Notability, perhaps change the word to 'Noteworthiness' instead as Blueboar said. Or perhaps if it is part of the most important article content to if that specific name has been covered significant coverage independent reliable sources. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 21:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that using WP:Notability in the original proposal is about having reliable independent sources to cover the topic at the time, under that name. Like The Wachowskis were formerly known as The Wachowski Brothers and received plenty of notable coverage with that title, and now they're The Wachowskis they also receive notable coverage. Hence why both names are covered: both had notable coverage at the time - with sources stating that exact name. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 21:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I mildly prefer the proposed wording in the above section by NottNott if only for it's clarity. I think both are in the same spirit, but this wording could be gamed more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of proposal A. RGloucester — ☎ 22:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose a special exemption for a particular group of people. Rewording it to apply to all people makes it roughly equivalent to (but inferior to) "Proposal A". Anomie⚔ 22:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Anomie and my supporting comment in the "Consensus" section.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Anomie. I don't believe a certain group on Wikipedia should be treated differently with respect to article content guidelines that are applied differently to others. RotubirtnoC (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on the ground that this is tautological. MOS:LEAD already applies, so it need not be restated. The general consensus across bio articles is that names that are relevant enough to mention are relevant enough to include in the lead when editorial consensus at the article in question feels it is, generally based on treatment in reliable sources. We don't know which name any reader will be looking for, and it's important that they be certain fairly quickly that they are at the correct article, but this does not always translate to lead inclusion. So, proposal B would not actually address the central question: Is a name that was used pre-notability ever encyclopedically relevant enough to include at all, and if so to include it in the lead? It still comes down to a case-by-case, WP:COMMONSENSE determination at the article in question. I also procedurally object in that the heading of this section, as in the preceding section, does not really align well with the text of the proposed wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Revised; I did not mean to imply that all alt. names must be in the lead, but I seemed to be doing so due to poor original wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I object to censoring types of factual information, solely because of the personal preference of the subject. −Woodstone (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what is being discussed here: this is only about the lead - that is, placement within the article - and not about eliminating information from the article altogether. -- Irn (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as per SMcCandlish and RGloucester. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – this version seems even worse than the original. To me, it suggests that someone should only be introduced by the name they used during their most significant career path. This is even an altname problem, as it seems to completely disallow introducing someone by a name they are also well-known by. In the case of Caitlin Jenner, you would be forced to assume that her Olympic career is "more important" than her recent activism, or not include her former name at all. Even if in this example it may be correct to say so, it seems ridiculous to me. The current/original phrasing of the guideline is much better. ~Mable (chat) 07:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• oppose First, this is too subjective. Second, like others, to some extent I have problems with treating name changes on account of gender self-identification as somehow different. The best reason I can see is to hide to some degree that they have changed their gender identity, but if someone has changed their name and are well-known by a previous name, it really doesn't matter why they made the change. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as too vague and subjective to be a workable guideline; the current guideline is preferable to this. -sche (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Include any prior names that are likely to be searched for in the lead (proposal C)

As I have stated above, one of the primary reasons for prominently listing prior names in the lead is to let readers who have been redirected know that they have arrived at the correct article. If there is even a remote possibility that a reader will search using a prior name, we should include that name in the first sentence of the lead. Blueboar (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support – This is basically what I think the purpose of the guideline should be: "Include any names in bold in the lead section that are likely search targets or important names of the subject." It may be a bit unspecific, though. ~Mable (chat) 12:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The policy WP:BLP is very clear that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
  This proposal takes no account of that policy commitment to privacy, or of the possibility of harm to the living subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well... If I were inclined to Wikilawyer, I might point out the inconsistency in that... Which is that the prior name has been declared "dead", and WP:BLP only applies to the living.

Thankfully I am not inclined that way. I think you raise a valid concern. My response would be this: I would certainly agree that Wikipedia should not "out" someone's birth name (publishing it when no other reliable source has done so)... Doing so violates not only BLP, but NOR. The fact of the birth name would have to be published in a reliable source before we could include it in an article. That said... I don't see this as invalidating my proposed standard. It would be highly unlikely that a reader would search for the subject using a name that had never been published before... Therefore, that unpublished name would not fit my proposed criteria. Or were you thinking that mentioning even a reliably published birth name some how violates BLP? Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The game-playing with the word "dead" in "deadname" is silly. BLP does indeed apply only to living people, but as I'm sure you will have noted, this discussion related the applicability of those deadnames to living people. (And if you're "not inclined" to wikilawyer in that way, why raise the red herring?)

Your proposal above is inconsistent. The heading refers to "likely" search targets, but the substantive proposal refers to "even a remote possibility". The heading considers a probability greater than 0.5; the second is a probability greater than zero.

Since the substantive proposal is the text which would be used, your proposal amounts to a license to use any previous name in the lede. Here's why: take a man notable only as Ebenezer Ahmed, but who is now revealed in a reliable but obscure print source to have been known before his change of gender as Galilea Alon. It will always be reasonable to argue that people who knew of Galilea Alon may wish to search by that name, so there is more than a remote possibility. The result is that when a previous name is revealed in a any reliable source, however obscure, your proposal would recommend its inclusion in the lede of an article on one of the world's most-used websites ... which would in turn lead to it appearing near the top of any Google search for them. See for example how a Google search for Cherie Blair displays her previous name near the top of the search page: that's what would happen to a Gsearch for Ebenezer Ahmed.

Why would you want to cause such distress to a living person? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't censor the encyclopedia to avoid causing a living person distress. That aside, censoring only certain things from the biographies of living people that potentially causes them distress makes the encyclopedia biased.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your interpretation of BLP policy, this is not about censorship. It's a style guideline; we're discussing whether or not this information belongs in the lead. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: before linking to a policy you really should read it. If you had actually read WP:NOTCENSORED you would see that it says we do not censor material which readers consider objectionable or offensive. Note that word "readers"; it does not refer to the living subjects of articles, who are covered in WP:BLP. The BLP policy says the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment ... and that is one of the the relevant policies in this case, along with WP:UNDUE.

So, I'll ask again: Godsy, why would you want to cause such distress to a living person, contrary to the policy at WP:BLP? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If we deviate from the norm because anyone considers it objectionable or offensive, it constitutes censorship. If someone hasn't read our article or a characterization about it elsewhere (i.e. isn't a reader), how can it cause them distress? That is unless you're making some extraterritorial argument that it could affect or harm them because of others reading it, which we can't and shouldn't try to control anyhow, if it is a verifiable fact (we don't remove other verifiable things from biographies that can be viewed as negative). That portion you quote above is more in regard to un-reliable sources. Otherwise everything "harmful" would go and we'd be effectively writing ourselves off as a positive publicity site (at least for biographies of living people).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: please read the policy WP:BLP. As in, actually read the words and consider their meaning. It's not an essay. It's not a guideline. It's policy.

When you have read it, you will see that most of what you write above contravenes long-standing policy.

BLP is very clear that when we are writing about living people, there is a presumption in favor of privacy. That is the norm.

Your idea that we publish everything without restraint is not, and never has been, "the norm". The policy is very clear about that -- as you would already know if you had read it.

For example, you write if it is a verifiable fact (we don't remove other verifiable things from biographies that can be viewed as negative. That's not true: it is policy that BLPs "be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy".

For example, when a subject has divorced, there is very clear guidance not to report the details of the divorce, even if they are in reliable sources ... unless the story of the divorce is important to the article. You want to call this "censorship", but policy requires it ... because it is the decent way to treat another living person.

Another example: BLP says that if a person is only borderline notable, we should respect their privacy by publishing only their year of birth, not the full date. You want to call this "censorship", but policy is to regard it as decent treatment of a living person.

So, I'll ask yet again: Godsy, why would you want to cause such distress to a living person, contrary to the policy at WP:BLP? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Here’s my read as a bystander: It was never a goal to cause anyone distress (and your question is a mischaracterization). The goal is including basic biographical information in an encyclopedia. Distress is an unfortunate but at times unavoidable side effect. Yes, it could be avoided, at least by our own indirect hand, by limiting the basic biographical information we share; but it could be argued that this would compromise our integrity as an impartial reference work.
When one realizes that a style guideline has no say over whether the name appears in the article at all, this argument loses some of its power, methinks. Leaving it out of the lead but mentioning it later in the article is by no means censorship. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: No, my question is not a mischaracterisation. Policy at WP:BLP is very clear that we seek to avoid causing harm to living people, by not giving WP:UNDUE weight to trivia, and by respecting people's privacy. Some editors are insistently avoiding that policy obligation, by denying the responsibility to consider the effect on privacy. As you acknowledge, this is entirely avoidable.
Your suggestion that restraint might compromise our integrity as an impartial reference work is silly; respect for privacy of living subjects does not compromise impartiality. That applies equally to former names of transgender people and to verifiable facts about messy divorces.
It's also a little jesuitical of you to deny that causing harm and distress is a goal. That may not be the primary intent, but when it is an inevitable consequence of an action, the persistent refusal of some editors to weigh the consequences of that action amounts to wilful harm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Brown Haired Girl said it well. We don't include every possible named searched in the lead indiscriminately. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 14:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. Funcrunch (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment While this is a slight improvement over the existing "the original name must be stated even" and eliminates the troublesome exception for one particular group of people, I find "any prior names that are likely to be searched" is too vague and does too little to address the concerns that including prior names so prominently is giving them undue weight. Proposals A or D are better. Anomie⚔ 20:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It is the right spirit since it implies the former name is 'in the public domain', but is too vague and simply shifts the issue elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. Kaldari (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. -sche (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stop trying to make a magically special case for human names. We do not at every article force into the lead every attested variant name or spelling that someone could conceivably search for, just those that, on a case-by-case basis, editors feel are common and significant enough to warrant this treatment. The same applies here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All changed names mentioned in lead only if significant coverage used that name (proposal D)

Alright, this addresses the rightful concerns about including the WP:Notability guideline in the policy. It's true, notability is just for determining whether an article should exist or not. I feel as if this has all the thought of proposal A while avoiding the wikijargon.

Any former name should be mentioned in the lead section only if the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that use that name.

This avoids reference to transgender and non-binary people entirely, which was initially the reason for the RfC. It takes into account BLP policy - WP:Verifiability is important in this proposal. It's not just a 'guess' at what an editor thinks is important enough to go into the lead, rather it needs to be verifiably significant to put the name into the lead. Most importantly, it avoids using the notability policy incorrectly.

• Support As proposer. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 16:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: Have you considered that this would likely lead to most maiden names being removed from lead sections? That's a significant change from current practice, and would also require changing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Maiden names. Kaldari (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: An exception to maiden names would definitely be supported in my eyes as I find very little reason to believe it would cause harm to the biography in any way. It's unfortunate that a proposal G probably has to be written at this point taking into consideration everything everyone has said up to this point, and I doubt I'm familiar enough with the many nuances of content creation to do so. -NottNott|talk 14:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support If a name change is not relevant when the article is about a transgender person, a similar name change is equally not relevant when the article is about a cisgender person. Anomie⚔ 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose solely on the grounds of redundancy. No information should be in the lead which has not had significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Why say that specifically about a name? Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Information shouldn't be in the lead if it isn't significant - the lead is just a summary of the contents in an article. See WP:BIRTHNAME. This proposal is about removing specific preference to changed names through a sex change vs other methods. I'm certainly not avocating original research - I'd suggest you read over the discussion and what has been said. -NottNott|talk Notify with ((re)) 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NottNott, I did read extensively. This section is proposing that ALL former names be excluded unless they are 'notably covered', it does not mention 'sex change' anywhere. My argument is that Cliff Richard's or John Wayne's or Hillary Clinton's former names would probably not be in the lead ANYHOW under present p&g if they were not RS and widely covered, though none of them were known at the time they used the former names. I agree with the spirit of your proposal, but consider it redundant at best. If you intended the proposal to cover only 'sex change' name changes, you should have said so, since Anomie seems also to have understood it as I did. Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not opposed - but not fully supportive. I don't think parenthetically mentioning a birth name gives it UNDUE weight... even in the lead sentence. Mentioning a relevant fact in passing normally does not require "significant coverage"... Just a reliable source to support it. We definitely should not "out" someone's birth name... But if a birth name can be supported by reliable sources, we can certainly mention it in passing. And the first sentence of the article is the most logical place to do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Support until talked out of it, (edit: talked out of it, doesn't seem to fulfill what is common sense:) as this addresses my concern and will still allow "maiden" names on pages of American First Ladies and allow the official names of most actors to be kept. Randy Kryn 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn: If they weren't notable by that name, per this guideline, mere mentions in reliable sources may not be considered "significant".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Randy Kryn and Godsy: I don’t see anything in the proposed text about the name being “used significantly” or anything to that effect. If the subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources, and if many of those sources mention an alternate name for the subject (just like we do in our leads), I’d say that qualifies. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per WP:NNC, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. "Significant coverage" shouldn't be required. A former name should be from/attributed to a reliable source, but for this useful piece of information to be included [in the normal place per a longstanding practice (i.e. the lead)], the coverage [shouldn't necessarily] need to be "significant". [If someone wants to make a similar argument for all notable people, outside of an RfC specifically concerning the treatment of the former names of transgender and non-binary people, I would reconsider my position].—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Godsy: Unless I’m very much mistaken, this proposal doesn’t set any requirements for article content. It only addresses what content of an article belongs specifically in the lead, as opposed to the rest of the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amended above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. A full or original name isn’t vital to understanding who a person is and how that person is significant, and so (while it should be in the article) it doesn’t need to be in the lead. To use a very mild example, there is no need for Bill Clinton to open with “William Jefferson Clinton,” nor for that name to be included in every article that mentions him. This has nothing to do with WP:N nor with gender issues. The lead should use the name(s) that the subject is known by, and that’s that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  I’ve just created #Proposal G, but this proposal seems compatible enough with that for me to continue supporting it as well. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as 2nd choice (1st is proposal A) for the same reasons I provided above. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I've had difficulty following the many options presented in this RfC, especially now that the first proposal presented has apparently been withdrawn with a referral to this one. As noted, this proposal doesn't mention trans or non-binary people at all, which was the original point of the RfC. I still think the pre-transition names of trans and non-binary people are qualitatively different from the former names of cisgender people, for the reasons BrownHairedGirl articulated in Proposal C. Funcrunch (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support We should include the person's former name if it has received coverage per WP:N, and WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This would likely lead to the deletion of most maiden names from lead sections. I prefer the current wording and don't think it is overly jargony. Kaldari (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  While I agree the removal of many maiden names from leads would be a likely result, explanation as to why you think that's a bad thing outweighing the good of the change would be helpful in understanding your strong opposition. I also note the mention of "jargon" in this proposal is in reference to #proposal A (specifically it's use of the word "notable"), not the current wording. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Anomie: The current wording also says "notable", but isn't linked. Regarding maiden names, I think any effort to remove maiden names is going to be disruptive (and we will end up right back here with another RfC). In the case of trans people, there is actually a good reason to not emphasize their birth name by default (namely, that in many cases, they want to disassociate themselves from that name as much as possible, thus the term "deadname"). In the case of maiden names, there is no equivalent justification. We would be causing disruption and edit warring for no good reason. Deadnames and maiden names are similar concepts, but not really equivalent when you consider how they affect the subject (which is a legitimate thing to consider, per BLP), so I don't see anything wrong with treating them differently. Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Kaldari: I’ve asked a similar question in the discussion section below, but what purpose does it serve to include the maiden name in the lead in cases where the maiden name is not commonly used? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, much better than previous suggestions (I appreciate not making it a trans-specific rule, and the nod to WP:BLP), but we still have the issue of sources that use deadnames or obsolete names purely to make a political point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

  @Lankiveil: Are those sources reliable? My instinct is “of course not,” but I don’t think I’m familiar with any such. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with any such sources either, but I can imagine a lot of politically conservative journals existing that deliberately misgender trans people. Such sources may fall within our reliable sources guidelines. I'm not sure what to think of such sources. ~Mable (chat) 08:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  Without any examples, it’s purely hypothetical, so I don’t think this is really something to worry about. On the other hypothetical hand, if reliable sources overwhelmingly exclusively used an unwanted name for a given subject (again, purely hypothetical situation), wouldn’t we be obliged to follow the sources? After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tool for social justice, nor is it politically progressive or liberal or politically anything. It’s an encyclopedia that publishes what reliable sources report. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  The question was whether we should follow a hypothetical selection of sources that are reliable by our standards, but differ from other sources politically, and therefore always make use of deadnames rather than preferred names. If 100% of the sources still used deadnames, this whole issue wouldn't have even been a question. We'd just follow the sources. If, let's say, 10% of our sources always use deadnames, then should we keep including them as well? ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  I’d say that depends on the sources, their motivations for using the name, and the individual’s own feelings on the use of the name. If those 10% of sources deliberately used the name to disrespect the person, again, I would seriously question the reliability of those particular sources and whether we should even take into consideration anything they say. However, if they used the name for instance out of confusion over a recent change, the old name would likely still be noteworthy and should be included. A non-hypothetical example would really help inform this discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support with reservations. I agree with Kaldari that it is probably in our best interests to include maiden names in the lede, on the basis that it can sometimes be the case that (potentially) those names may in some cases be required to find some relevant information, like, for instance, place and date of birth. Theoretically, if we were to see a swift upturn in temporary contract marriages, which might lead to numerous surnames for females (I think primarily?), that might potentially be problematic. But that doesn't seem to be the case with this. Not all people this proposal would apply to live in the developed West. Some will live in areas where records are less well-kept, and, in some cases, where records have been destroyed through war or misadventure. Also, except in a few extremely rare cases, which I could, I suppose, see specific allowance for as and if they arise, most people will not be adamantly opposed to ever being referred to by a name which they had earlier been willing to take on through marriage or which they had been born with. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the guideline from its current content to what is proposed here, on the basis that the current guideline is better (and e.g. does not have the problems with regard to maiden names which this proposal does, other commenters have noted) and better-worded than what is proposed here. -sche (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I kind of like the current phasing, but this does tend to clarify the issue and settle future arguments. As for the maiden name thing, I see no real reason to include them, but I would suggest adding them as an exception as a compromise solution. Tamwin (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, perhaps with some copyediting for clarity. It was noted above as kind of redundant, since the criterion that it be found in RS is required of any info in the lead, or the article, at all, and has nothing to do with names intrinsically. But, clearly, people are "not getting it", and too many people also object to the current wording. The idea behind Proposal D, which simply needs to be worded better, is consistent with our case-by-case approach to treatment of articles generally. For example, some herbs and weeds have 20 or more regional vernacular names in English alone, and while we will list them all in the article somewhere, usually only the best-attested ones appear in the lead. As another example, there are numerous historical spellings of Mexico, but the article lead only mentions current Spanish México, not older variants like Mejico, Méjico, etc.). Much of the discussion in this entire set of threads comes down to including in the lead what the sources indicate is important, and including in the article at all what can be sourced and seems pertinent. These are two different standards, that we already use for all info in articles, per MOS:LEAD, and per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE + WP:V + WP:RS. There is no rationale for a special, different rule for TG people. If the name is common enough in RS that people are likely to use it as a search term, e.g. because the subject was notable even marginally before the name change, or something caused RS attention to frequently be drawn to the old name, include it in the lead. If it's a name virtually no one knows, don't. If it's a name that can't even be sourced well, don't include it in the article anywhere. This is no different from any other examination of potentially encyclopedic material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  I note one possible "something caused RS attention to frequently be drawn to the old name" with regard to transgender people's former names is anti-transgender sentiment, however. Anomie⚔ 11:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  If readers of anti-transgender trash (pardon my opinion) search Wikipedia for a name because reliable-but-possibly-bigoted sources use that name, don’t those readers have as much right as anyone to find information about the subject? We’re here to serve our readers, wherever they may come from. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  The concern is that anti-transgender editors would use otherwise-reliable "anti-transgender trash" publications to support including a former name in the lead that is not paid attention to by reliable sources for any reason other than opposing transgenderism. Anomie⚔ 15:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  @Anomie: Then WP:BIASED would apply, on a case-by-case basis. I still haven’t seen any examples, but if these sources are indeed reliable in the Wikipedia sense, and if the editor citing them is not clearly motivated by transphobic thinking, I see no problem with the hypothetical editor’s rationale. I think at this point the only thing to sway my opinion would be to see an actual source that disrespectfully refuses to use a subject’s preferred name despite meeting WP:RS standards, or else we might as well be worrying about whether sources are run by unicorns (which is to say, we don’t need to take precautions against things that don’t exist). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  This smacks of conspiracy theory. What "anti-transgender" editor cabal is this? What are these "anti-transgender trash" publications, and if there are any, why would WP consider them "otherwise-reliable"?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Exactly what I’ve been wondering. Even if @Anomie’s concerns have any merit, why on earth would the sources behind them have any merit? Strikes me as policy by paranoia, lacking any actual reliable sources that are out to get you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support, both as a matter of WP:BLPPRIVACY and a matter of WP:Summary style. This is what we normally do - follow the sources. Inclusion of the information at all in the article should require the sourcing to pass WP:EXTRAORDINARY, let alone the lead. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No guidance (proposal E)

I thought I'd throw this in on a whim. As people seem to enjoy mincing about when it is appropriate to include alternative names in the lead on the basis of individual cases, it seems like it may be necessary to remove all MoS guidance on alternative names in the lead, leaving it to talk page consensus in each particular case. Therefore, I propose the removal of the second and third paragraphs of the "first mention" (WP:FULLNAME) section of the guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - That would be detrimental to maintaining a consistent style throughout the encyclopedia and this matter would almost undoubtedly perpetually take up considerably more of our community's time because disputes would arise about it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Godsy. Graham (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "It's hard, so we should give up" is not how we roll.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Include birth names of people who have changed their names (proposal F)

While I am dubious about addressing this in a style guideline (see “Discussion” section below), I will say that transgender and non-binary people are people who “have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well.” That is a quote from the very section we’re discussing here. That line is the one we should be discussing, rather than the overly specific restriction on it. There are any number of reasons that a person may not want it publicly known that he changed his name, so the issue has nothing to do with gender identity. But if it is publicly known, it should be reported in the lead, as per usual. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above. Editorial consensus is needed to determine whether the birth name is significant enough to be given prominent position in the lead section, in line with WP:UNDUE. There should be no prescription of mandatory inclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 17:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all trans and non-binary people have legally changed their names. Some have financial or other barriers to doing so. A person's name is irrelevant to whether or not they are trans, and the legality of said name should be irrelevant to how they are addressed in spaces like this. Funcrunch (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  Well then, strike “legally.” I’d argue it’s equally irrelevant that Bill Clinton’s full name is “William Jefferson Clinton.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (my own proposal) per User:RGloucester and User:Funcrunch in favor of #proposal D above. (I shall now add anchors to the proposals because links like that should work.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this should be a blanket rule. There may be cases where someone's birth name is significant enough to warrant being in the lead, for example, if someone's birth name was changed immediately after they were born and never used otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Kaldari: How on earth would that make it significant? Or did you mean “not significant enough”? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant not significant enough. Kaldari (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any blanket rule such as this that any former name, even a non-notable one, must be included in the (first sentence of the) lead. Such information is often more appropriately placed in the article body rather than the lead. -sche (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - no automatic need to put this information in the lead. That said, I think it's vital to remember that we owe it to our readers not to confuse them. And it is confusing in articles such as that of Jack Monroe (at the moment) that without ever discussing their gender it midway through the article talks about them attending Westcliff High School for Girls without giving any hint that this person wasn't born male. While this kind of topic must be attended with sensitivity, we have to remember that an article has to introduce a person to people who have no idea who they are - if someone identifies as a gender (or none) that's not what they were born as, it's best to be explicit about this. Blythwood (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, for the reasons given in the first section. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my detailed comments under Prop. D. There is no automatic one-size-fits-all rule here; it's a matter of source reliability and encyclopedic relevance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Include birth names only if widely published (proposal G)

The style guidelines here should explicitly defer to policy: WP:BLPPRIVACY. Include the birth name in the lead only if that name has been widely published; otherwise, Wikipedia policy prevents us from including it anywhere. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The trans examples used in the current guideline support this change—Chelsea Manning’s birth name is widely reported, whereas I can only find that Laverne Cox “doesn’t want to reveal her first name pre-tranisition.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Redundant/tautological, and will not address the issue. BLPPRIVACY is about whether the article can include the alleged fact at all. That's not what any of this discussion is about. It's about what appears in the lead, so Prop G is simply off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: If it satisfies BLPPRIVACY, why shouldn’t it appear in the lead? The only compelling argument I’ve seen against it is that the name would be easily found if in the lead, which wouldn’t be a concern if the name’s already been widely and reliably published. As for calling it redundant, that’s kind of my point; any reasoning we might introduce here in the MOS, if in line with policy, would be redundant with policy, so let’s not. It’s the “we already cover this elsewhere” option, and I maintain that it’s a viable one. I’m not saying we should give no guidance here. I’m saying the guidance should be to include names in the lead if they’re in line with BLPPRIVACY. (Maybe this is redundant with the more inclusive “include birth names” proposals, but those could be interpreted as ignoring BLPPRIVACY or being ignorant of it. This one explicitly invokes it, since I believe it’s the most important factor to consider here.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well, obviously, MOS:LEAD is why. If "satisfying BLPPRIVACY" equalled "should appear in the lead", then every single fact in a BLP article would in the lead. QED.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  And MOS:LEAD has said to include full names and widely known alternative names in the lead for, as far as I’m aware, forever (or at least, it’s always been the practice) This proposal lines up with the guidance on that page, which is nowhere near as broad as you suggest. So yes, for such names, “satisfies BLPPRIVACY” equals “should appear in the lead.” I’m merely proposing we keep it simple, use the longstanding guidance we already have, and remind editors to exercise judgment with respect to privacy. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  I already addressed this, and you're simply not getting it. No one is supporting this, so I'm just moving on instead of re-re-re-explaining it to you again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification log

• Messaging Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to form a broader consensus. NottNott|talk 23:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Messaging WP:LGBT and WP:BIOGRAPHY projects as they have direct relevance to the question at hand. Diffs: [25] [26]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 02:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Added discussion to WP:Cent. The issue is about balancing articles between reducing offense caused and improving factual detail. It's not purely a technical matter, but instead a bit more about ethics in handling with the subject, touching WP:NOTCENSORED and as well as WP:BLP. That's grounds for large-scale relevance to the community. NottNott|talk 09:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Notifying WP:POLITICS and WP:LING - clearly of relevance to these two WikiProjects. The discussion is both political regarding this decade's ongoing debate about gender identity, as well as about how language influences the article. NottNott|talk 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Mass-Pinging @RGloucester, 79.158.212.99, Seraphimblade, Finnusertop, Dicklyon, Blueboar, Od Mishehu, Only in death, Funcrunch, SMcCandlish, Irn, Maplestrip, Mangoe, Sir Joseph, EvergreenFir, Godsy, Abjiklɐm, Collect, Sandstein, Fdssdf, Woodstone, and Wugapodes: i.e everyone (may have missed people by accident, sorry) who has been involved in the discussion. Bringing their attention to a potentially concluding proposal I raised in a new section in this discussion and asking for feedback. -NottNott|talk Notify me with ((re)) 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Notified WT:MOS, since many editors of the Manual of Style watchlist the main page and its talk page, and miss discussions on its subpages' talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC for using former names)

Does this debate even belong here? Isn’t the question one of content rather than style? MOS pages are not content guidelines. (Incidentally, since when was it not standard practice to include birth names in the opening sentence?) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is about where to bring up deadnames rather than whether or not to bring up deadnames at all. There is a good consensus on the latter: mention deadnames somewhere in the prose if they are reported by reliable sources in a somewhat meaningful (read: not purely insulting) way. With some wiggleroom, I suppose. The question is whether to put such names in the lead section in bold as well, in every situation where it is possible. ~Mable (chat) 15:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of comments in this whole discussion sound like we’re talking about including the name in the lead, or leaving it out of the article altogether. We’re not. This is about where to put the name if it belongs in the article in the first place. If BLP policy would prevent us from including a name in an article, it doesn’t matter what the MOS says about where to put it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There are basically a few options we can take:

1. Always list former names and deadnames in the lead section in bold if it is possible to reliably source them.
2. Only list former names (deadname or otherwise) if the person is reasonably well-known under that name. Otherwise, leave such trivial names for early-life sections.
3. Always list former names, though only list deadnames if the 2 applies.
4. Same as 3, except never bold deadnames.

These will vary a bit depending on wording and I may have missed something, but these may give an idea of what we're dealing with here. In most situations, former names/deadnames are described in the article prose if it is possible to reliably source them. This is a MOS issue because the question is whether or not to list them in the lead as well, but this is also a BLP issue because we're dealing with ethics. I hope this helps to clear up all the above discussions. ~Mable (chat) 07:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have perhaps a stupid question: What is the functional difference between “former names” and “deadnames”? They’re both names that a person used previously and has decided to no longer use, aren’t they?

Second perhaps-stupid question: Why are there different concerns around each? Why didn’t existing policy about former names cover this? Surely there have been notable non-trans people who wanted their original names forgotten and deserve the same respect. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The main difference is that deadnames are frequently used to deny the gender identity of the individuals. For example, I know a professor who refused to call a trans man by his name (let's say Pierre) and instead always used his deadname (let's say Monica). For a whole semester, calling him Monica because it was what was "on the roster". It was mocking, mean-spirited, and meant to humiliate him. That's not the same case with other former names. No one would try to mock Hillary Clinton by calling her Hillary Rodham. Or try to humiliate Jay Z by calling him Shawn Carter. It might be meant to annoy them, but it doesn't deny their personhood, their identity, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever your gender identity, a name is part of your identity. If Jay Z doesn’t want to be known as Shawn (i.e., he considers it a deadname), how is it any less of a denial of his identity to call him Shawn? Speaking hypothetically here, as I have no idea if he has strong feelings about that name. Likewise, if Pierre simply doesn’t care whether people call him Pierre or Monica, how is that an attack? Why treat one case differently than the other? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

But it's not a deadname for Jay Z. Pierre cares very very much. He's Pierre, not Monica. I can't think of a decent parallel for cis people, but it's sorta like if someone kept calling you "she" when you go by "he". There's the whole issue of "outing" too; it's is literally life-threatening for some people to be outed as trans. This is not the same with divorcees and stage names. If you're really interested in it, I'd recommend searching some resources from trans folks on the issue. The community is clear though that deadnames are beyond insulting. It's akin to a slur. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How can you, or anyone else, say “it’s not a deadname for” anyone? How do you know he doesn’t consider it a slur? That’s not something that can be determined by any person but the subject. Generalizations are not true for everyone, and they absolutely should not be codified in project space. If a current or former name is offensive to its bearer, it’s offensive, period. And if that name (or any other bit of information) would “out” the subject—for any reason—it shouldn’t be in Wikipedia in the first place (WP:GOSSIP). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadnaming" is most commonly associated with trans people (and the term originated from a trans person describing the practice, as cited in the Wikitionary entry). Trans people, unlike cisgender people, nearly always experience some amount of gender dysphoria when they are misgendered, and deadnaming is a form of misgendering. Some cis people might experience distress when referred to by their previous names, but it is much more common for trans people to be hurt by doing this, whether or not it is intentional and whether or not they are outed by the information. This is what EvergreenFir, BrownHairedGirl, and I (a trans person) are trying to explain to the editors on this RfC who object to trans people being given "special treatment". Funcrunch (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A "former name" is any name someone used in the past and no longer uses. A "deadname" is a subset of former names where the subject specifically desires a break with the former identity: they might say "I am a new person, the person known by that name is dead." A deadname could exist for a person for many reasons, but one of the most prominent (and politically charged) reasons currently is among transgender people who begin expressing a gender identity different from their previous expression, in no small part because persisting in use of transgender deadnames is used by people opposing transgenderism. As you point out in a later reply, this also creates a situation where transgender people are sometimes assumed to consider their former name a deadname unless they've explicitly stated otherwise (and sometimes even then), even to the point of opposing the use of the name when discussing time periods when that was their only name. Anomie⚔ 12:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This was the definition I was assuming, and this is exactly what I was saying—that anyone could have a deadname for any number of reasons. @Funcrunch: I for one am not objecting to the “special treatment” of giving transgendered people that kind of respect. I’m objecting to the idea of denying anyone that same respect and acting like no one else could possibly have that same problem. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I was getting increasingly annoyed at how many section there are where people try to achieve consensus, while there hasn't been any possibility to discuss the issue in a more neutral light (preferably a place where !votes are irrelevant). So I'm just going to create yet another section with the hope that people may get a better understanding of the situation.

I've seen pages such as WP:DOP and WP:CENSOR being brought up above. I was wondering how these apply to the current discussion and how these may balance one another out. Perhaps both guidelines are irrelevant in this discussion as deadnames will be described in the article either way. After all, removing content only from the lead section isn't actually really removing said content. The question is about prominence of information: whether something that is technically public knowledge should get less prominence for privacy reasons. In cases of material that may be offensive to readers (such as images of genitalia or gore), this is not done, but BLP guidelines are much more strict (for good reason!). Any thoughts on this topic? ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the question of whether other types of former names should be listed in the lead section (as they may be considered trivia) is also still open. If so, all of the above is rendered irrelevant. Are there thoughts on that topic that do not relate to specific wordings as they are listed above? ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is an existing discussion section below the notifications section; maybe move your comments there? Funcrunch (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that discussion is specifically intended for the question of whether this is a MOS issue at all... I'd rather have an actual discussion section, anyway, as the section below isn't really used that way. ~Mable (chat) 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is a discussion section for this RFC. That’s why it’s labeled “Discussion” (followed by some DAB text to give it a unique #link from any similarly titled subsections of other sections). And by no means do I WP:OWN that section. Go ahead and discuss, that’s what it’s there for. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: What purpose does it serve to have an obscure name in the lead? Deadname, former name, nickname, whatever sort of name, I’m talking about a name that basically no one ever really uses when discussing the subject. Is there a reason to include uncommon names in the lead? I’m not going for a proposal here, just want to know the rationale. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In case of a former name/deadname, I suppose it could be to give the readers an idea of how different their current name is from the name their parents gave them? It may also give an impression of what their parents were thinking at the time of the person's birth. Lastly, it may be used by childhood friends of the subject who do not know the subject's current name. The latter two reasons are far beyond the scope of Wikipedia, I believe, while the first one could be addressed equally as well in an early-life section and seems rather trivial for the lead. There's also the vague idea that a former name is "more official" in some way. ~Mable (chat) 07:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like there aren’t really any compelling reasons to specifically include them in the lead, then. So now I’m confused why there’s so much disagreement here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely if we were to expand the guideline beyond LGBT/non-binary people to "former names" in general, the focus on "birth name" and "former name" is misplaced? The criteria should be whether the subject of the BLP should be considered to have disassociated themselves from their previous names. The criterion of disassociation is a more reasonable guide. Examples: Maiden names of women who adopted their husbands' surnames can generally be included. Personal names of artists who perform under a professional name are probably fine. Deadnaming is generally inappropriate unless the subject was notable under the former name etc.. Deryck C. 13:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea of disassociation, but I'm not totally clear on how it would work. I imagine we could automatically use a presumption of disassociation for trans people and then a presumption of not-disassociation for maiden names, but what about everyone else? Err on the side of privacy until proven otherwise? That feels a little too blunt for me, and I think I'd like a little more nuance, but I'm interested in hearing other thoughts on this. -- Irn (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Warning: (copied from above discussion) This discussion is being brigaded by an off-site hate group who is actively encouraging people to create meatpuppet accounts to rig the "vote" (which shows they don't understand Wikipedia). They are a notorious transphobic hate group who have a history of participating in doxxing, harassment, and threats of violence against trans people. This is the post from the hate group, where they explicitly instruct people to "Vote SUPPORT". MarleneSwift (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: with that warning has to come a Caution... don't assume that anyone who thinks deadnaming has no place in Wikipedia came here because of that post, or is part of a hate group. Yes, the warning is valid, but don't over react to it. See: WP:Assume good faith.

In reality, I don't think we need to be overly worried about the redit post... First, if you follow the link to the post, you will note that several of the follow up messages to the post strongly advise people against trying to meat-puppet, and urge people to leave the arguments against deadnaming to experienced Wikipedians. Second, this RFC will be closed by an experienced Wikipedia (probably an admin) and those of us who are experienced Wikipedians can easily tell who might be a SPA meat-puppet. Finally... I would caution those who favor deadnaming in Wikipedia against responding in kind... don't rush off to the on-line LBGT support groups and call in your friends (it is just as wrong to meat-puppet to support deadnaming as it is to oppose it). Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

MarleneSwift: Thank you for the warning. Blueboar: "Gender-critical" feminists are well-known to the trans community and our allies, who describe them as trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). I understand the caution to assume good faith, but this is a group that is specifically anti-trans. Agreed that it would be wrong to meat-puppet or otherwise canvass trans-friendly people in retaliation though. Funcrunch (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who they are: if they make a good point, it can be noted and discussed. If they repeat what others say, it can be ignored. It's just good to know that there may be more meatpuppery going on than usual (rather than simply wondering where all those !votes come from). ~Mable (chat) 21:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of anti-trans brigading here so far, though I admit I haven't read every word of what is quite a long discussion. All of the support/oppose pers, in fact, seem to be coming from the other side of the debate. Vashti (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal. Any competent closer will give little if any weight to comments made by accounts that suddenly appeared after this discussion started and which haven't done any productive editing. Meatpuppets are very easy to detect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Consensus" section is so long that my browser slows down heavily when trying to edit it. I was wondering if something could be done about that, before I become unable to edit that section entirely. ~Mable (chat) 21:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A #Procedural Break has been introduced to prevent that getting out of hand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

An analogous situation?

One of the problems we seem to be having in reaching a consensus is that the concept of "deadnaming" is almost unique to the Trans community. I say almost, because there is one other group of people that frequently "deadname" (even if they don't call it that)... divorced women.
It is not uncommon for a divorced woman (assuming she changed her name upon marriage in the first place) to return to her maiden name upon divorce. When that occurs, she likely wants nothing to do with her former husband... and the name change (returning to her maiden name) is an indication of that desire. She is effectively "deadnaming" her married persona. Indeed, if the divorce was particularly messy... mentioning her married name may be emotionally hurtful. (ie there is a potential BLP issue)
While I do understand that the two situations are different, I do think they are close enough that we can make an analogy between birth names in the Trans community, and married names in the divorced community.
If so... some questions arrise. First: How does Wikipedia currently deal with married names when it comes to divorced women? Do we menion them (or do we not)? My guess is that the answer to that first question is not clear cut... it is probably one of those "it depends" answers ... in which case, we have to ask further questions: When do we mention them?... And also: where and how do we mention them? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, interesting question. Without doing any research, I would assume that such names are only included in the lead section if deemed highly relevant to the topic at hand. ~Mable (chat) 15:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is very much an "it depends" situation. Assume hypothetical person Ann was born with Surname1, changed to using Surname2 when they got married, and then used Surname3 (the same as Surname1) after getting divorced.

• If Ann first became notable after her divorce, then I would expect the article to be at Ann Surname3 with no mention in the lead of Surname2.
• If she first became notable as Ann Surname2 then that will be mentioned in the lead, and may even be the article title if the divorce came after her principle period of notability.
• If her primary period of notability was as Ann Surname1 but she wasn't very notable as Ann Surname2 then it may or may not be mentioned in the lead depending on how relevant the marriage is to the content of the article.
• If the marriage and/or divorce are significant to her notability, then it is quite likely that Ann Surname2 will appear in the lead (particularly if Surname2 is not identical to her now-ex husband's (e.g. if it was hyphenated)) but not guaranteed.
• If she never used the name Ann Surname2 professionally then there is less cause for it to be mentioned than if she did (and her professional life is the reason for her notability)
• If the divorce happened before her Wikipedia article was created there will likely be less pressure to include mention of Ann Surname2.
• The greater the proportion of her life she was known as Ann Surname2 the greater the likelihood of it being a significant search term as well.

I think one additional difference with trans* people is that the assumption we need to make if we have limited knowledge is roughly opposite - i.e. we should assume that trans* people do not want to be publicly associated with their birthname unless we have evidence in reliable sources to the contrary, but we should not assume that all mentions of a divorced person's former married name will cause them mental harm unless we have knowledge (or reasons to suspect) that it will. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of your ideas for when a person's former name should or shouldn't be included in the lead in bold works for trans people as well, though. Even assuming trans people generally don't want their deadname in the lead section, if they first became notable under that name, it is likely that it should be. Similarly, if they were never really known under that name, the deadname shouldn't be in the lead. Sure, there are some differences, but I think we should handle them somewhat similarly. ~Mable (chat) 07:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• INTERRUPTION - Could we take a step back please... I think we are getting ahead of ourselves... my question was not asking for opinions on what we should do regarding names of divorced women... I was asking for an examination of what we actually do (currently). I was hoping for some examples of our current practice. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf appears to have done that, as an overview rather than a pile of examples. I think we all read and edit enough of WP to know that his summary of how these decisions get collectively made about divorced women's articles is pretty accurate. I concur with Maplestrip that the bulk of it is applicable to TG cases. It's also applicable to others, e.g. adoptees, people who escaped abusive families and abandoned their original surnames as constant reminders of the abuse, etc., etc. I can think of quite a number of actual, real reasons that people I personally know have "deadnamed", that don't have anything at all to do with gender identity or a divorce. The entire problem with this RfC mess is that some people are looking desperately for an excuse to engage in special pleading, to have a unique rule all about them, when there is no need to do that at all, but the RfC was framed with this in mind, instead of a more neutral approach. Making it apply to two groups instead of just one doesn't really improve the matter.

    I do agree with your raising the issue of the similarity between some TG people's experiences and reasons and feelings, and those of divorcées, but it doesn't really end there. Aside from the examples above, I know people who have deadnamed because a) their surname, through linguistic accident, sounds like something vulgar in English; b) their surname combined with their given name coincides with that of someone notorious (including a serial killer, and a cult leader); c) they were subject to discrimination in ways affecting their life and career for having a stereotypical name of a particular ethnicity that was not a popular group of people where they lived at that time; d) for spiritual reasons, having chosen a new name that was meaningful to them and being philosophically opposed to the idea of being saddled with a name assigned at birth; e) they just didn't like their original name for being too long, too hard to pronounce or spell, etc.; f) their birth name was dangerous for them to have where they lived due to it being that of a local crime family; g) to not be seen as riding on the coat-tails of a parent or other prominent relative; h) to get out from under the burden of a criminal record or other old history (e.g. after being outed in sex work); i) to escape years of dedicated stalking. I could go on. The "it depends" and "it's a case-by-case thing" is what to walk away with here, tied to WP:UNDUE – the amount of source coverage that mentions the former name, surely. I can't really see any other practical result coming out of this.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Compelling reason?

I’ve asked before to no avail, but: Is there any compelling reason to include a lesser-known name in the lead for any subject, let alone one who has problems identifying with that name? Is there a compelling reason to have “Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz” or “William Jefferson Blythe III” at the top of the article at all, rather than just “Fidel Castro” or “Bill Clinton”?

If not, why is there even a debate here? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

For me the compelling reasoning is that Wikipedia is a source for information. If someone is notable, then the inclusion of information regarding who this person is, whether they were named as such in the article at time of notability, or not, is absolutely relevant, insofar as it is relevant to any other person of note. The question you seem to be asking is why is it relevant at all, is it included in the lead in, even when notability occurs after the name change. I believe that for the sake of conformity and standardization it makes sense. The no longer used name is very much a part of the person's history. So why included it in the lead in, instead of in a historical section? The same reason that the person of note's birthday is included within the lead in. The birth of the notable person itself is a notable event that is shared across the board and is part of the standardized formatting used. Including the birth name makes sense. If someone was born with a middle name, Paul McCartney for example, who was born James Paul McCartney, who if one were to say "do you know who James McCartney is?" would not result in the same as asking of Paul McCartney. Unlike the birth name's that have changed, we see that his full name and full title are included, as this combines both birth name and current name within a single element, in this case, Sir James Paul McCartney. To say this is relevant while birth name is not is faulty logic as this is as much birth name as it is contemporary identifier. It is necessary for the sake of formatting and conformity to include birth names and identifying names in full in all cases without special clause. e75.76.55.126 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the birth name and birth date are important biographical information, but how are they so notable (or factor so much into the subject’s notability) that they must be included in the very first words of the lead? The lead is supposed to summarize the important contents of the article—in the case of a biographical article, to give readers a sense of who a person is and why this person is notable. A question of “Do you know who James Paul McCartney is?” would likely be answered with, “Do you mean Paul McCartney? His name isn’t James.” (Yes, it is his name, but not one he’s generally known by.) So what makes the information surrounding the person’s birth, or a full name that is never used, relevant enough to be included in the very first words? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Include birth names we do so in virtually every article otherwise and no different if someone wants to renounce their prior identity or adopt the name of someone they care about. It's done all the time by spouses, most popes, some kings, many actors, musicians, artists, people on the run, etc. Don't abandon fact for some perceived POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• There are certainly some instances where a transgender person's prior name is notable, encyclopedic and verifiable — most commonly, because they were already encyclopedically notable under that name before coming out as transgender. Laura Jane Grace was already known and famous as "Tom Gabel" before she came out; Alec Butler had already been nominated for notable literary awards as "Audrey Butler" before changing his name; Chaz Bono was already famous as "Chastity Bono" long before identifying as transgender; Caitlyn Jenner was already famous as "Bruce" and is linked to from many articles in which her name has to be represented as the name she was using at the time that's contextually relevant to the link. In instances like that, it would be misrepresenting the context of their notability for us to omit the former name, so we have to be able to mention the prior name in those cases. However, in many other cases a transgender person attained their notability only under their current name — and, in fact, their birth name is quite often entirely unverifiable in any reliable source coverage at all, and could be added only on the basis of original research or user-generated discussion forums engaging in a doxxing campaign. For people in this situation, the name should absolutely be omitted under WP:BLPPRIVACY as not properly sourced. The only place there's really any room for discussion about whether to include or exclude it is in the case of people who attained notability under their current name, but their birth name is still reliably sourceable in real media coverage nonetheless — and, in reality, that's actually a rare situation that genuinely applies to very few transgender people. In those rare instances, there may be room for a discussion about whether it warrants mention in their particular case — but the overall rule can't be either "always include" (because it's not always properly sourceable) or "never include" (because sometimes it's necessary due to preexisting notability under that name) — it has to be contextually dependent on the circumstances of that particular case. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention that when it comes to a transgender person's former name, we also have to watch out for WP:CIRCULAR referencing issues. Sometimes, what happens is that somebody ORs or USERGs or just HOAXes an old name into Wikipedia, whereupon a media outlet reports that name because they got it from us — and then once the original source is stripped from the article for unreliability, somebody then tries to salvage the name by referencing it to that very same followup news article. I've seen this happen more than once, so we have to be careful when the issue of a transgender person's prior name is up for discussion to ensure that we're not unwittingly CIRCULARing to ourselves through a source that used us as its source. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

New discussion?

I have a new sort of proposal: I propose that this whole section be scrapped and we simply have a discussion about it. No voting, no proposals, just discuss the issues so we can work out what to propose. Because this is a fractured mess. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)