Talk:Sonia Burgess

Pronouns

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Gender-neutral_language.5BR.5D Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: She fathered her first child). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, though in this case the subject seems to have made a dual self-identification after 2006: as a man in their professional life and as a woman in their private life. It seems logical, therefore, to follow the example of the Guardian sources and to use the male pronoun until 2006 and the context-appropriate pronoun after that.  Sandstein  19:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The terms above define latest identification. the latest Identification was as Sonia. they died as Sonia. Also the Obituaries writen by friends/collegues use female name and pronoun as primary indentification see http://www.lgf.org.uk/sonia-david-burgess-1947-201/ for example. The birth name is used in inverted commas only Nirame (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, their latest identification in a professional context was male (Burgess continued practicing law as a man), and their latest identification in a private context was female. We can try to limit the use of pronouns in a context of ambiguous gender identification, but we can't simply remove pronouns when sentence structure calls for them.  Sandstein  20:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

the guardian has begun using correct pronouns also see : "Kanagasingham is remanded in custody after transgender lawyer Sonia Burgess died under a train at King's Cross"

also "Since her death, tributes have been paid to Burgess, whom colleagues and friends described as a "trailblazing" human rights lawyer. The family of the solicitor have asked for her to be referred to as Sonia. Her former wife and children said in a statement: "Sonia was a loving and wonderful person and will be missed deeply.""http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/01/tube-death-woman-sex-change

the guidance says " latest expressed gender self-identification" using her existing qualifications and the name etc they were gained under is not the same as the gender identity of the person. The family have shown that in stating how to refer to Sonia. Nirame (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

But if we were to accept female as the latest expressed gender identification, we would need to adopt this throughout the article, which would be either odd-sounding ("David Burgess won her case") or misleading ("Sonia Burgess won her case"). Ultimately, legibility seems more important to me than political correctness. We can take the dual identification into account by using the female name and pronouns in the context of her private life and death, and his male identity when discussing his (earlier) professional work.  Sandstein  20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It may sound odd to you but that is where the guidance seems to lead. That is what happened to Chaz Bono's Article also, if you look over that you can see the correct terms used througout his life including previous identification as a lesbian. Nirame (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth name is shown usually but refernces after that and gender terms are all of the indentified gender barring quotes or suchlike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Even earlier work is put in gender correct terms. alexis arquette :At twenty-two, Arquette landed her first significant acting role, playing a transvestite Georgette in Last Exit to Brooklyn. Sixteen years later, she went through her own transition from male to female, an experience that was documented in the film, Alexis Arquette: She's My Brother, which debuted at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'll ask for the opinions of other people via WP:3O.  Sandstein  20:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok though I would say if anyones opinion is relevant it is the vice president of press for change. "I am shattered by the news of Sonia Burgess's tragic death. Sonia was the human rights lawyer every human rights lawyer respected. Sonia was to be the lawyer who inspired me to be the lawyer I am today. From 1992 to her semi-retirement in 2002, Sonia (as ‘David’) acted as the lawyer to Press For Change, the UK’s lobbying and activism group for transgender people’s rights." http://www.lgf.org.uk/sonia-david-burgess-1947-201/ Note Sonia is the identity "David" is just put in quoatation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also if we use female pronouns the title/page name should be put to Sonia too surely. and have"born as David and known professionally as such" or something to that effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

see also "And even though she continued to present as a male in her working life, perhaps there too she operated as a female in masculine clothing; certainly, her family have emphasised that although she worked in male mode they would prefer her to be known as Sonia, because that is who she was. Meanwhile, her colleagues have paid tribute to her pioneering work as a human rights lawyer, and the landmark cases for which she was responsible, making her death not just the loss of a precious human being who will be sorely missed, but of a professional lawyer with a passion for justice and the marginalised who still had much to give to society."http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/2887 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that tells us what we already know: Burgess identified as a woman in private and a man in public. The source can't be directly used in the article, though, as it is a blog and thus self-published (WP:SPS).  Sandstein  05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

the key quote is sonia as that is who she was. wiki guide says to refer to people by their self identification. using a previous ID still is not the same as identifying as such Nirame (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I don't think we can apply the 'latest identification' rule, since MOS:IDENTITY doesn't define how to handle non-binary gender, and as far as I can tell, Burgess' gender was not binary at the time of his death. Therefore, I think we have to follow the 'clarity' prescription from the 'gender-neutral language' section. Looking over the article I can only spot one sentence using a pronoun with Burgess as referent, namely "but continued to use his birth name and gender in his professional life"; since the referents of the noun-phrases ("his birth name and gender", "his professional life") are both associated with his male identification, I would suggest keeping 'his' as used in the current version of the page. Incidentally, my personal solution to issues like these (which I am using in this talk post but not suggesting applying to the article) is simply to treat 'he' as having a secondary gender-neutral meaning, for which some etymological justification exists.—PT (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was adding info about her children anyway so have rejigged the text somewhat. As in Chas Bono's article i think the easiest way to solve most problems seems to be using the surname to refer to the person wherever possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Most editors offered reasonable arguments, but there is no clear consensus for a name change to Sonia. This is a person who continued to use both gender identities. The current version of MOS:IDENTITY doesn't give a unique answer. (It implies that current pronoun usage overcomes historic pronoun usage, even if the previous identity was the one most commonly used in reliable sources). "give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." If the person had given up all usage of the name 'David' we wouldn't be hesitating. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

---

David Burgess (lawyer) → Sonia Burgess – The current name (David Burgess) is in blatant disregard to Wikipedia's transgender naming policy (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Common_name). It is disrespectful to the individual and to the transgender community. It does not matter if this was the name they used in their professional life, just as the changes for celebrities who change their name are made, the changes for Sonia Burgess should also be made. We need some LGBT moderators in this conversation who are more knowledgeable about the subject. Anon523 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apparently the subject did not publicly and/or legally change their name prior to their death, and continued to use their original name in their professional life, which is what they were notable for. This is comparable to Bruce Jenner continuing to use the male name before changing to Caitlyn Jenner. In any event, readers are going to look the subject up for their work as a lawyer, using the "David" name, which is also the name they were covered by our sources as.  Sandstein  20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Response to Opposition. This is factually incorrect. The public name in multiple publications is listed as "Sonia" (see references). Legal name does not matter according to Wikipedia guidelines and basic respect to the individual. This is not comparable to Caitlyn Jenner as Caitlyn's name was never used or even known prior to coming out publicly. People looking up Sonia's old name can be redirected to the correct name with a simple redirect. Having the old name is offensive and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon523 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 September 2015‎ (UTC)
• Support: There are many trans-people who, for a variety of reasons, continue to use the name given to them at birth in certain public forums. Nevertheless, we should adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia's transgender naming policy which states: "give precedence to self-designation" (see MOS:IDENTITY). Here, it appears that this individual wanted to be referred to as "Sonia". The first Guardian article, for example, states that Burgess spent more time living as their "female persona" in the years preceding their death. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• There are cisgendered females of the same name: random woman, netball player, random woman. Using recent non-obituary sources, sources use "Sonia": Broadcast Now, The Guardian, The Standard, Mirror. There is a US lawyer and another UK lawyer named "David". Mirror and The Standard use "David".

  I'll remain neutral on this for now because this person hasn't been significantly covered since. I found all I can. --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

None of those people have articles or are covered in any other article. This subject is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Sonia Burgess.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Burgess continued to publicly practice law as a man named David until death. This is about Burgess as a lawyer, and not their personal life. Bobby Martnen (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. First, it better fits the spirit of Wikipedia's practices for titling articles on transgender individuals, which indicates that we give greater weight to the subject's preferred name as well as to publications produced after the name change occured (or became publicly known). While the subject did continue using her birth name, more recent sources discussing them increasingly refer to her as "Sonia Burgess".[1][2][3][4]. Second, the name "Sonia Burgess" is clearly well established enough to serve as WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, meaning it's preferable to a title that requires a parenthesis, as the current title does.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• He has been "David" for most of his life. Then she became "Sonia" in 2000s and then died in 2010. She has been posthumously called "Sonia", but sources discussing this person also discuss the murder trial. His/her obituary used both names.

  After the trial ended, sources discussing this person became scarce or rare. For now, I'll oppose this because he/she was widely known as "David" (before he became "Sonia", which lasted five years[?] until his death), and sources use Sonia and David concurrently. If Wikipedia were as popular as it is now, a bunch of folks would have chosen "Sonia" and used MOS:IDENTITY for their arguments' sake. George Ho (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment if people are so hot and bothered by personal naming preferences for living people, why don't we go and fix all the wrong transliterations/diacritics, where the "government" or "wikipedia procedural translation" transliteration or diacritic use is the article title, instead of the form the person has used in English. (Such as Japanese people who worked in English using Japanese government transliteration instead of the version used when they worked in English; or Slaviic sportspoeple who worked on English language teams but our articles not using the form they used when they worked in English; etc ad infinitum) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment this person is dead we should apply WP:COMMONNAME just like any other dead person. If they were alive, then living persons naming criteria would apply, but this person is dead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent move

As you can see I've moved Sonia Burgess's page so that it reflects her gender identity.

I was, I admit, over-hasty. Never having moved a page before, I moved it the exact way you aren't supposed to. (I did eventually figure out how to move it over correctly, though!) On top of that, I see there was already a big discussion that took place about a potential move a few years ago...

But since four years have passed since that last discussion, hopefully the discourse has progressed far enough that gendering a trans woman correctly is less controversial than it was back then. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the appropriate page not be Sonia Burgess? i.e. do we need the disambiguation in the title? The move can be made to Sonia Burgess via a request made at WP:RM. Polyamorph (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved the article to Sonia Burgess but Sandstein moved it back. While I would personally vote oppose, given that as you suggest the discourse has progressed, I suggest it worthwhile to set up a requested move.--Launchballer 12:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

But I will support the idea of writing "Sonia Burgess" in the article, as though David was her stage name. In fact I'm tempted to set the discussion up myself.--Launchballer 12:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY directs: "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. If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." In this case, our subject is identified by reliable sources as David, and the subject used David in a professional context, which is the context in which we cover them. I'm therefore still of the view that David is the correct name to use. If others disagreed, they should start a new WP:RM discussion. Sandstein 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And MOS:GENDERID says: "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." Reliable sources report on her most recent self-designated name and gender. Happy to go through the WP:RM process though. --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sonia Burgess: there appear to be two in favour of David Burgess on the basis that while they were a lawyer, Burgess identified as male or at least retained their name, three in favour of Murder of David Burgess per WP:BLP1E, zero in favour of Murder of Sonia Burgess, seven in favour of Sonia Burgess strictly per MOS:GENDERID with an additional two supporting it either to remove disambiguation or with the proviso that Burgess is referred to as David Burgess in the parts of the article which pertain to their law career. Therefore, consensus appears to be to move to Sonia Burgess. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

---

David Burgess (immigration lawyer) → Sonia Burgess – MOS:GENDERID says "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources."

The Guardian, despite their terrible use of language, make it clear she was a trans woman known as Sonia Burgess: "Although known as David in his professional life, he was transgendered, and in recent years spent more time in his female persona, Sonia." Wickedterrier (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 04:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Using a person's preferred gender identity is normally uncontroversial. But here, our subject was apparently in the process of transitioning, and, at the time of their death, continued to use "David" in a professional setting, and "Sonia" in a personal setting. In this Wikipedia article, we cover Burgess for their professional work for which they are notable. In view of this, I believe that we should respect Burgess's (last known) wish to be identified as "David" in a professional setting, and therefore cover them (in such a context, as here) as "David". Sandstein 13:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Changed to neutral per WanderingWanda's arguments below, which show that Burgess was covered by media (at least in part) as a woman when they died, so using the female identity for the article is at least defensible. Still, I don't think that this is a case of "she chose not to come out at work", but rather a free choice that we do have to respect to some degree: it seems that Burgess was a relatively prominent and well-established lawyer who, thanks to this position of relative independence, would probably have had less problems than others in transitioning at work if they had wanted to. Sandstein 17:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose move, Support move, not to Sonia Burgess but to Murder of David Burgess. I have little to add to Sandstein's arguments. I will say that as David was to all intents and purposes a stage name the article should begin "Sonia".--Launchballer 13:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I find that position rather confusing; if the article should begin "Sonia" shouldn't the article title match that? Have I misunderstood what you were intending there? Would you mind expanding your statement to avoid the risk of confusion, please? 😊 — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I intended that David Burgess should begin Sonia Burgess in the same way that Iggy Azalea begins with Amethyst Amelia Kelly, or at least in the same way that Jussie Smollett begins with Justin.--Launchballer 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be a good idea to use "David" for the article title and "Sonia" in the text. That would just confuse readers. We need to determine here which name and gender identity to use in the title and throughout the article, except where discuss the other name and identity. Sandstein 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see any evidence of it confusing readers of the two articles I've quoted. Or readers of Jack Straw, who self-styled with a name he was not originally born with.--Launchballer 22:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

But I do see a good reason to move to Murder of David Burgess, to which end I've adapted my vote.--Launchballer 12:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Wickedterrier and per MOS:GENDERID. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support.
  • This is how the BBC, a mainstream, middle-of-the-road publication, reported Sonia Burgess' death: They call her Sonia Burgess and Ms Burgess. They use female pronouns. They use a picture where she is presenting as a female. And this was eight years ago, when the general level of knowledge about transgender issues was a lot lower than it is today.
  • This is how Sonia Burgess' family, the people who knew her best, presented her in a statement they released (via The Guardian): "Sonia was truly an inspiration and even in death her lesson to love and put others before one's self continues to shine through and will not be forgotten."
  • This is how a friend of Sonia's presented her in the above linked article: I just knew her as someone who was fun to be around: loving, sensitive, aware, in the present moment… a deep thinker, and, of course," Beardsley adds with a chuckle, "very fashionable. She had a very good eye for clothes..."
  • This is a passage from that article, talking about how Sonia Burgess's friends found it hurtful that some publications chose to erase Burgess' identity when they reported on her death. (The author, with a certain lack of self-awareness, chose to misgender Burgess in that same passage): Many of Sonia's friends found the media interest difficult to stomach, especially because some newspapers used the male pronoun to refer to Burgess in spite of the fact that he had chosen to live as a woman..." Things like that can be very hurtful in the transgender community," says Beardsley.
  • This is what MOS:GENDERID says: Give precedence to self-designation. It doesn't add "unless the person in question wasn't out yet to their employer." To me, no reasonable reading of the guideline supports misgendering Sonia Burgess. (And considering how common workplace discrimination towards transgender people is, inferring that she would want be misgendered in an article about her life because she chose not to come out at work is bizarre.)
  • But more important than what any Wikipedia policy says: respecting who Sonia Burgess was as a person is the decent thing to do.
  • One more thing: sorry for jumping the gun and moving this without following the proper procedure. I'm still learning. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• • • As a quick side comment: It's entirely possible that part of the reason Burgess used "David" as a lawyer was due to fears of workplace discrimination, but I'm not sure that's relevant for titling. Female authors like George Eliot and James Tiptree Jr. indisputably used male pennames so as to be taken more seriously as authors - fears of discrimination, a very similar thing - but Wikipedia still uses their male pennames they were known by as the article title. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Please keep pure speculation out of this. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
        • To be clear, I agree with this too, my point was just that this motivation speculation is irrelevant speculation anyway - even if true, it doesn't actually matter. SnowFire (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support move, but don't change the name in most of the article content. Similar to how Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon shows the names of the people at the event at that time and has an explanatory footnote about the transgender name change from Bruce->Caitlyn Jenner, the majority of this article should still use "David", with only the intro in the lede and the small note about personal life using "Sonia". SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and move instead to Murder of David Burgess per "continued to use the name and gender assigned at birth whilst practising law". I personally don't see why this article isn't titled Murder of David Burgess per WP:NCEVENTS instead, since this is apparently the WP:SINGLEEVENT at the root of the notability claim here. -- Netoholic @ 17:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's true that Burgess came to public attention because of their murder, but they were a notable laywer even befor that for their legal accomplishments. The murder as such seems to be a routine kind of crime except for its more tabloid-y aspects (deranged murderer who themselves had gender identity issues, etc). We're not a tabloid and so we don't need to go into detail about that. I'd oppose this move. Sandstein 17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So then if this is a WP:ROUTINE murder and a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL lawyer, arguing its title seems secondary to debating its inclusion value in the encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's very common for people who change their name to continue using different names in different contexts (either temporarily or indefinitely). Cherie Blair uses the name Cherie Booth professionally - should we rename Blair's article on that basis? --Wickedterrier (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Her lawyer persona was a mask for professional reasons. The most important part of a trans person's identity is their home and personal life, and in the end what is written on your gravestone, not what appears on your company's website or your business card. As stated above MOS:GENDERID is perfectly clear, the precedent for articles is self designation, follow the reliable sources. --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Her lawyer persona was a mask for professional reasons" - PURE speculation on your part. The male name is the only public self-designation in the reliable sources and so easily complies with MOS:GENDERID. Its clear you and other voters are abstracting from a speculated circumstances and "trajectory" of their transition had this murder not been perpetrated. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • So... your rationale is that you know better than everyone who votes the way you don't like. How about taking some time out, and have a proper read of the reliable sources kindly listed above by user:WanderingWanda and actually check your "factoids" before having a poke? As the Guardian journalist Chris Elliott explained in November 2010, Sonia died as Sonia, that's why her obituaries used 'she' and even Day's piece 'A life less ordinary', focused entirely on Sonia's professional career stated that Sonia was "living as a woman and yet working as a man", confirming Sonia's self-definition. It's easy to wikilawyer this away by arguing that Wikipedia BLPs are not about "people" but rather "careers", but you know maybe BLPs are not CVs, that's a pretty darn crass way to write biographies. Thanks so much for being civil and making a presumption of good faith, next time. --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Obituaries, by definition, are not "self-designation". -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Er, yes they are. In the history of many notable trans people, it is only in obituaries and eulogies that their life is explained honestly without worrying about social repercussions. I'm not going to reply further, you appear to have not taken on board the sources available, seeming to prefer your own theories.
        • BTW, IANAL, but even I can find that Sonia Burgess was published as a legal author in "Lawyer 2B", May 21, 2009 'The law should support positive discrimination in the workplace.' It would be factually incorrect to say she never used her name in any professional capacity. --Fæ (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

          Let's look at your claim... "Burgess, who won a place on the Legal Practice Course, is currently on BPP’s two-year distance learning GDL. She also gained a degree in Politics from the Univeristy (sic) of Exeter in 1991." No chance that you could just happen to be confusing this article's topic with a completely different person? Be really careful when accusing someone of being factually incorrect before checking yourself on that first. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Weird coincidence, thanks for checking it out. --Fæ (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, to get rid of job. --Quiz shows 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WanderingWanda below and per MOS:GenderID. 2001:470:C3C9:CAFE:F5E6:E0F2:94E3:3933 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (signing again after login: --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 00:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC))
• Oppose instead move to Murder of David Burgess per WP:SINGLEEVENT. I'm very sorry and its very sad that [s]he was murdered by his/her friend, but there was no article in Category:British lawyers prior to the murder. It's sad and unfair, but murder is sad and unfair, the taking of another human being's life. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only has an article due to being a lawyer and "continued to use the name and gender assigned at birth whilst practising law." So commonly known as David Burgess for reasons relating to notability (and an obituary in a major national newspaper would tend to suggest that Burgess was notable for reasons other than being murdered). The obituary in The Guardian, a newspaper not exactly known for being non-PC, uses male pronouns and David Burgess. Rename to David Burgess (solicitor) though. Shortens the disambiguator and we usually disambiguate British lawyers by their actual profession. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• You are mistaken, the Guardian is actually well known for its anti-trans bias. So much so that the Guardian US published an op-ed condemning an op-ed published by the Guardian UK: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk --Wickedterrier (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, I'm not mistaken. The Guardian most certainly supports trans rights such as the right to choose one's own pronouns. Claiming it's "anti-trans" is wilfully misinterpreting and over-simplifying its position, which is clearly in support of women's rights, not in opposition to trans rights. That is a different issue from this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• I was indeed mistaken. I didn't think I was talking to a TERF. --Wickedterrier (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• If you can't accept a statement of facts without labelling people (completely incorrectly, as its happens, given I am none of those things, nor indeed a Guardian reader, fan or apologist) then maybe you should make your way to a soapbox website, not an encyclopaedia like this one. We deal in facts, not opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The key fact is that a 35-year-old N who deliberately pushed a 63-year-old M under a London tube train has been jailed for life. From the [Guardian] article, N was undergoing gender reassignment surgery at the time of the attack, with the support and financial help of M, despite worries about N's mental state (paranoid schizophrenia). And the Guardian adds: M was known as a male lawyer, but away from work M lived almost entirely as a woman and was known to family and friends as such. M was "gender-variant", and did not wish to have surgery. In other words, M, a rich, old, established European pushed N, a poor, largely younger, isolated Sri Lankan to practice over N-self what M was so reluctant to practice on M-self. And now, look at the politically correct version of this story: poor Nina is no more called Nina. She, the victim, is now reduced to the status of a jailed man. On the contrary, he, the rich perpetrator who pushed Nina under the scalpel, is elevated to the status of revered Sonia. It must be noticed that using Sonia Burgess as a flagship for "better be rich and British than poor and Sri Lankan" is rather rude against David Burgess, who was one of the UK's most celebrated immigration lawyers, responsible for landmark judgments in the House of Lords and the European court of human rights. Pldx1 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be an off topic rant. If there are reliable sources to substantiate your assertions, please add them to the article rather than having a jag in the middle of a !vote. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not off topic, on the contrary. Because the main topic is the obvious discrepancy between how, relatively to their gender, Nina and David were dealt with. As an example, the [Evening Standard] says: Lawyer Sonia... Burgess, also known by her birth name David, was an immigration solicitor with 40 years’ experience.
Senthooran Kanagasingham, 37, was ... Paranoid schizophrenic Kanagasingham, also known as Nina, was undergoing gender reassignment treatment. This lack of symmetry can be found in all the sources given here, and in the article itself. Moreover, it should be a surprise to see the politically correct campaigners being so silent, here and elsewhere, about this death in prison. (1) A suicide should call questions about how Kanagasingham was supported (2) while ...was found dead, with a plastic bag around his head and his hands tied to the bedstead... should call other questions. Maybe lawyer David Burgess would have been less silent about these circumstances, who knows.Pldx1 (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand that newspapers in 2010 may have written articles in ways you find offensive. I do not understand how that is relevant to this !vote. Sorry. --Fæ (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support move This seems pretty unambiguous to me: the BBC reports that Burgess "wished to be known as Sonia and dressed as a woman.", but had decided she was "too old" to go through gender reassignment surgery. She was not "out" in her professional life, but appears to be no question that she personally identified a a woman. The idea that we should prioritize a more recognizable professional name over a professed gender identity directly contradicts the plain text of MOS:GENDERID. I think editors are also misinterpreting the meaning of "self-designation" - it doesn't mean that we need to exclusively rely on first person primary sources to attest to a gender identity. There's definitely no prohibition on using "hearsay" testimony. Nblund ^talk 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per MOS:GENDERID, we have reliable sources that show quite clearly that she identified as a woman, and the article title (and pronoun usage in the article) should reflect that. -- irn (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WanderingWanda. (I guess as an encyclopedia we've reached dealing with the not-quite-as- cut-and-dried cases, since this is the second one I've seen this month.) -sche (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional discussion

Here's another source: an obituary from Stephen Whittle, a fellow lawyer and a friend: I am shattered by the news of Sonia Burgess's tragic death. Sonia was the human rights lawyer every human rights lawyer respected. Sonia was the lawyer who inspired me to be the lawyer I am today. ... As her funeral service was to show, many, many lawyers and senior judges knew of Sonia's other life by then, and they did not find it a problem. ... Sonia claimed a position as a trans woman, and she was a supreme trans woman.

To say that Burgess was a transgender woman named Sonia is not, to me, an assumption or a guess. This is not something I'd ever advocate guessing about. It's backed up by the sources. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Self-designation" is the root premise of MOS:GENDERID. All the sources for their self-designation point to use of the male name, and that is also the most WP:COMMONNAME, AND it is the name most associated with their legal work which is the primary criteria of notability. Obituaries, no matter how heart-felt, are, by definition, not "self-designation". -- Netoholic @ 23:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

cn --Fæ (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

English language. -- Netoholic @ 00:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

An obituary isn't a self designation, sure. But it can be evidence of self designation. Where do you think all these friends and family members got the name "Sonia"? Why do you think they're all using female pronouns? Did they all get together after Sonia died and decide it would be fun to pretend she was a transgender woman? Or are they trying to reflect how the person they loved designated herself and saw herself and wanted to be seen? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure, as a lawyer, they would appreciate me making the point that such hearsay in such an obituary is generally not admissible as evidence. If you respect self-designation as the standard by which anyone else should be handled per MOS:GENDERID, you have to respect it in this case. You don't get to say self-designation overrides prior names, and yet ignore that this person self-designated as David both legally and professionally, as documented in the reliable news sources. We have no idea what their reasoning was, and it doesn't matter, its yours just to respect. -- Netoholic @ 01:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you're arguing a technicality here which hems to the letter of MOS:GENDERID but not the spirit. You're right, we do not have a reliable source saying that the subject herself said she wanted to be known as Sonia. But it's clear from her family and friends (as quoted in reliable sources, dutifully reproduced above by WanderingWanda - thanks) that this is the name she wanted to be known by. --Wickedterrier (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

--

1. this person self-designated as David both legally and professionally "Legally and professionally" translates to "what name she used at work" and "what name is on government documents" Both these things are worth some consideration, but they aren't great metrics to determine how best to refer to Sonia Burgess. Many trans people aren't out at work or don't have their name legally changed. 2. hearsay in such an obituary is generally not admissible as evidence This isn't a trial and Sonia Burgess isn't being accused of a crime, so a different standard of evidence applies. Anyway if you want to talk about what would or wouldn't be acceptable in a courtroom, here's what the prosecutor said during the trial for the person who murdered Burgess: socially, the deceased lived as a woman and was known by friends and family as Sonia,” said Mr Altman. "I intend to refer to the deceased throughout as of the female gender because that is the wish of her family."

Here is what I am willing to concede: since apparently Sonia's deadname never became, well, 100% dead, perhaps we should give it slightly more weight than I'd normally be comfortable with. In my now-reverted edit of the article I relegated her legal name to a footnote that said "Born David Burgess". But I'd be fine with, instead, a single parenthetical statement in the lead which said (known professionally as David Burgess). This would be more prominent than a footnote and is phrased in such a way that it doesn't imply that she stopped using the name. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've opened a discussion about this over at the manual of style talk page, to see if the guideline can be changed so that it better accounts for this sort of situation. --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Question for those proposing a move to “Murder of David Burgess”. If this individual’s notability stemmed primarily from the practice of law, I can see the reasoning in arguing for the name under which they practiced law. But if the proper scope of the article is the murder of a not-otherwise-notable private individual, why prioritize the professional name over the personal one?--Trystan (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, Burgess prior to her death fell just short of notability. The manner of her death put her just over.--Launchballer 15:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

An obituary in a major national newspaper equals notability. Burgess would not have been given one of those just because of the manner of their death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"just short of notability" - how so? There are ZERO secondary sources provided published before their death. There would be no basis at all for any article on them. And if it weren't for the sensationalist, tabloid coverage of the death, I don't see why there would have been a lengthy obit published at all. This all goes to support that the notability stems from the circumstances of the death, so a page move to Murder of David Burgess is appropriate per WP:SINGLEEVENT. -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic Not to split hairs, I do agree with you, but there are a couple of sources written before her death, and you could probably have written an article that would have passed an A7 challenge. What you wouldn't have been able to do is write an article that would have survived AfD. Therefore I stand by my choice of language.--Launchballer 22:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I just checked again, and every secondary source used in the article is dated after the death. And I think that if it wouldn't have passed AFD, then that seems to make it definitionally not notable. I think its an important distinction as the name of the article depends on whether there is notability apart from the death. -- Netoholic @ 22:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added one rom 2003, several years before she died.--Launchballer 22:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no way an article on David with that as its source would have survived even speedy deletion. Seems like WP:ROUTINE, thread-bare coverage. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Major, respectable newspapers do not publish lengthy obituaries on individuals just because of the manner of their death. They only publish them if they consider the individual was already notable for their life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 --Fæ (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

They publish whatever boosts readership. The tabloid-y nature of the death seems a much larger factor than respect for their life's work. This is evidenced in how little coverage there is of Burgess from before the death. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No, "major, respectable newspapers" do not publish "whatever boosts readership". That they do not is precisely why they are considered respectable. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted

• Use a title that summarizes the article. Since this has been relisted by User:BD2412 to obtain clearer consensus, we should better start by building a consensus about what is the key topic of the article. If the article is about a layer that has decided by himself to go by the David Burgess name, to keep the focus on his accomplishments as a lawyer, then the main name of the article should be David Burgess. If the article is about the King's Cross Tube Murder, i.e. about how and why Sonia Burgess was womanslaughtered by Nina Kanagasingham, and how the newspapers have reported the story, and even how Kanagasingham ...was found dead, [some years later] with a plastic bag around his head and his hands tied to the bedstead, another title could be better. Perhaps: 2010 King's Cross Tube Murder or even The lonely death of Nina Kanagasingham. Pldx1 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to get closer to consensus by discussing an even more complicated question about the purpose of the article. The core question concerns how we deal with MOS:GENDERID when reliable sources indicate that a person had not completely transitioned in all parts of their public life. Even if we were to re-orient the article to discuss the murder, we would still have to figure out what name and pronouns to use.

I'm not sure how much can be added beyond the extant discussion, but I'm struggling to come up with a reason not to use "Sonia" as the article title. The (admittedly, very limited) recent coverage appears to use "Sonia" first (Guardian 2014 and 2015, Evening Standard in 2015), and I don't see any particular harm in eschewing "David" as the article title. Why not err in favor of using the name she used in her personal life? Nblund ^talk 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a source writing
   The transsexual killer [...] Senthooran Kanagasingham, 37, was jailed for life at the Old Bailey in December 2011, to serve at least seven years, for manslaughter after pushing transgender lawyer Sonia Burgess in front of a Tube train at King’s Cross.
   Miss Burgess, also known by her birth name David, was an immigration solicitor with 40 years’ experience.
   Paranoid schizophrenic Kanagasingham, also known as Nina, was undergoing gender reassignment treatment.
can be seen as a model of a careful, well balanced and equitable way of dealing with the King's Cross Tube Murder. But having this discussion would imply that the achievements of the layer David Burgess are less important than his private life as an her-person. Pldx1 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• One option that hasn't been discussed is putting both names in the title: Sonia/David Burgess. I'm not going to endorse this option: I think it's better to make a choice about it than be wishy-washy, and after weighing the sources I think Sonia Burgess is clearly best choice. But thought I'd throw it out there anyway. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is (a) relationship to murderer (b) the murder itself not described?

I don't wish to be ghoulish, but I don't recall ever having seen a Wikipedia article about a crime where the crime itself is not mentioned. "“Disapproving” of the interference, it was alleged that Kanagasingham hatched the plot to kill Mr Burgess as they made their way back to central London from the Cricklewood surgery. As the pair waited for a train at the height of the evening rush hour, Kanagasingham pushed Mr Burgess from the platform, the court heard.". The way that the article read it looked as though an unknown assailant made a random push. This wasn't random, this is a couple where the court accepted evidence of premeditation in conviction. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

When the article is named and scoped properly as Murder of David Burgess, I think this can be fixed. The key items of interest in this article are the crime itself, primarily, and the criticism of the journalistic standards related to the coverage of the death. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom discretionary sanctions

As this article and talk page fits in to the discretionary sanctions covering all transgender related articles ("any gender-related dispute or controversy"), as there is a current dispute about the naming and treatment of the deceased subject's gender identity, I have added the {{ds/talk notice}} to this talk page.

@Deacon Vorbis: has blanked this notice diff without discussion.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Deacon Vorbis on that. The GG DS are specifically for GamerGate, and topics associated with a gender-related controversy (as in, an actual real-life controversy, not one that Wikipedia editors invented). That does not seem to have been the case with Burgess: they were not themselves a transgender advocate and not involved with a gender-related controversy during their life; there is no indication in the article that their murder was motivated by transphobia; the dispute is only amongst Wikipedia editors. Individuals cannot be automatically considered "associated with a gender-related controversy" just because they are transgender, that would be a very broad scope. Though, I'd be interested in having that clarified at ARCA, if you're interested. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is very much a gender related article, and of interest for that reason. Clearly this article is controversial with respect to gender identity as the discussion above demonstrates all too well. The revert of the notice was invalid, it should be replaced here before anyone goes and asks for a clarification. Yet another ARCA on transgender would be exceedingly pointless in my view, considering the clarifications that already exist and the examples of current usage.

Ref: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Motion:_Manning_naming_dispute_(February_2019)

"For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning."

Could not be any more explicitly relevant to this article and this talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's a pretty fair reading. I will restore the notice. Courtesy ping Deacon Vorbis. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the "without discussion" bit was a bit disingenuous. I did give a reason in my edit summary and continued to respond to you on my own talk page, but I'll let that slide. As far the notice itself, it would have been easier if you had just pointed to that in the first place, considering how byzantine the ArbCom stuff is. As is, this feels like yet more overreach by them, but I guess we just have to live with that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's worth remembering these discretionary sanctions aren't a new thing. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Sexology had

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).

when it was closed on 25 April 2013. Note that this said nothing about controversy. These were rescinded not because arbcom felt they were too broad, but because they felt that the GG discretion sanctions had the same effect [5] Personally I feel a dispute over how to title this article, what to call Burgess in it etc is reasonably a "transgender issue" and these are logically going to come up in an article on a subject who was transgender, however you feel about what the outcome should be. But even if there was confusion on how far this went, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute was closed only a few months later on 16 October 2013 with

The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.

Again, this was amended when it was pointed out that the early amendment had lead to the confusing situation where a case proscribed a remedy based on another case which was no longer in effect. (As said earlier not because arbcom felt the remedy wasn't needed but because because yet another case covered the same thing and more so it was felt less confusing to consolidate it in one case.) [6] If people think this has something to do with GamerGate they're missing the point. Regardless of the wisdom of arbcom consolidating them, these are disputes and remedies before the Gamergate controversy existed.

P.S. Of course I haven't even mentioned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Discretionary sanctions (rescinded) which is yet another case dealing with yet another dispute. This time while not predating the gamergate controversy was opened actually only about 1 month after it blew up and was closed about 3 days after the Gamergate controversy case was opened. I didn't mention it because it has little to do with the issues here IMO except that it's another gender related case. The only reason it came up is because it too was modified as part of the consolidation effort, and this happened in the same series of motions that affected one of the more relevant cases.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

BRD

Jamacfarlane, please respect Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. It makes no sense to write "In Rees v. the United Kingdom (1986), Burgess represented Mark Rees, a British man who asked the government to amend his birth certificate to allow him to marry a woman." It makes sense only when you add that Rees was a transman, which the sources make clear. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin the term "t****man" is a slur. It is obvious from context that this is why he needed his birth cert amended. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We can write it trans man. That is not a slur. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I can agree to that at a push and have made the change accordingly. But I don't think it's necessary to make explicit mention when it's obvious from context. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It really isn't obvious from the context unless you're thinking along those lines. Thank you for adding it, but I would say there's no need to write it as [[trans man|trans]] man. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, happy if you want to fix. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)