Newimpartial (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
:::::I agree that the carveout for pre-transition names of trans people deserves an effective pointer at CHANGEDNAME. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I agree that the carveout for pre-transition names of trans people deserves an effective pointer at CHANGEDNAME. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{tq|Do the multiple examples help understand this better?}} As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
:::::{{tq|Do the multiple examples help understand this better?}} As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::For the "no notable pretransition name" case, the two examples only illustrate "no single formula", since the difference between the cases doesn’t illustrate anything specific to pretransition names. |
|||
::::::For the "notable pretransition name" case, the examples illustrate subtly different treatment for a birth name vs. a professional name, so they do illustrate a point that is relevant to pretransition names in particular IMO. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people (see § Gender identity, below). == |
== Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people (see § Gender identity, below). == |
Revision as of 12:20, 31 January 2023
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Non-latin script name in lead
What's the guideline regarding the use of the "original" names of people in non-Latin script? For example, the opening sentence of South Korean footballer Son Heung-min includes "Korean: 손흥민". This makes sense, as Korean is the official language of South Korea, which is solely written in Hangul. However, what about ambiguous cases? According to languages of Morocco, the two official languages are Standard Arabic and Standard Moroccan Berber
. It seems that Tifinagh (Berber script) is being taught in schools and used sometimes, but official documentation (such as IDs, passports etc.) only use Arabic and Latin script. How should I know when to include a non-Latin script or not? Nehme1499 11:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion started on my talk page.
- You say "official documentation (such as IDs, passports etc.) only use Arabic and Latin script"; no, whenever something official is written in Berber, it's in Tifinagh. You might be mixing up with Algeria, where they use the Latin script.
- I don't see where the ambiguity is here. Synotia (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Whenever something official is written in Berber
: when are these circumstances, though? Is there documentation in Morocco which uses Tifinagh? Nehme1499 12:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)- For example Synotia (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is a website, not documentation. Nehme1499 12:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's run by the Moroccan government, which is why I used it to you as an example.
- I don't understand your fixation on ID papers as the demarcator between admissible or not in the article.
- For example, Abd el-Krim's Wikipedia page shows his name in Tarifit in Tifinagh script, although there were hardly ID papers back then, let alone in Tifinagh.
If you want to dig further, Circassian leaders, whose nations were genocided to near extinction back in the day (talk about language status etc) have their names written in Cyrillic Adyghe/Ubykh/etc, because that's how these languages are officially written in the present day. I know this is digging far, but it's to underline you how I don't really understand the point behind debating whether it's in ID papers or not. Synotia (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is a website, not documentation. Nehme1499 12:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- For example Synotia (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Any other opinions? Nehme1499 14:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- To your question
How should I know when to include a non-Latin script or not?
, I'd say when the person uses the non-Latin script (for political, cultural, or ethnic reasons) and/or when WP:RS scholarship/journalism on them uses the script because the coverage of them is more extensive in that language/script (and it's politically/culturally/ethnically relevant). Having the name there in a from that helps in tracking down additional information/sources is an important benefit to readers and editors. To your example, since in Morocco and among the Tuareg Tifinagh (or Neo-Tifinagh) are preferred, then using that script makes sense; in Algeria, since Berber Latin is preferred, then using Latin makes sense. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Noble titles
Not sure if this is the right place for this but, there's a bit of a clash on another article regarding capitalisation.
Which version would be correct:
The Duke of Norfolk, by tradition, is in charge of organising the event as Earl Marshal. The current earl marshal is the 18th Duke, Edward Fitzalan-Howard. or
The duke of Norfolk, by tradition, is in charge of organising the event as earl marshal. The current earl marshal is the 18th duke, Edward Fitzalan-Howard. WiltedXXVI (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's :The Duke of Norfolk, by tradition, is in charge of organising the event as Earl Marshal. The current earl marshal is the 18th duke, Edward Fitzalan-Howard. Note the article is actually at Earl Marshal, just like Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, buyt not Prime minister. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Move Asian people > Asians
There is a move request that might be of interest: Talk:Asian_people#Requested_move_13_December_2022 Valereee (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Nationality
Out of no where this format à la "Austrian and American" comes to counter the long established tradition of the hyphen! Goodness gracious ;)
Where and when has this format been decided all of a sudden? Synotia (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give an example. There is no nation of Austria-America, so Austrian and American or Austrian, American would be the correct way to show dual nationality. A hyphen is often used to describe ethnicity. Is that what you mean? MB 15:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- We write African-American culture for example, yet there is no nation of Africa-America either?
- And has this been decided by a community consensus, or by just one single egghead? Synotia (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with MB… if we are indicating someone’s ethnic heritage (not encouraged, per MOS:ETHNICITY) then the hyphen would be appropriate, but if we are trying to indicate dual citizenship we would need to link the two nationalities with “and” (and if we are indicating sequential citizenship - ie the person renounced one citizenship for another - I would suggest not trying to do so in one single sentence). Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that for ethnicity, MOS:HYPHEN says not to hyphenate:
—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Avoid using hyphen to connect racial or ethnic descriptors, regardless of whether or not they are used attributively (Aboriginal Australians, Asian American studies, Black British people).
Sex in CONTEXTBIO?
MOS:CONTEXTBIO doesn’t make mention of sex (or gender), but it seems like there would be no reason not to treat it the same. We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”, except in cases like “first woman to win a Nobel Prize” (and so on). Am I missing something, or is this sort of consideration so obvious to be CREEPy? — HTGS (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
We don’t need to clarify someone as a “female soccer player” or “female scientist”
— but we do categorise them (Category:Women's association football players, Category:Women scientists) and thus we should define them as such. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
GENDERID names
Regarding this edit that was reverted. There is an obvious conflict with the original wording and the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, which states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
There are already guidelines and policies covering former names and privacy concerns, which is why I added links to the section. Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names? Consensus doesn't get to override policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- We've been through this over and over. Check the archives. Discussing it again is unlikely to lead to a change. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've read the conclusions in the archives. The issue of former names and privacy is already addressed in BLP and on this page. GENDERID currently says to avoid the former name "even if reliable sourcing exists", which clearly violates core content policies and the MOS for former names. I have edited Wikipedia for 17 years and have never seen such an open violation of policy. Saying "go read the archives" is insufficient. If you don't want to discuss it, I'll start another RFC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- You've been an editor here for many years. Don't throw it away on a tendentious anti-woke crusade. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've read the conclusions in the archives. The issue of former names and privacy is already addressed in BLP and on this page. GENDERID currently says to avoid the former name "even if reliable sourcing exists", which clearly violates core content policies and the MOS for former names. I have edited Wikipedia for 17 years and have never seen such an open violation of policy. Saying "go read the archives" is insufficient. If you don't want to discuss it, I'll start another RFC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- The answer to your question,
Why is there a special carveout for a transgendered person and we treat them different than any other person who changes names?
, is to be found in the many community processes linked at MOS:GIDINFO. - The "Coles Notes" summary of the discussions concerning former names is, primarily, that there is a concern based on BLPPRIVACY principles (WP:BLP having the weight of core policy) that is different for gender identity-related name changes than it is for other name changes. You may disagree with this, but it represents the way the community has adjudicated tension among its core policies for many years now, and with the input of many, many editors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- So, personally I think MOS:DEADNAME is right for the wrong reasons, because I think we should in general be much more deferential to name changes. There isn't something magical about a gender-based name change that makes it more worthy of respect than other name changes; the issue is just that our community has historically sucked at respecting individuals' right to be called by the name they request, so we made a carve-out for the case where that obnoxious practice was causing the most trouble. Setting that aside, no, this is not a NOTCENSORED violation. WP:NOTCENSORED does not require us to include anything. It just says we reserve the right to show anything lawful, when doing so would be in accordance with other policies and guidelines. The actual governing guideline is Wikipedia:Offensive material, which explicitly rejects giving any "special favor to offensive content". This is why, among other things, articles on human sexuality are almost never illustrated by live-action videos; it's why the image of fresh cuts at Self-harm was replaced with an image of scars; and so on.So if someone were to argue "We should not include so-and-so's deadname because it is illegal under the laws of such-and-such foreign jurisdiction" or "because it's a sin in my religion" or any other non-PAG based argument, then NOTCENSORED is a valid rebuttal. But if someone says "We should not include so-and-so's deadname because it presents issues regarding privacy and human dignity, without there being a particular benefit to the reader in us including it", that's the regular kind of weighing of interests we do on articles all the time. And here, people have presented that argument so many times, and it's been affirmed by the community so may times, that it was enshrined in guideline. (And hey, just a guideline. I've seen IAR exceptions made here and there, usually when the subject has publicized their own deadname.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Tamzin, very helpful. I think you touched on my point, that we should have a policy about former names without regard to transgender status. We have a guideline for former names, and a policy addressing privacy, and I think those make sense and already address the issue of non-notable former names. The guideline on WP:GENDERID currently censors useful and verifiable material based on the individual's personal feelings, which makes sense in a gender studies class but not an encyclopedia. I support keeping a person's sexual identity private unless there is good reason, but I don't agree with the way the guideline is worded. I think there is a way to update it that will not be unnecessarily offensive to transgender people while also not leaving a contradiction with policy that will endlessly churn out complaints.
- At some point I'll work on an RFC, unless you think something can be worked out here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your belief that the hundreds of editors who contributed to the current consensus against the inclusion of non-notable former names of nonbinary and trans people over the last decade will suddenly change their minds when presented with your proposal - well, to be charitable, it seems exceedingly optimistic. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the RFC that you are thinking of? I did not see that issue specifically addressed as you describe. Yes I did make an effort to search the archives. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Cuñado: Here are about 10 RfCs among the 70 or so discussions - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Discussion_timeline. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please use MOS:IDINFO to navigate the prior discussions; that is what its timeline of discussions is for. The decision to clarify that non-notable deadlines are excluded from article space, rather than only the main biographical article, was made in 2020. The question of which deadnames should, and should not, be included in the lead of the main biographical arricle was decided back in 2015, and was revisited frequently but without significant changes until the restrictions on former names were expanded in 2020. In 2021 additional restrictions were placed on how notable former names of trans and nonbinary people should be mentioned.[1] [2] (All of these links are presented in the timeline section of IDINFO, with brief identifying descriptions of each discussion.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the RFC that you are thinking of? I did not see that issue specifically addressed as you describe. Yes I did make an effort to search the archives. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your belief that the hundreds of editors who contributed to the current consensus against the inclusion of non-notable former names of nonbinary and trans people over the last decade will suddenly change their minds when presented with your proposal - well, to be charitable, it seems exceedingly optimistic. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've suggested before that the appropriateness of including a deadname for transgender individuals shouldn't stop there, but should extend to any name changes, such as non-English names for immigrants or pre-marriage names for married people - if the sourcing is weak or relying on primary sources, we should not include that name. This would make one policy consistent across all BLP. But this was rejected because editors felt that it was required to include things like pre-marriage names in BLP articles. Hence the conflict here. Masem (t) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Pronouns for transgender and non-binary people
Hi. I am a non-binary person. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on transgender and nonbinary people (MOS:GI) and I really think they should be changed. Why does it specifically say only a living person gets the respect of being referred to by their preferred pronouns?
If a person's preferred pronouns were known why should they not be respected in death? It is high time to update these guidelines. Errlane (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is the BLP policy, so its application to dead people is limited only to the short period after death. That said, I think there's room in the policy that if a dead transgender person was known to prefer a certain set of pronouns via reliable sources, we should respect that choice (and of course, if a currently living transgender person with known pronouns dies, their preference doesn't disappear after death). If we have no such idea of preference, then using "they/them" is the more respectful route. Masem (t) 13:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are there any examples of articles where a dead person had preferred pronouns that we don't use? (Not at all saying it's not the case, I've just not encountered any.) — Czello 13:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean MOS:GID? If so, where does it "specifically say only a living person gets the respect of being referred to by their preferred pronouns"? I see "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification". EddieHugh (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
please explain (GENDERID examples)
(I noticed this on the MOS:GIDINFO page, but the content is transcluded from here)
As of this writing we offer two examples of "don't include the former name if not notable", both written in green (indicating this is how to write things):
- From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
- From Rachel Levine, not notable under prior name: Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
First off, the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say: The first article begins "Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) is an American actress and..." Green text should IMO be reserved for the actual words we want to teach readers to use. Plus, wouldn't it be better if the example actually contrasted what to write with what to not write (which is why we'd use a made-up example)
Why not use a made-up example, and why not write (in green) the exact phrasing we want readers to adopt:
- Jane Doe (born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
- Jane Doe (formerly John Doe, born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all.
My question is: why did the community decide to not use this style of examples? CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, but perhaps because it's redundant. The examples are of what names to use, not pronouns. We therefore do use the exact phrasing that users should adopt. (Your examples are also contradictory: the first recommends "they" and the second, for the same person, indicates that "they" is incorrect.) I'd argue that we don't need examples of pronoun use, because it's clear from the first paragraph of MOS:GENDERID (in your example, "Doe is not notable under prior name, so do not include it at all" is required to explain which name is which, but it's merely repeating that first paragraph). EddieHugh (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nobody is discussing pronouns. Both I and the GENDERID is discussing whether to mention the former name. My example clearly shows how to write and how to not write it.
I'm saying that this...
- Jane Doe (born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
- Jane Doe (formerly John Doe, born May 1, 1980) is an American celebrity. They are known for..."
(obviously switching to a made-up example so we can show the incorrect way of doing it; illustrating what we're telling users NOT to do) ...is much more easily understood than whatever the current text's examples is trying to say. Unlike the current text it avoids text you're not supposed to write (in other words, no they don't contain "the exact phrasing that users should adopt"), doesn't begin with a "From" (that I don't understand the purpose of), and extremely clearly illustrates both the green do and the red don't.
That I chose Jane Doe as my example name, and my choice of example nationality, "job", and pronoun, is entirely irrelevant and beside the point. CapnZapp (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I thought you might be referring to pronouns because you wrote "the green text doesn't actually match what the articles (currently) say", and then included pronouns, which aren't in the examples, while the green text is exactly what's in the articles. Anyway, I think that the current text is adequately clear, if long-winded (one example for not notable and one for notable would be enough). EddieHugh (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would point out that one reason to include two examples for each case is to show that there is not "one correct template" to use to follow in each case. The notable examples, for instance, give one case where the pretransition name is a "birth name" and one where it is not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "From" part, intended to explain from which articles the examples have been lifted, is completely unnecessary. But if you must link to real articles, don't mess up the example to do so.
- The contrast between green and non-green text is not great enough. Better is to offer examples consisting of green (or red) text only, with no explanatory nonsense inserted mid-example.
- Sorry, but just providing examples isn't enough. The purpose of a demonstration is to be clear. I don't mind keeping the two real-life examples, but overt clarity would then be needed. In the spirit of overt clarity: if you provide an example to show how to phrase it when pretransition name is a "birth name", say so. Don't expect the reader to "just understand". These guidelines aren't written primarily for people that already know what to say and what to avoid. For many readers, this article will be the first time they even hear about terms such as "pretransition name"!
For example (feel free to write better explanatory text; copying bits from reply above just to illustrate):
When pretransition name is a "birth name" (example from Laverne Cox):
- Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
When it is not (example from Rachel Leland Levine):
- Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957) ...
When pretransition name is not notable (fictional example):
- Jane Smith (formerly John Hammer, born May 1, 1980)..."
(do not include non-notable pretransition name at all)
CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume I have answered y'all to your satisfaction, and that we are now in agreement. CapnZapp (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for "preserving the presumed intention", Newimpartial. However, wouldn't you agree your edits lost the explanation of why we have two green examples? That is (with your own words) "one case where the pretransition name is a 'birth name' and one where it is not"...? At least I don't know either of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine, and wouldn't be able to discern any functional difference between the two examples (other than "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not") CapnZapp (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Elliot Page's prior name not being a birth name? Wasn't Page christened "Ellen"? (And weren't we discussing these in the context of Cox/Laverne, not Manning/Page?) CapnZapp (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Prior to acting, Page's last name was a hyphenated form of his mother and father's surnames (Philpotts–Page), which was shortened for his stage name. It's a bit confusing since the hyphenated name is not in the linked article and it's not an obvious change (like from Norma Jeane Mortenson to Marilyn Monroe, for example). — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- In fact, the hyphenated name does not meet notability requirements (to my knowledge, the only sourcing for it that satisfies WP:IND is a local newspaper in South America). This has been discussed at length at Talk:Elliot Page. The consensus has therefore been consistent that "Ell*n Page" is a notable professional name, not a birth name, and this consensus was reflected in the choice of example for the MOS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. The purpose of giving examples is illustrating a point. In order to explain the point (why otherwise make it?) we need to explain an obscure detail that we have agreed to not divulge! The obvious conclusion is to use another example, where we can actually tell our readers what our example is meant to illustrate. CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not saying Page is a bad example. If we clearly (in our article) explain that Page is an example of a subject whose name is not a birth name, and avoid raising further questions by explaining why this is so, then it is a great example. If, however, we use Page as an example with zero elaboration as to why we use that example, it loses all instructive value. CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Where are you suggesting that this elaboration ought to be provided. Surely not in the article text of Elliot Page? Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know where the elaboration should be provided (or it if is even appropriate), but it's not clear to anyone unfamiliar with the lengthy discussions at Talk:Elliot Page why he would be used as an example for "not a birth name." It's about picking an example that makes clear the point being made, not further confusing the reader. Perhaps replacing "not a birth name" with "professional name" or "stage name" would be less confusing. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have tried to reflect your suggestion in this tweak. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know where the elaboration should be provided (or it if is even appropriate), but it's not clear to anyone unfamiliar with the lengthy discussions at Talk:Elliot Page why he would be used as an example for "not a birth name." It's about picking an example that makes clear the point being made, not further confusing the reader. Perhaps replacing "not a birth name" with "professional name" or "stage name" would be less confusing. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Where are you suggesting that this elaboration ought to be provided. Surely not in the article text of Elliot Page? Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not saying Page is a bad example. If we clearly (in our article) explain that Page is an example of a subject whose name is not a birth name, and avoid raising further questions by explaining why this is so, then it is a great example. If, however, we use Page as an example with zero elaboration as to why we use that example, it loses all instructive value. CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. The purpose of giving examples is illustrating a point. In order to explain the point (why otherwise make it?) we need to explain an obscure detail that we have agreed to not divulge! The obvious conclusion is to use another example, where we can actually tell our readers what our example is meant to illustrate. CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- For the exclusion of pre-transition names, the difference is precisely that
"one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not"
. The value in those particular examples, as I suggested above, is simply to underline the fact that there is no single formula mandated in this branch of the decision tree, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for explaining. But... this explanation needs to be provided to the reader of the article, because the point of the example is to convey a point. I certainly didn't understand this given only the examples - after all you needed to explain it to me! Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Does that make things clearer for the reader? The assumption I would work with is that a bio lede would follow MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:CHANGEDNAME, but with the stipulation that deadnames/prior names should only be used in very limited circumstances when the person was notable under that name. Do the multiple examples help understand this better? (And there really needs to be a pointer to MOS:GENDERID at MOS:CHANGEDNAME to make clear that pre-transition names are handled differently.) — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the carveout for pre-transition names of trans people deserves an effective pointer at CHANGEDNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Do the multiple examples help understand this better?
As explained, the point of having two examples is that they are different. To me it is obvious this needs to be explained to the audience - it isn't enough that we that write the page understand what each example illustrates. Apparently, this obviousness does not extend to everybody. (While I'm not the one suggesting having twoi examples, I have no objections to it; I'm just clarifying that, to my understanding, the purpose of having two examples isn't to help understanding the basic point, it is to illustrate "there is no single formula" when you write such a lead sentence). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)- For the "no notable pretransition name" case, the two examples only illustrate "no single formula", since the difference between the cases doesn’t illustrate anything specific to pretransition names.
- For the "notable pretransition name" case, the examples illustrate subtly different treatment for a birth name vs. a professional name, so they do illustrate a point that is relevant to pretransition names in particular IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Elliot Page's prior name not being a birth name? Wasn't Page christened "Ellen"? (And weren't we discussing these in the context of Cox/Laverne, not Manning/Page?) CapnZapp (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for "preserving the presumed intention", Newimpartial. However, wouldn't you agree your edits lost the explanation of why we have two green examples? That is (with your own words) "one case where the pretransition name is a 'birth name' and one where it is not"...? At least I don't know either of Laverne Cox and Rachel Levine, and wouldn't be able to discern any functional difference between the two examples (other than "one example subject has two last names, the other has one" and "one example includes pronounciation, the other does not") CapnZapp (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people (see § Gender identity, below).
Late in the previous discussion, a point was raised: shouldn't CHANGEDNAME point to GENDERID?
And so it does (very last line). However, note the word "living" in the current text. Does GENDERID apply to living subjects only or equally to deceased subjects? We afford greater protections to living bio article subjects, is GENDERID one of these?
If the answer is "yes only to living" then GENDERID needs to make this distinction. If the answer is "no; to all" the above line at CHANGEDNAME needs to be edited. (To be clear: I have no opinion either way, I just want to point out this possible discrepancy)