Misplaced Pages

As you can see, it's just option 2 + ideology. In my experience, adding anything but instructions and straightforward, practical explanations to the MoS (and even those sparingly) causes trouble. As for option 4, the idea of whether MOS:IDENTITY should either be copied to or moved to MOSBIO is a separate issue and best treated on its own. The closing of the previous RfC said we should revisit what the rule should be, not where to put it. I think option 4 should come out too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just as a friendly reminder to whoever closes this discussion: there are really two separate issues here, whether there is consensus to keep the status quo, and which alternative to use if we don't keep the status quo. Make sure to weigh those two issues separately, so we don't end up with options 2, 4, and 5 splitting the !vote and making it appear there is no consensus for change if there really is. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. There should be Option 6 which is that a gender-changed person would be described in a historical manner when the time frame is historically appropriate. Thus, a person such as Wendy Carlos would be discussed as Walter Carlos, a male, when the time frame is the 1968 album Switched-On Bach, which was released before Carlos underwent a gender change. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Binksternet: How would such an option be different from option 2? —⁠烏⁠Γ , 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Ah! I misread number 2 at first. You're right. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question - what I don't really understand is why is this being framed as a "style" issue in the first place? Which name to use in a given context is not a question of "style"... it's a question of fact. We have lots of policies and guidelines that deal with presenting factual information... WP:V (and WP:RS)... WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE)... WP:NOR (and WP:PSTS). ALL of them center on the idea that we should base what Misplaced Pages says on what the sources say. That is a fundamental concept for Misplaced Pages - We follow the sources. When sources disagree, we neutrally explain the disagreement. If doing so leads to a lack of uniformity and consistency in our articles... well... the real world is a messy, non-uniform and inconsistent place - our job isn't to attempt to make the real world less messy... our job is to help readers understand the mess. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Primarily because that's where MOS:IDENTITY is located, probably because other identity issues have to do with small distinctions about spelling etc. (such as "Arab" vs "Arabic"). This discussion is about what the MOS:IDENTITY subsection on gender identity should say. Where those words should be located is a separate issue. If you want to start an RfC or other thread about moving this part of MOS:IDENTITY somewhere else, I'll gladly chime in, but I think it would be best to wait until these two threads are done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar:The name in use at any given time is a question of fact, but how to refer to someone once those facts are established is a question of style. For example, the article on Michelle Obama uses her married surname throughout without the least bit of confusion or anachronism as to what her name was at the time being discussed. We could also refer to her by her birth surname until her marriage, but there is no reason to read much meaning into which style happens to dominate in her biographies specifically.

For the gender of trans people, we should definitely have some sort of consistent approach. Tallying sources to try to figure out when the Brandon Teena article should switch from "she" to "he" would be difficult, and add no value to the reader. Looking at sources can verify that both Jane Smith and Jane Jones are trans women who publicly transitioned, and what their name and gender presentation was at any one time in their lives. But counting pronoun usage in those sources to conclude that Smith was always a trans woman, even before coming out, while Jones switched genders, isn't meaningful.--Trystan (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why we refer to Michelle Obama by her married name through out most of her bio article (we do mention her maiden name) is that this is what sources do... not because we made a "style" choice to do so. Few (if any) sources refer to her as Michelle Robinson... except in passing. This is unlike what happens with say Muhammed Ali... where a significant majority of sources still refer to him as "Cassius Clay" when talking historically. So... we use "Clay" when talking about that period of his life. Different articles, different contexts, different source usage... so different end results.

As for the pronoun issue... I would agree that pronouns are a style issue. However, what pronoun to use is a distinct and separate question from what NAME to use... since a woman can be named "Bruce", and a man can be named "Caitlyn". Pronouns are gender specific... Names are not... Names are subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

For our purposes (encyclopedia-writing), most English-language names are gender-specific. While it's possible for a man to be named Vivian, etc., that's going to rare enough to treat as a special case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree... I don't mean this as a personal attack, but it strikes me that the idea that names are gender specific is incredibly biased and non-neutral. It denies the self-assertion that Jenner was always a woman... even when she called herself "Bruce". Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Names are generally given based on the physical sex of a person at birth, so they're inherently bias and describe that, more than stating anything about the gender of a subject. It is traditionally this way because it was assumed they'd align, and their wasn't a distinction, which there now modernly is. The only way to fix that would be to disassociate all names with sex and gender, or to identify individuals by a different means until the age of majority. "The reason why we refer to Michelle Obama by her married name through out most of her bio article" is because she wasn't as notable before being the first lady or likely described in sources as often. This isn't the case with Jenner, as they were well known by their previous name and various sources commonly used it. I assume this is the case for Muhammed Ali as well, though I'm not as familiar with that case.—Godsy_CONT) 17:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting a little out there. "Gender" has about five different correct definitions and "state of being male or female, sex" is the most common one. It's also short for "gender role" and "gender identity," but when talking about the distinction between sex and gender, in the most common sense of the word, the two terms align so that there isn't one.

And let's not get too worked up about sex assignment either. It's called "assignment" but it's better described as drawing a conclusion. Jenner's parents weren't diabolically conspiring to disguise her as a boy; they took a gander at her body and came to the perfectly reasonable belief that she was one. In something like 99% of the population, the conclusion drawn about a baby's gender and gender role and gender identity at birth turns out to be correct. A system of giving children gender-neutral names until majority would be overkill.

As for names and bias, given your track record, Blueboar I find it very easy to not take that personally. Let me ask you this: If names weren't gendered in the sense we mean here, then why would so many trans men and trans women feel the need to change them as part of their transition? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When I referred to "sex" above, I meant the scientific definition, which is: organisms that produce sperm carrying the XY chromosomes ("male") vs. organisms that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells) carrying the XX chromosomes ("female"). The link I provided to the sex article also describes it in this way. Even gender reassignment surgery cannot change this.—Godsy_CONT) 02:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That word is interchangeable with "gender" in most contexts. "What gender is that fruit fly?"/"It's male." Etc. The only real difference is that "gender" doesn't get a storm of giggles or stupid jokes.

However, if you're going to refer to gender in humans you must of course consider that it is generated not only by chromosomes. Biology, even the biology underlying gender in humans, is much bigger than that. It involves genes, gene expression, cell receptors, blood chemistry, brain chemistry, primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics, brain structure and brain function, many of which are affected by epigenetic factors and environmental conditions. It is rare but perfectly natural for a body have some male traits and some female traits. We may one day find that Jenner and Wachowski really are biologically female in some ways. That's why I don't personally find it appropriate to use "biologically male" to refer to Jenner because we have one clue that suggests that it may not be so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. "... really are biologically female in some ways. ... I don't personally find it appropriate to use "biologically male" to refer to Jenner." If those discoveries are made, then it would be incorrect, but why speculate until such a time? "Biologically male" is an accurate description based on current knowledge. Simply calling a spade a spade, rather than going to great lengths and jumping through hoops not to do so, seems reasonable to me. It also avoids historical revisionism.—Godsy_CONT) 01:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an WP:UNDUE descriptor, though, if the article already deals with a person's gender transition adequately (which articles about transgendered people should, where the gender transition is part of their biography in an important way), it isn't necessary to hammer the point home repeatedly that they used to be a different gender; unless one is trying to highlight the point that their former gender is "more valid" or normative when compared to their current, preferred gender. The problem with using qualifiers and additions to an article like "biological male" or "genetic male" or whatever, even if such facts were verifiable and true, is not their verifiability or truthfulness, it's the way the phrasing clearly indicates a non-neutral stance, which is that the gender being so highlighted by phrases like "biologically male" is somehow a person's "real gender", and that the person's self-expressed identity isn't earnest or valid. --Jayron32 01:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, and I'd be alright with it, but I'm not advocating that (unless reliable sources commonly do it for the subject). If the pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns match their preferred gender, not their biological sex (based on the sex and gender distinction), I'm okay with it as long as factual accuracy (i.e. their biological sex is made clear in the article in the manner you suggested above "deals with a person's gender transition adequately") is maintained in a clear way for readers. I think it should also be made clear if the individual has undergone gender reassignment surgery, assuming its known and relevant (which should generally be the case). Both the aforementioned details are useful when researching a subject.—Godsy_CONT) 02:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Why speculate? Probably the same reason you are. Oh I'm all for calling a spade a spade when you can actually tell. If you only looked at part of the handle, then it might be a spade but it might be a sledgehammer. And if its owner has been using it as a sledgehammer with some success...

It's great to care about factual accuracy, but then you must use actual facts and not just guesses. If you were to say "Jenner had male genitalia," then I'd say "Yes she did" because we know that "male" was put on her birth certificate and visible male genitalia are the usual reason why. But if you said "Jenner had male chromosomes" I'd ask "Was a karyotype done?" If you said "Jenner had male brain anatomy" I'd ask "Was an fMRI done?" The first of these things is a reasonable assumption but the other two are speculation, and all of them are important parts of a person's biology. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "style issue": "is this person trans?", like "is this person Muslim?", is a content question to be answered by sources (and in both cases, the most reliable source is the person, and Misplaced Pages requires self-identification). Once sources document that "A" and "B" denote the same person (whether trans or not), though, the question of whether to call them "A" or "B" is a style question. Even with Muhammed Ali, Misplaced Pages treats the question of whether to say "Clay" or "Ali" as a style rather than a content question, as can be seen from the fact that the article doesn't say "Clay did X in 1955 (ref: bio which uses Clay). Ali did Y in 1956 (ref: bio which calls him Ali throughout). Clay did Z in 1957 (ref: bio which uses Clay)." Instead, it changes sources that use "Ali" into "Clay" to obtain a consistent style. The decision to consistently use "Clay" rather than "Ali" in his early life was made because the fact that most sources use "Clay" was judged to outweigh factors that pushed in the direction of only using his current name; the crafting of MOS:IDENTITY indicates that for trans people, it has been felt that the factors pushing in the direction of "use the current name" (which are outlined above) outweigh the factors pushing for "use the previous name" or "normalize (Ali-style) on whichever name most sources use", etc. Perhaps this discussion will show that that feeling has changed, perhaps not. Note: a thing that is "just a question of style" is sometimes dismissed as unimportant with the implication that any answer is "fine"; it should be clear that isn't the case here; commenters above clearly feel this question is important and that not all answers to it are "fine".
Re names: as Darkfrog says, most names are gender-specific; in some countries such as Germany the law even requires names given at birth to indicate and match a baby's binary sex. Re "denies the self-assertion that Jenner was always a woman... even when she called herself 'Bruce'": Jenner also called herself a man at various times, e.g. when filling out forms, presumably including the ones that were necessary to get a driver's licence and the ones that were needed to enter the men's Olympics. Telling society that you are the person they think you are is a basic (not intrinsic, but common) part of being closeted and concealing who you really are because who you really are would be subjected to discrimination. -sche (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

-sche, do you have a source for that law in Germany you mention? I find that curious especially as that country now allows parents of intersex children to leave the sex marker blank on their birth certificates (though I've heard that move was controversial in the intersex community). Regardless, agreed that in many (if not most) countries, names do strongly signify gender, though what is considered a "boy" vs a "girl" name is changing all the time. Funcrunch (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article on the subject (German name#Forenames) has sources. "The name must indicate the gender of the child." However, checking de.WP, it seems the situation may have changed recently. I'll look into it (and update the en.WP article if it's out-of-date) later. Btw, expanding on what Darkfrog asked — if names weren't gendered, why would so many trans people change names as part of transitioning? — I note that while German law in general does not like to allow name changes, it makes an exception specifically so that, as de.WP says, "transsexuelle Menschen nach dem Transsexuellengesetz ihren Vornamen ändern lassen, so dass er der geschlechtlichen Identität (Gender) entspricht" = "transsexual people can, per the Transsexuality Law, change their first name so that it matches the sexual identity (gender)". (Oh, I notice we have an article on that law which mentions that German name#Forenames is indeed out of date.) -sche (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Misplaced Pages style and naming Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This discusses a clarification to MOS:IDENTITY as recommended in this recent proposal. Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subjects and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.

• PREVIOUS ONLY: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question.

  Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Larry Wachowski wrote the script for his film in 1994.

• CURRENT ONLY: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that correspond with their most recent publicly announced self-identification.

  Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; she won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.

• ALWAYS BOTH: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to transgender individuals by both names, concisely; use either name first, as needed.

  Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)

• BOTH IF RELEVANT: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Refer to a transgender individual by both names, concisely, if the previous name is relevant in the context of the article where the reference is made; otherwise, use only the current name.

  Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.) (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)

• ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use the name and gender identity most relevant to the context of the passage in which the reference is made. When it is unclear which one is more suitable, default to the identity that would be used in the main biography.

  Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.

• OTHER (1) = DEPENDS ON CONTEXT: Use the name and gender identity that fits best in the context of the article where the reference is made (principle of least surprise for the reader). When it is unclear which one suits better, default to the identity as defined for the main biography. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.

  Examples: see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Ninth draft (proposal 2)

• OTHER (2): (please explain)

This does not apply to biographical articles about transgender individuals; that is covered here. 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Support ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY

1. Support This would be consistent with the way any normal name change is treated. A newly married woman can choose whatever naming convention she wishes to use. We accept that from the point in time that she makes such a declaration. We don't go back and rewrite her name into childhood. Transgender people should not have a special exception to go back and rewrite history, particularly when it goes against the core wikipedia policy WP:V. If public records at the time present a particular name, that is the name embedded in history for that event. If our married woman gets divorced and wants to erase her ex-husband's name, there are means to cross reference to the appropriate person but the historical name on the documents remains. Misplaced Pages provides that cross reference in directing the proper name to the current article which can clearly discuss the reason for the change, whatever it is. Trackinfo (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Except this is not consistent with the way any other name change is treated. We don't always keep the "previous" name... instead, we look and see how the majority of sources (written after the name change took place) handle the name change, and follow source usage. So... if the sources decide to "re-write" history, and use the "new" name in historical contexts, then we follow along and do so ourselves. If not, we don't either. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Take this as an example: List of Wimbledon ladies' singles champions#Open era where names evolve over time. Look at Evonne Goolagong in 1971 and 1972, Evonne Goolagong Cawley in 1976 and beyond. Chris Evert in 1978, Chris Evert-Lloyd in 1979. Those were their names of choice at the time they entered the tournament. Trackinfo (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Both of these examples are cases where the person didn't drop any of their old name, they just added a new name. We definitely need, IMO, to allow us to explicitly link the old name to the new name when the person is better known by the new name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Support per Trackinfo. I could write out an opinion myself, but I'd pointlessly reiterate a lot of what they've already stated.—Godsy_CONT) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support - Though I could certainly see adding a footnote stating current status on first mention in an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support. When we are discussing an event, a person named Bruce competed. Nobody named "Caitlyn" competed in the event. Caitlyn won a Women of the Year award. Not "Bruce". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY

1. Unacceptable Could almost live with it except that sometimes the context makes unavoidable to mention both, e.g. the lede of List of charges in United States v. Manning. For a tennis player comparison see the second paragraph of the lede of 2005 French Open, containing both Justine Henin-Hardenne and Justine Henin. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   An excellent example. Henin is referred to without the hyphenated name in the portion referring to the longer term (including after she divorced Hardenne). A historical time reference. Trackinfo (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

2. strong oppose as completely contrary to BLP and multiple recent previous discussions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   With the constant insertion of female pronouns and names we have Transgender women marrying women and fathering children. Those have to be clear, repeat WP:BLP violations for all those other affected people due to wikipedia mis-reporting the identity of who they married or who their "father" was. The current identity is not the person who represented at that time.Trackinfo (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   We have transgender women marrying and having children with other women? It's almost like gender identity and biology are two entirely different things. We do not have a duty to falsely represent the subjects of our articles because representing those subjects accurately might require a bluelink. That is, in fact, the precise opposite of our expectations for how content treats human beings. Ironholds (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Totally unacceptable essentially per TRPoD. The idea that this is "just how we handle people" simply falls apart when you look at how content does, practically, handle name-changes - around noble titles, particularly - where we tend to consistently use either the title'd name or the non-title'd name and not switch halfway through. Ironholds (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Comment Per the "treat transgender individuals like everyone else" argument, both Misplaced Pages editors and the wider world treat transgender name changes like a special case, and there's nothing wrong with the MOS reflecting that reality. If that ever changes, we can update the MoS then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Support ALWAYS CURRENT ONLY

1. Support I see this option as the best for getting in line with the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. It is also the best option for dealing with the issue of deadnaming. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 12:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@MellowMurmur: Letting an advocacy organization influence how certain groups are described is highly inappropriate and against core policies.—Godsy_CONT) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Can you be more specific? I do not see advocacy organizations mentioned in the article you linked. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 11:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@MellowMurmur: WP:NPOV for example. All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view. GLAAD's own website states "Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture." WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: We can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy is the use of Misplaced Pages to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Misplaced Pages's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Misplaced Pages, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.—Godsy_CONT) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Aspiring to a NPOV involves representing disparate views, not excluding them. MOS:IDENTITY explicitly says that, when usage in reliable sources is mixed, use the terms that a group uses for itself. How could we do that without considering the recommendations of organizations like GLAAD on LGBT-related issues?--Trystan (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trystan: Hopefully that wording will change with the two concurrent RfCs about MOS:IDENTITY (i.e. this one and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals). This issue shouldn't be treated differently from anything else, or made to be a drastic exception. However, you're correct, the current wording paints us in a corner regarding your last sentence.—Godsy_CONT) 15:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

To briefly clarify: "I see this option as the best for getting in line with the GLAAD Media Reference Guide." I'm objecting to getting "in line" (or in other words conforming) to an advocacy groups guidelines, as opposed to following reliable sources, as we do for everything else.—Godsy_CONT) 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not a native english speaker and feeling a bit under fire here. Allow me to elaborate that I choose to mention the GLAAD Media Reference Guide here because it comes from people who have been spending a lot of time and energy on something very similar to what Wikipedians seem to be trying to do here. Namely figuring out best practices for writing about transgender individuals. What Trystan wrote sums up the intention of my contribution. The WP links you are offering seem to be dealing with how to write articles more than setting guidelines for what to say or not say at the village pump. - MellowMurmur (talk | contributions) 17:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The links I offered (because you requested that I be more specific) do indeed deal with how to write articles, as does your suggestion. I've offered above how I feel we should alternatively handle it. We simply disagree, there is no need "feel... under fire", because we hold different opinions. Regards,—Godsy_CONT) 18:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: I believe these two proposals are only intended to deal with the gender identity subsection of MOS:IDENTITY. The text I am referring to, "if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses", is in the general part of the guideline, and applies to all groups. (It used to be followed by an example of choosing between Jew and Jewish person.)--Trystan (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trystan: In those cases, that may be a reasonable place to turn, as long as preceding text of the guideline (i.e. "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources") has been followed. I was confused by your characterization of the guideline above "when usage in reliable sources is mixed" which isn't the same as what it actually states.—Godsy_CONT) 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Support ALWAYS BOTH

1. Support This seems like it would work reasonably well. It's not at all rare for an actor to have "John Smith (credited as John A. Smith)" after their names. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Poor example. We only do that when a name is credited differently from the commonly accepted stage name. When Marion Morrison started his career, he was credited as Duke Morrison. Once established, nobody every questioned him being credited as John Wayne. Trackinfo (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   I mean that if we cite one of Wayne's earliest movies, we'd say "John Wayne (credited as Duke Morrison)." You know, I think the ALWAYS BOTH option should be a plan B. We should go with BOTH IF RELEVANT and then only switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights over when it's relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Support I would support this for any case were someone has become widely known by more than one name, in the interests of clear writing. It is much clearer to let readers know they may know of Lew Alcindor as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or that Leningrad is the same city as modern day St. Petersburg. While I don't think it is an egregious anachronism to say that Cary Grant was born in Bristol or that Michelle Obama attended Princeton, we should write in a way that both clarifies the name in use at the time and informs the reader they may know of the individual by another name.--Trystan (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Not just for transgendered people but for any proper name changes, where entity A is now know as entity B but at the time of point of coverage they were known as A. This option helps the reader in two ways: if they need to search for more sources beyond WP they will know what term to search for as at the time of the point of coverage, and when we are linking to the article on this entity, this will prepare the reader to recognize that they will be landing on a page with a different name but it is the same entity they clicked on. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   To be clear, I would think this only is when the sources or event is before the name change. For events/coverage well after the name change, the current name is sufficient by itself. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

4. acceptable (second choice) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Weak support; acceptable as an alternative, but I feel that under some circumstances (especially if they're more famous under their new name or their change is well-publicized) it isn't necessary to include the old name. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Support (second choice). Sometimes the former name isn't relevant (this is true in both trans and non-trans cases, e.g. Princeton University lists "Michelle Obama" as a graduate, it doesn't use her previous name because it isn't notable/ relevant), so my first choice is "both if relevant (otherwise, only current)". Listing both names strikes a balance, a compromise, between listing only one name or only the other: it provides the benefits of the current name (crediting accomplishments to people under their most up-to-date names rather than fixating on old strings of letters; being recognizable to people who know only the new name; acknowledging the name change and thus avoiding misgendering the person and rejecting their identity; etc), and the benefits of the old name (reproducing whatever sources at the time said about a given event; being recognizable to anyone who knows only the old name). And as Masem notes, it avoids easter-egg links as would result if we used only former names in text (since in almost all cases the articles themselves are at current names). -sche (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Support as a compromise Not my first choice, but acceptable. This option avoids confusion, and doesn't assume that a reader knows facts which in fact some readers may not know. DES 11:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support in all cases of name change (not just transgendered people) except where the change is merely adding a new part to the old name (e.g Evonne Goolagong/Evonne Goolagong Cawley) and/or removal of previously added parts (Justine Henin-Hardenne/Justine Henin). This shouldn't apply, however, in a list of then-unnotable people who come from a specific place or graduated from a specific educational institution, etc., such as the Michelle Obama example above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
9. this is acceptable, though not my first choice. I don't like the MOS pushing us to add clutter to articles, and there are plenty of places where including both may not be the most reasonable option. However, there are many scenarios where this would work fine and not contribute to misunderstandings + it's better than many of the other options. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Support (as my first choice).  For articles where the person is not the primary subject of the article, I believe both names should be used.  This would give the reader the maximum amount of information, and without attempting to rewrite history.  (My second choice would be "PREVIOUS ONLY.")
    Richard27182 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Support BOTH IF RELEVANT

1. Support This seems to be the best option to me. EDIT: We should use this rule on a provisional basis. If there are too many fights over what's relevant and what's not, then we auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
2. support under the proviso, ALWAYS includes the current with previous if relevant/necessary-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support, with caveat I would put the current name first, as in "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner)", and use the person's currently-preferred pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Support, with different caveat - it will rarely be relevant, so care should be taken to avoid presuming relevancy where there was none as seen by reliable sources at the time. For example, in an article about the 1976 Olympic Games, there is no obvious relevance to referring to the decathlon winner as any name other than Bruce Jenner or as any gender other than male. Had the events happened 30 years later, there might have been some relevance since, by then, the international sporting community was actively dealing with the issue of transgender athletes who were born male and wanted to compete as female. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   You do understand that this option means "always use the current name and only use both if the previous name is relevant," right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks, somehow I missed that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   That actually is what should be done. The current name should be the default, with clarification using the previous name only if there is a public reason for it (like, everyone pretty much knows what Jenner's name was when she won her gold, anyway, and the media and olympic records reflect it, etc.). TMagen (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   There are transgender people that have done notable things prior to their transition and abandoned that life and name. Connecting them by this policy would be problematic. "John Smith invents widget, quietly leaves that life and transitions to Jane Doe. Misplaced Pages updates the widget article to reflect inventors new name/transition even though inventor left that life and name behind." Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of blindly connecting pre and post transition identities. Suicides have been attributed to such carelessness. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   That is an edge case I worry about. However, every option on this RFC is problematic with regard to that edge case: if the pre- and post-transition names aren't connected in visible text, there'll still be an (easter-eggy) wikilink (if the person is notable enough to have their own article). The question, for me at least, is thus: what's better as the general rule? And I think the answer is: acknowledging the current name visibly. The top of the MOS notes that there may be occasional exceptions to any of its rules. And on the talk page of an article of a widget company where someone was notable enough to be mentioned, but not notable enough to have their own article, you could make a compelling argument that the current name should be handled as one of those exceptions and excluded as WP:UNDUE. -sche (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   @-sche: Context matters which is why I chose it. My concern is that there are dogmatic crusaders that care less about the individuals wishes than they do about their agenda. There will be persons that care less about what the individual wants and choose their own dogmatic view. Some of those will argue for pre-transition name only. Others will argue post-transition name always. The truth is that individual choices matter far more than ideology. If Caitlyn Jenner wants her children to call her "dad," we are in no position to oppose this. If she is aware of the infobox picture and chooses not to update it based on her business and personal goals, we shouldn't listen to ideologues that are furious when she is not. If she wants all present day references to use "Caitlyn" we shouldn't say "Bruce" where "Caitlyn" is preferred. We must be sensitive to context over ideologues because there is no universal response that is always correct. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

4. Support (first choice), preferably with Funcrunch's caveat. (1) This attributes things to people who did them using the most up-to-date names, rather than fixating on what strings of letters period sources used. Editors seem to find this intuitive in non-trans cases, e.g. Princeton University says "Michelle Obama" graduated from there in 1985 even though her surname wasn't "Obama" until 1992. (2) It avoids unnecessarily misgendering people, which jars many readers/ editors and is incorrect because scientific understanding from brain studies etc. is that e.g. a trans man was never a woman and one cannot accurately say "she did X" or "he was a woman until he came out at 23" any more than "John was attracted to women until he came out as gay at 24" or "diseases were caused by miasma until about the 1880s, when germs began to cause them". (3) Where a previous name is relevant/notable, this allows for it, so as to inform people who expect the previous name either based on their knowledge or the context (as in the Olpymic example, where the inclusion of the previous name clarifies why Jenner was participating in the men's competition), while also having the current name for the reasons above and because (especially younger) readers who know only a new name (especially of someone who transitioned further in the past than Jenner) will not recognize the old name and may not think to click a wikilink, if the person is even notable enough that one is possible (such links are easter eggs, anyway). Reasons 1 and 2 are why I prefer this to "always both". -sche (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support This places things into historical context but respects the person's current status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Support per Funcrunch, although in the given example and related situations, I would retain "(credited as Larry Wachowski)" since the name a credit appears under is generally going to be relevant. —烏Γ , 02:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Support, although I would say that in the second case, the former name (but not the former gender) is relevant because readers might be surprised to see that Lana wrote the movie when the credits say Larry. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support Seems the best option, though I agree with Funcrunch's caveat. While I have this page on my watchlist and saw it that way, I was also pointed to this discussion by a post to my talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Support. They're all problematic in some way, but this seems like the least problematic. Some kind of note is probably required to explain non-intuitive situations, such as sportspeople. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Support, although with several caveats. I would always give their current name precedence, so it would be eg. "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner)" or something similar rather than the reverse. On the other hand, I would want to define "relevant" somewhat broadly -- generally, if people are likely to be reading this section of an article or parsing a list looking for a specific name, then we should have the name there somewhere to avoid confusion. The main questions to me are "are there likely to be significant numbers of people who will read this looking for a specific name, and only know that name, even if it's out of date?" And, more generally, "are there significant numbers of people likely to be confused by this, whether because they're only familiar with the old name or whatever?" If so, we should generally have both names. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
11. Weak support, without pronouns - I would suggest the name in use at the time is usually relevant - including how a writing credit for Lana Wachowski would have appeared in the work. I suppose there are a few cases where it wouldn't be, along the lines of "Lana Wachowski attended Oxbridge", where you don't really need to know the name in use at the time. I would remove the pronouns from the examples; it is trivially easy to avoid them when mentioning someone in passing. While it is an historical fact that Jenner was named Bruce at the time, the issue of whether she was always a trans woman or only became one when she transitioned will be highly contested.--Trystan (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
12. Weak Support I believe this option and "only the more relevant" are the most reasonable, but I'm more inclined to support the latter, since this one produces potentially unnecessary clutter, and redirect links would make the disambiguation clear in the latter. --Waldir 09:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
13. Support. The current name should be the default, and the previous name should be used for clarification, context, or any other reason that is important to understanding the content (for example, if all the sources are from the time, and refer to the person by the previous name). TMagen (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
14. Support, provided "current only" is the preferred option & 'relevance' is a higher standard than 'this is the name sources used at the time'. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
15. Support, in that I think my cavaets on the previous option (the USE BOTH ALWAYS) amount to this at the basic level, or at least my opinion sits somewhere between these at a high level. I do stress that relevancy should be based on sources at the time if we are talking a date event, as to make sure the reader has a good awareness of search terms to do their own research as well, and common sense does come into play (ala the Michelle Obama example). --MASEM (t) 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
16. Support As others have pointed out, it will not always be necessary to use both names. When it is, the current name should be put first. I would write it thus: "Caitlyn Jenner (then known as Bruce Jenner). I include the "known as" because it's not that she was a different person then; she was just known by a different name. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
17. Support parenthetical dual-naming as an appropriate style when readers' might otherwise be confused or draw false inference. Vannie227 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Support ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT

1. This option seems more in line with WP:Trans?, already in use. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support as long as the name is wiki-linked, this seems to be the most useful for readers, since it avoids cluttering the text while providing proper disambiguation to the current gender (either by using a redirect or a piped link). --Waldir 09:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) moving my support to "DEPENDS ON CONTEXT" --Waldir 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support OTHER (1) = DEPENDS ON CONTEXT

1. Support, for reasons explained at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
2. I support using the most relevant names depending on the context. This is how we deal with choosing historical vs modern names in other articles... I see no reason why we should handle name changes that are due to gender identity any differently. Sometimes (mostly in list articles) we only mention one name (because only one name is relevant in that context)... but at other times (mostly in more sentence based articles) we give multiple names (because both names may be relevant in that context). In other words... this simply isn't an issue that can be resolved by one-size-fits-all ALWAYS THIS or ONLY THAT "rules" - It's a SOMETIMES THIS BUT SOMETIMES THAT issue, that can only be resolved by giving editors flexibility to reach a consensus. Which names to use (whether the "former" name, the "new" name, or both) should be determined on a case by case basis. I Oppose framing this as a one-size-fits-all "rule" with ALWAYS and ONLY "rules", because different solutions will be appropriate in different contexts. Context and source usage drive which names are used, not our own biases. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Tx! I knew this proposal wasn't too difficult to grasp. Tx again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Support a variant: Use #1:PREVIOUS ONLY unless context dictates otherwise "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question" unless context demands using both names or conceivably, in rare cases, the other name. In an article about the 1976 Olympics, the winner of the decathlon is Bruce Jenner, and the pronoun-gender is male. In an article or about famous transgender people, it could go either "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn) won the decathlon" or "Caitlyn (then Bruce) Jenner won the male decathlon" with a pronoun gender of male or female respectively. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support essentially for the same reasons as Blueboar plus the additional caveat that always- and only-types of rules sometimes result in absurdities. An article about the 1976 Olympics needn't go beyond mentioning the name (then) of the winner of a particular event. This is the name that will be in contemporary sources, and this is the name that someone familiar with the subject would expect to see. An article about transgender athletes would be an appropriate place to mention both names. An article about some recent event (post-change) where the same individual made an appearance or was presented an award needn't mention any but the current name of the individual who attended and, if relevant, the individual's gender (one place it is usually relevant is when an appropriate pronoun is used, at which point the gender is implied rather than stated). It might be a good idea to have a default option when it isn't completely clear from the context which option to use. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support as a matter of historical accuracy balanced with common sense. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Support for historical accuracy. The historical achievement was made using a certain name, and that name should always be connected with the achievement. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Support as sources are likely to identify contextual relevance. There are no hard and fast rules and the individual will have different levels of difference to dead names. We should not presume hat someone wishes to be linked to the accomplishments of their dead name so context matters. If a person was previously a male athlete record holder and transitions, we should not presume that they wish to be known as a male athlete record holder. PC police are not the BLP police. --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support Just as usage in reliable sources (which we should follow without good reasons not to) will vary from case to case, so our usage should vary. In sports articles (excepting special ones like LGBT Olympians) it's enough to call Jenner simply "Bruce Jenner"; Jenner being transgender or her later name Caitlyn are not in any way relevant (indeed, repeatedly noting them would give them undue weight) and only serve to confuse things. (When she publicly announced her new name Caitlyn and identity as a woman, there were very unfortunate attempts by at least one editor to credit Jenner with records in women's athletics, sources not required.) In other articles it may be appropriate to use Bruce, Bruce (later Caitlyn), Caitlyn (then Bruce) or simply Caitlyn, depending on how relevant each name is. Sideways713 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Support Similar to option 5 above, we should generally follow the reliable sources. If there is any plausible confusion, we should give both names, putting the one favored by reliable sources in the context involved first. I mostly agree with Sideways713 above. DES 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Support. Context is always more important than maintaining a single dogma. It would be ludicrous to say that Caitlyn Jenner won a medal in an article about the event in which the medal was won. Caitlyn Jenner didn't; Bruce Jenner did. This is making no comment on Jenner's gender identity at the time. It is simply stating a fact. The same with Lana Wachowski. Lana Wachowski did not make films before 2012; Larry Wachowski did. Again, that is making no comment on Wachowski's gender identity at the time. It is simply stating a fact. We do not practise revisionism on Misplaced Pages. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
11. Support This does not happen enough to justify making hard rules. Check context and build precedents for more time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
12. Support There are obviously times when a new name is not relevant, such as in an article about a television series that ended 30 years ago. What has happened to anyone since then has little relevance to the series so there is no need to include the new name. What is important in such a case is what happened at the time. On the other hand, there may be cases where inluding both the old name and new name may be necessary. What to do in any case should be determined based on context. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
13. Context matters. In the case of the historical record of Olympic results, "Bruce Jenner" is relevant and making note of the decades later change to her current identity/name as Caitlyn is not. I view this in similar vein to athletes who compete under one name and later got married. The record is rarely changed retroactively. But this is only one example, and it is foolish to tie ourselves down to an all or none situation. There will undoubtedly be cases where such individuals are mentioned in passing, but for which the use of both names, a later name or a footnote will be important. But as a general rule, articles or lists that document the historical record should be left as-is. Anachronisms are unencyclopedic. Resolute 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
14. Support From a historian's standpoint, all names are relevant to building the profile of a person; however, that being said, privacy issues must be taken into consideration, especially on BLP. We don't re-write history nor push POV. Name changes happen often with women in certain cultures and knowing all of the links becomes essential for building their timeline. On the other hand, there are times when people have chosen to disassociate with a prior life and those choices must be respected. There is no rule for all contingencies. Common sense, when the notability in life occurred, whether a prior identity is relevant or disclosure might cause harm must all be weighed. If one doesn't have the ability to analyze, mayhaps they need to leave that article for someone else to write, rather than creating a hard and fast rule. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
15. Support – bottom line, we need to go on what the sources at the time state. To take an example I just stumbled across, the credit for the CHiPs episode is for "Bruce Jenner", not "Caitlin Jenner", so in a situation like that, the credited name must be used. Etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
16. Support per the Principle of least astonishment, as long as the final recommendation is phrased as clearly as in the option description above, and not hinging too much in the "depends on context" part. --Waldir 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (trans individuals in other articles)

Please give a better description to the option described as "Other 1". Georgia guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so yourself; add it as "OTHER (2)" – I might like it and change my !vote. Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Pursuant to discussion on WT:MOS, I have notified the two WikiProjects which are directly concerned with this topic: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies (diff) and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Manual of Style (diff). -sche (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue of using appropriate historical names impacts a lot of projects... so please alert more than just those two. For example, as can be seen from our using the choice of Bruce vs Caitlyn Jenner as an example, I think you should have alerted Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sports (I have corrected the omission). We should give this as wide an audience as possible, so if anyone thinks a project should be notified, please do so. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea, BB. I also plan to hit up the bio noticeboard, and if anyone wants to get started on notifying the participants in the previous discussion, that'd be great. Just do it on their personal talk pages so we don't get any double-alerts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just notified Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television, since it affects that project as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The more comments I see on this the more I come to believe that BOTH IF RELEVANT would be the best choice, but ALWAYS BOTH is less likely to cause fights. I think we should adopt BOTH IF RELEVANT on a six-month provisional basis and then auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights or too much trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Question, suppose the person does not want to have explained about his or her transgender, has this been discussed before? Lotje (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, I don't know. But MOS:IDENTITY has included the words "unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise" for a long time. I don't see that it would be a big problem to add those words to this part of the rule too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored... if reliable sources discuss someone's transgender, so can we. While we try to respect the desires of the subject of an article, we are not limited by them. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar has it exactly, though I'd add that it's fine to use the person's preferences where they do not contradict this. On transgender issues, the fact that it is polite to refer to someone by his or her preferred gender pronoun ordinarily wouldn't hold much weight, but because the jury is so far from being in on things like reliable sources, the biological realities underlying transgenderism, and whether this is a correction or a change, then it serves as a pretty good tiebreaker. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog24.  I agree with you when you write that "ALWAYS BOTH is less likely to cause fights."  But I'm not so sure about your proposed solution of "adopt BOTH IF RELEVANT on a six-month provisional basis and then auto-switch to ALWAYS BOTH if there are too many fights or too much trouble."  After six months, who or what criterion would be making that decision?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We look around and observe whether anyone's been fighting over it. I guess we could also ask the participants here to keep their eyes open. The good thing about hosting MOS:IDENTITY at the MoS is that a lot of the time, people post notices of disputes at WT:MOS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of the "Oppose ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY" category.  All the other categories are "support" categories; why does "ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY" have its own "oppose" category?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Initially, no option had an 'oppose' section. However, enough people posted explicit objections / comments on the problems of that option that someone thought it would improve the readability of the thread to put those objections in a subsection. -sche (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm not the first person to bring this up, but it's important and I think it deserves more attention than it's getting.  One of the problems with using the current identity only is potential conflicts with WP:BLP.  Suppose a female trans (while still biologically male and still publicly identifying as a man) had married a woman (let's say the fictitious Mary Smith).  If we must always use the current name only, then we would have to write " married Mary Smith."  Mary Smith may feel this implies that she is a lesbian, and if so, may feel insulted, maybe even libeled.  Our only real option would be to make no mention of the marriage at all!  How would the proponents of CURRENT ONLY propose to handle this kind of situation?
Richard27182 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a current-only supporter, but I do feel we should make a presumption in favour of current pronouns, so issue does come up. I'd say: "Prior to coming out as a trans woman, she married Mary Smith."--Trystan (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A LOT depends on which article we are talking about... and who the subject of the sentence is. Is the "she" referring to the trans-gender person, or to the non-transgender spouse? In an article about the non-transgender spouse (Let's call her "Susan"), it is both inaccurate, and potentially harmful to say "In 1993, she married Mary Smith". Saying that implies that Susan is lesbian. I think we should say "In 1993, she married Joe Smith".

Now... if Mary is notable in her own right (and also has an article)... I think it appropriate to link the name "Joe Smith" to the Mary Smith article (where the transition from "Joe" to "Mary" should be explained). If Joe/Mary isn't notable (and thus does not have an article to link to)... then we have another question to ask... is the issue of Mary's current trans-gender identity relevant to Susan's life. It may not be... and if not, then there is no reason to mention it in the article on Susan. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Trystan has it right. While generally it is not necessary to go into detail that a person is trans, briefly referring to it to prevent confusion is fine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trystan: @Darkfrog24:

I think Trystan's  "Prior to coming out as a trans woman, she married Mary Smith."  is a major improvement over my (deliberately constructed) worst case. However it still has a problem. It fails to rule out the possibility that, even though the person Mary married had not yet publicly come out as a trans woman, Mary may still have been totally aware of the situation. If she was not aware of the situation at the time, she might still find the statement offensive and libelous.
Richard27182 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see why someone might find the information "You married someone who later came out as a trans woman (so it is possible to construe that you were in a same-sex marriage depending on one's definition of the term)" offensive, but if it's true then it's not libelous. If these are living people, then we'd have to be careful (only say it when relevant, don't say "they were in a same-sex marriage" because that's interpretation and not fact, etc.), but it would fall under WP:NOTCENSORED. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  Ping:@Darkfrog24:

This is a complicated subject and I probably wasn't clear enough in my posting.  What I meant was that if Misplaced Pages stated that "Prior to coming out as a trans woman, she married Mary Smith," some readers might assume that Mary Smith likely knew the true gender identification of her own spouse even though the world as a whole did not.  But if Mary did not know of the "trans" gender identification of her spouse at the time of the marriage, then for those readers the article would be misrepresenting something about Mary. And she might see it as defamatory or libelous.  (I'm not sure if I just clarified my point or further obfuscated it.)
Richard27182 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't imply she knew, but it is not our job to rule it out either. Not being a tabloid that delves without cause into the most private details of the relationship between spouses, there are very few situations in which we either would or could comment at all about what Mary knew and when. If we are presenting verifiable facts in a clear and fair way, it isn't defamation.--Trystan (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think telepathy is RS. I would say that the words as you've given them, Richard, don't imply whether Mary knew one way or the other. I also think you're overestimating how scandalous it is to be married to someone who later comes out as trans. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ping: @Darkfrog24:  @Trystan:

The point I'm trying to make (not very well, I'm afraid) is that there are scenarios where it would be problematic if we have the MOS prohibit any mention of a trans's past name, or gender identification, or previously applicable pronouns.  For example we know that WP:BLP sets extremely strict standards for writing about  "any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."  Considering the previously discussed case of the fictional "Mary Smith," if Mary belongs to a very conservative religion that condemns transsexualism, and if the Misplaced Pages article could be seen by some as even suggesting the possibility that Mary had knowingly been married to a trans, I believe that that, in and of itself, would trigger WP:BLP issues.  I agree with Trystan that  "here are very few situations in which we either would or could comment at all about what Mary knew and when."  But I believe that this is one of those very few situations where we do have to be extremely careful about what we write and avoid any possibility of giving the wrong impression, because of the sensitive nature of the issue involved.  For this reason (as well as other reasons), I feel that having the MOS require that all references to trans's must use only their current identification is not just impractical, but totally infeasible.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you've managed to get that across. Given the response rate so far, I don't think you need to worry about ALWAYS CURRENT ONLY. It looks like some version of "use both" is going up there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth... here is my prediction: This round will end with the compromise of "ALWAYS BOTH" - which will resolve the debate at most articles. However, it will NOT resolve the debate at all articles. The debate will continue at articles where it simply does not make sense to use both (where simple common sense would be to use just one or the other) and where we discover that using both is problematic (such as where using both will create a potential BLP issue)... and in a year or two we will have to re-re-visit the discussion with a narrower focus on these few problematic situations. At which point, we will eventually end up with some form of "IT DEPENDS - USUALLY WE SHOULD USE BOTH - BUT NOT ALWAYS". Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog24 and Blueboar

I more or less agree with both of you; both concerning a likely outcome of this VPP/RfC, and also the fact that there will be times when "USE BOTH" would actually be inappropriate.  But please keep in mind that the Manual of Style begins with the words:  "This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."  I really believe that that should cover most if not all of the exceptions that might occur if we end up with "ALWAYS BOTH."
Richard27182 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You can tell people "It's just a guideline" from noon to night but in my experience they still treat everything in it as a hard and fast rule. That's why we have to be so careful about what goes into it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ping:@Darkfrog24:

Understood.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Poll Cait. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We actually did raise the issue of contacting transgender organizations (or at least transgender Wikipedians) when working out the wording of these two threads, but it was determined that the possible votestacking effect would outweigh the benefits of the insight that they could provide. At least one transgender Wikipedian has volunteered an opinion here anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Titles of articles about ethnic groups of the United States

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In articles about ethnic groups of Americans, which form should be used for the article title?

1. xyz American
2. xyz Americans

Credit goes to Mandruss for this version underlined. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC survey: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups

• 2 - per WP:PLURAL#Exceptions, bullet 8: "Articles on people groups." These are people groups. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Editorial choice. Not to be ruled here. From the talk pages, it seems that Korean Americans, Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans are feeling that plural better expresses how they perceive the world. And that other communities are feeling otherwise. This is ever the same problem with human beings. As soon as you take their opinion into account, they indulge into having various opinions. The very idea of marshalling all these pages about diversity is surprising (even if it also belongs to diversity).Pldx1 (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2. In addition to the WP:PLURAL guidelines on articles on people groups, the article text is virtually always written this way. Hence we have "Asian Americans are...", "Italian Americans are...", "Arab Americans are...", etc. In this context, it's worth pointing out that Native American groups frequently have names that are the same in plural and singular (ie Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Ojibwe, Comanche, etc.) and the article text treats it as a plural, so arguably there's already substantial consistency for plural titles. Articles where the singular is forced into the introductory sentence, notably the current version of African American, come off as very awkward and unintuitive.--Cúchullain /c 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• support 2 - per WP:Plural#Exceptions and WP:COMMONNAME (when was the last time people referred to a group as a singular?). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• 2: It's a near universal practice that articles about ethnic groupings use plural formulations, such as French people (and not "French person") and Arabs (and not "Arab"). There's no compelling reason for any to deviate from that standard practice. --Jayron32 00:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• 1 a) The wp:plural rule does not apply to ethnic groups. "Chinese" = a people for whom the rule applies. "Cinese American" is not a "people" (it's Chinese in USA). b) the "XYZ Americans" form is too narrow: it references individuals while the "XYZ American" form is broader to include religion, politics, cuisine and other GROUP characteristics. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC discussion: Titles for U.S. ethnic groups

My reaction to the "Editorial choice" !vote is that it pretty much presumes that a small group of that class is representative of the entire class when it comes to this preference. That seems fairly error-prone and not a good use of editorial choice. The class did not elect these people to represent them at Misplaced Pages. It also means we could well be doing a move every few years as the mix changes. Finally, how do we go about verifying that the editors involved in the editorial choice are in fact members of the class? If they are not members, why should their preference have any weight per this argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Mandruss. My reaction to your reaction is that it pretty much presumes that a small group of that class (the writters) is representative of the entire class when it comes to this preference. That seems fairly error-prone and not a good use of user's choice. The class did not elect these people to represent them at the MOS board. It also means we could well be doing a move every few years as the mix changes. Finally, how do we go about verifying that the people involved in the style choice are in fact members of the writtting class? If they are not members, why should their preference have any weight per this argument? Pldx1 (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Sorry, could you rephrase? I don't see what you're saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see what the various style guides (AP, etc.) say about this issue? Seems likely they would have some guidelines.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would they? We're talking about a highly-Misplaced Pages-specific issue, which is "what do we title our articles here at Misplaced Pages" and not "what should we call people groups". In normal text, normal English grammar would apply, no one is disputing any of that. This is a specific-to-Misplaced Pages issue dependent on our own conventions for titling articles. --Jayron32 03:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

On the use of "deadnaming" in discussions

Related to the MOS:IDENTITY revision in progress, I've seen editors strongly criticize other editors for "deadnaming". See this User_talk:Checkingfax#Warning discussion for an example. The very use of the word seems to be a presumptuous accusation of bad faith. Clarification on how to deal with style guideline violations along with our policies of BLP and AGF should be made. Choor monster (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Choor - could you explain what "deadnaming" is. I have never seen the term used before, and I am not quite sure what it refers to. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Deadnaming is referring to a trans person by the name they were assigned at birth after they have changed their name. This term is used whether the action was deliberate or not, as the birth-assigned name is "dead" to that person, and potential harm is caused by the action regardless of intent. Funcrunch (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, here is an op-ed piece on piece on deadnaming I came across today (you have to disclose an email address to read it). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 21:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the mere use of the word amounts to an accusation of bad faith. It's certainly debatable whether and how the concept applies to our work in building an encyclopedia, but let's not shut down that discussion by outlawing vocabulary. If an editor is clearly making accusations of bad faith or otherwise behaving problematically, we can respond to them as always: shrug off what you can, try to engage constructively where possible, report when necessary.--Trystan (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have only seen it used as a pejorative. It certainly sounds like a pejorative in my uninvolved experience, and I presume many others would take it the same way.

I'm not calling for any outlawing. I just think it should be handled like "troll" or "sock" or other accusations. Very carefully, and never in a shoot-first-ask-questions-later manner, per AGF. In the linked-to discussion I gave above, the use of "deadnaming" seems to have poisoned the discussion immediately, and it is this that I am objecting to. Choor monster (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As you say, you have "uninvolved experience." I am a trans person and I have direct experience with this. Saying that "deadnaming" is a "pejorative" in the way that "troll" is implies that there is some value judgment on the person taking the action, rather than on the action itself. The point is that regardless of the intent, deadnaming a trans person can cause them significant harm. Funcrunch (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have missed my point entirely. I am not discussing the issue of editors using birth names—that's the discussion going higher up on this page. I am discussing the question of editors being criticized in a manner that can and will easily be taken as an accusation of bad faith harm-causing. You are speaking as someone familiar with the word and its nuances. I am speaking as someone not familiar. I expect the majority of uses here on WP will be by someone familiar against someone unfamiliar. Choor monster (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Some words/phrases (Troll, Kike, Fag) are of such a nature that any reasonable person would know that they are offensive. Others (Oriental, Dwarf, calling a trangendered person by their former name, calling a member of the Nation of Islam by their former name) are offensive, but there are a lot of people who don't yet know that the words/phrases are offensive. In such cases, we should AGF and gently let them know that another words/phrase is preferred rather than firing up the flamethrower first thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your general observation (Guy). The question here is whether using the term "deadnaming" to describe an instance of is a "flamethrower" or just a term for the phenomenon. I can see how someone unfamiliar with the term might think it was pejorative, but then, I also see people object to "misgender" and "misname": "grr! who are you to tell me that you think gendering/naming someone a certain way is incorrect (mis-)?!" Banning the terminology that is used to describe a thing handicaps efforts to discuss and respond to that thing, and I'm concerned that attempts to deprecate "deadname" will turn into attempts to deprecate "misgender" and "misname". Moreover, in the same way that some people may be unfamiliar with the term "deadnaming" and/or may object to the terms "misgender" and "misname", other people may be unfamiliar with the notion that they are anything other than descriptive terms, so an assumption that users of those terms are imputing bad faith would itself be an assumption of bad faith. -sche (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we ought to have some guidelines on this.

Meanwhile, I have not called for "banning". I think it should be treated like other hot-word accusations. For example, "trolling" should never be the first choice of accusation, and most experienced editors handle this language restraint well. Choor monster (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "deadnaming" is fundamentally different from the term "trolling". It's generally impossible to be certain whether another user is being disingenuous or sincere, so whether or not it's correct to describe something as "trolling" is generally subjective. In contrast, it's possible and straightforward to objectively determine whether someone has referred to a trans person by a former name, an action which may be referred to as "deadnaming", "misnaming", or "misgendering". If someone uses a word like "deadnaming" and then also assumes bad faith, the second of those things is a problem, and existing guidelines already cover it. Perhaps "deadnaming" should be avoided as much as any word people are unlikely to be familiar with (the point of communicating is to communicate), but I'm unconvinced that we need a guideline on it. Do we have a guideline on using the word "trolling"? -sche (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Parallel discussion on transgender authors in citations

There is a discussion I started here on the question of how we should refer to transgendered authors in citations. Citations are different, they serve a reference purpose. I see no particular reason why they should have the same policy as MOS:IDENTITY, nor a reason to apply different criteria based on which article the citation is made in. I think it would be a good idea to have some agreement on this before whatever conclusion is reached regarding MOS:IDENTITY gets applied willy-nilly to citations. Choor monster (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:IDENTITY does not apply to citations. A citation should always use the name that appears on the cited source itself. This is so readers can find the source should they wish to review it. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As indicated at the link, there are more questions, related to the fact that often enough, multiple works are cited under different names of the same author. Or a book is reprinted using the changed name. How helpful do we want to be? Choor monster (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's permitted by the arbitration committee, you could use |first1=|last1=|first2=|last2=| or |author1=|author2=| tags in the same citation to include their live name and their dead name. I assume this is only an issue for periodicals that are republished using a new live name? Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What's ArbCom have to do with this? Author 1 and Author 2 is really bad, it gives the impression there are two authors, say husband and wife. Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Anotherr issue is tracking down further works by a given author. A work by "John Doe", includes references to forthcoming work, which turns out is published by "Jane Doe", but not that you would know from a fully accurate citation or from the John Doe work. MathSciNet provides great "authority control", so if you are looking things up in mathematics, it really doesn't matter, multiple names are automatically linked. But JSTOR apparently does not link names, so if you look things up there and don't know about the name change, you miss out on finding what you're looking for. Choor monster (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Which version of the book do you have open in your lap while you are citing? Take the name from that version. --Jayron32 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And what good is that when the version that is easily available to some of our readers is the other version, and they can't figure out what's going on? And if someone modifies the citation to include both versions, is this or is this not appropriate? Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The name used in the publication should be retained, even if the author's name has changed. This is important because the "dead" name may well be entrenched in citations and in the text of other works. There is a precedence in the use of the maiden name of a woman who changes her name on marriage. For books, if there is a new edition that uses the living name, then that edition should be used if possible.

The middle name is often given as an initial and the first initial is sometimes used in place of a first name. In the case of an author known to be transgender, perhaps it would be suitable to use the "dead" initial when that is the name used in the paper. For example, if Alice B. Smith's dead name is Bob B. Smith, you could use "Smith, B. B." even if other citations use the whole first name. Another advantage is that initials don't suggest a gender, and in some cases the initial might remain the same.

We should also consider whether it is appropriate to state both names. Should a citation under the dead name mention the author's name? Should a citation under the living name mention the dead name? On one hand, mentioning both names ensures that the author as a person receives recognition for all their work. On the other, it draws attention to the fact that the person is transgender.

The guideline should not make editors work on a case-by-case basis, and it should not generate frequent objections. Even if the intentions are good, adding a barrier for citing transgender authors may cause editors to avoid citing them. Roches (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of any guideline here is to preempt edit wars. It will not force any editor to give an ultra-complete citation and it will not create any barrier to anyone just entering the obvious data. But it could allow, possibly encourage, wikignomes to add alternative names if the original editor did not, just like they currently add ISBN or JSTOR links at times. Or consensus would be to discourage or disallow such editing. That's why there ought to be a discussion. Reasonable arguments can be made for various views, and if there is no clear guideline, there will be edit wars.

The point of including both names when a book has been republished under a new name is to enable our readers to have a slightly easier time finding the sources. Some databases do a good job of linking multiple names, some do a poor job or none whatsoever. If someone entered "Bob B Smith" in a cite with no indication that the book also exists in an edition authored by "Alice B Smith", some people are not going to be able to find the book.

Considering that these names are buried in a citation, the impact on transgendered authors will be no worse than already exists in academic citations. Choor monster (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sympathetic... but we don't want our readers to be pointed to later editions of the source... we want to point them to the specific edition being cited (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). This is because later editions may not be identical to the one being cited. So... if you got some bit of information from an edition with "Bob Smith" listed as the author... it is important that you cite that... not a later edition with "Alice Smith" listed as the author. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is off-track. Of course you always cite so that it's clear which edition you are citing. Meanwhile, do we or do we not also make it clear for readers trying to find a copy for their own reasons what the possibilities are? Choor monster (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope...that's not the purpose of citations. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand... helping "readers trying to find a copy for their own reasons what the possibilities are" is one purpose of a bibliography section or a "further reading" list. In those, we should give the most up-to-date (ie most recent) edition (which, presumably, would be one that uses the new name). Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The "purpose" of citations? Sheesh, what a deliberately backwards attitude you have. We require citations for WP:V, yes, but you know, readers are allowed to try and track down sources for themselves, and trying to say, no we should not make any attempt to help readers on this point since it's not "required" that we help readers that far, I'm sorry, my mind just shuts down trying to figure out what you think WP if for. It also seems to be a pointless splitting of hairs. The same issues apply whereever we refer to authors and their works. And citations using Template:sfn can easily be based on material listed in a non-references section.

So what happens when page references are given in a first edition using sfn, and those page numbers are not the same as in a second edition? Or the only URL is a Google books to a first edition? Choor monster (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Pagination differences are exactly one of the reasons our citation information must align to a specific edition ... the page numbers in one edition may not match an earlier or later edition. A reader, hoping to verify information in a Misplaced Pages article, needs to be told the specific edition we saw, in order to find the correct pages.

A more relevant issue is the situation where one edition contains a statement that is omitted from a later edition... If we use this statement to support something in an article, our citation needs to point the reader to the specific edition we saw... if we point them to the later edition (by citing a later name) the reader will not find the statement. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, after all this extremely obvious and agreed on issues have been mentioned, I'm left with some pretty basic questions. Are we or are we not going to have a policy/guideline regarding someone mentioning a different edition that was not consulted? Are we or are we not going to have a policy/guideline regarding duplicate citations that essentially agree, except for the author's name? Or are we going to be saddled in the near-future with editors relying on a revised MOS:IDENTITY and applying it to citations? Choor monster (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Undent. Responding to all: No, in toto. Those above clearly believe WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is sufficient (and I happen to agree). --Izno (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a minimum age for editors?

I can't remember where to find it if there is, but I found an acct that self identifies as a 14 year old. Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No. But see WP:Child protection for advice to give them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The advice for young editors page is at WP:YOUNG. The child protection page linked above is actually about how to handle suspected stalkers and pedophiles, not a good idea to show the young editor that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not... I would think our young editors should know how to report problems when they encounter them. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Child protection is linked in the second para of YOUNG. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright conundrum

File:T.S. Eliot, 1923.JPG (Turned thumbnail into link. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

In 2003 the UK National Portrait Gallery acquired a collection of albums of photos, mostly taken by Lady Ottoline Morrell. The photos were subsequently published on the NPGs UK-based website.

If a work was published outside the US after 1 March 1989 in a country that is signatory to the Berne Convention (the UK is), then the US copyright term is 70 years after the death of the author. Lady Ottoline died in 1938. Are the photos taken by Lady Ottoline now in the public domain in the US?

One of Lady Ottoline's photos is this one, of T.S. Eliot and a friend. (The friend has been cropped out in this version.) I've searched the internet, including Google Books and all of Ebook Library's holdings for Eliot's and his companion's names and can find no proof of publication of this image prior to the NPG's post-2003 publication. An editor has said I need to prove the image wasn't published before 1989 or it will be deleted from Misplaced Pages and the nine articles presently using it. I'm not sure how to prove that.

Your thoughts are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2015 October 15#File:T.S. Eliot, 1923.JPG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a need to specify that WP:GNG should be the basic requirement for notability?

Look at this: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti (Rihanna album)

The article quite clearly meets WP:GNG but the deletion nominator decided that since the article may fail one of the WP:NALBUMS criteria, the article should be deleted. Note that he also suggested article incubation but consensus did not favor that option.

Is there a need to clarify the appropriate action in situations like this, where an article meets the significant coverage requirement of GNG but may not meet a subject-specific notability guideline? sst✈ 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No. The nom even linked to the section on notability for music in that as long as there is significant pre-release coverage, that's fine; the nominator of that appeared to ignore or did not see that language of that section. That said, sometimes the subject-specific guidelines may want to have stricter cases than the GNG would allow for their field, which here would make sense, preventing undue creation of albums that are known to be coming (meeting the GNG) but otherwise have limited detailed coverage until they near or get released. Nothing seems broken here. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... WP:N states this:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Misplaced Pages is not policy.

(emphasis mine)

So basically it has to meet either GNG or the subject-specific criteria, not necessarily both. Is there a need to stress this? sst✈ 15:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's already present at WP:N, and I believe nearly all the SNG guidelines refer back to the GNG as the default. It's stressed enough. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The idea that a SNG can be stricter than GNG is nonsensical, precisely because GNG is the default. A SNG cannot be used to exclude a subject that passes GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Except we do allow for that. WP:NCORP weighs much more on the nature of the geography of the coverage that the GNG does not readily consider, considering organizations that are only notable by local papers to not be notable for WP. While one can argue that only policies and guidelines could be read that that's just the appropriate application of the GNG with other guidelines, NCORP makes it explicit as to avoid otherwise topics of only localized notability that the GNG would otherwise apparently allow. The only thing an SNG cannot do is weaken the GNG. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom potentially establishing policy

At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3/Proposed_decision#General_Prohibition, ArbCom is considering passing a "remedy" that establishes that anyone with less than 500 edits/30 days tenure will be prohibited from editing articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Given that remedies from ArbCom are normally addressed against a particular editor, having a remedy against a class of editor has sparked controversy as to whether ArbCom is acting outside of their remit and is establishing policy. I am not forum shopping here, but do feel the wider community needs to be aware of what is occurring. Discussion welcome at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Proposed decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Arbcom is not establishing a Misplaced Pages-wide policy, but establishing a remedy to deal with widespread conflict at the articles in question, this is not "establishing policy". Whether ArbCom should or should not establish the remedy is a separate question entirely, and not one I am addressing, but this is not "establishing policy". This is "trying to stop disruption", which is well within ArbCom's remit. Policy would be changing the way all of Misplaced Pages works. This is enacting restrictions on the locus of a dispute. It may, or may not, be a wise or correct restriction to enact, I'm not commenting on that one way or the other, but it is certainly not doing anything different from what it has always done, since time immemorial. --Jayron32 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't attempting to spark a discussion here. The point here was to raise the issue to a greater level of awareness. There are differing opinions on whether this is establishing policy or not. Given there is such a controversy, and given that the community in general was not aware that ArbCom might be acting outside its remit, the community needed to be made aware. This is the appropriate board to do so. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:FAIR and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

So I just read this article about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and, while an opinion piece, it does raise a point of concern that I feel should be monitored with regards to fair-use.

From the article: "Article QQ.G.17 - Copyright Balance This article states: 'Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system.' This article is referring to exceptions in normal copyright law and provides examples, but it does not mandate all countries to create or follow such a rule system.

Basically, it means things like parodies, educational content, news content, reviews and more, don't have to be protected under fair use, and can be tried for copyright infringement." RegistryKey 15:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

While there are concerns that TPP contains SOPA-like provisions, keep in mind that any impact on WP will first be a result of any new copyright laws that the US congress passes to meet TPP that would have to impact fair use allowances, and then if there is a major shift, if the WMF responds to that. There's nothing legally in place that would affect en.wiki right now. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The treaty has a binding requirement that countries implement certain restrictions, but a non-binding suggestion to make exceptions for fair use. That's how a problem could come about, though it would take a chain of hypothetical events. Nevertheless, Wikipedians and citizens of anywhere should be aware this treaty is not in their best interests. Rhoark (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fair use," as it is practiced in the United States, at least partially came out of federal court rulings that interpreted our Constitution to say that the Constitution require it to some degree in some circumstances. No treaty nor any law passed pursuant to any treaty can violate the Constitution. If - and I think I'm right here - that our Constitution requires that Copyright laws respect at least some types of fair use and at least to some degree, any laws that tightened up "fair use" would only be enforceable up to the point that they bumped up against our Constitution. It would be no more valid that if we made a treaty that required us to pass laws re-instituting slavery. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're wrong here. The US Constitution has no provisions regarding Fair Use. It is based on US copyright law, which can be overridden by legislation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

According to this external article, fair use is based on free speech. Usually, a fair use issue is decided solely on the Copyright Act of 1976. Occasionally, the First Amendment is the basis for a fair use decision. SMP0328. (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

in any situation, we as editors on en.wiki should not worry about changing our approach to how we use fair use and policies based on that unless we are told by the Foundation that we need to alter our view. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Sgotto, Robert. "Trans-Pacific Partnership means more DRM, ROMs become illegal, less modder & YouTuber fair use". GameSkinny. Retrieved 20 October 2015.