Talk:Deadnaming

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deadnaming article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2015 June 18. The result of the discussion was keep.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Anthroponymy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

MDY dates

This topic doesn't seen particularly topical to the US specifically, I do not think it needs the MDY Dates tag. Am I missing something? Adeeta (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RETAIN, when there is no strong reason to prefer one variety of English over another, we should stick with what the article originally used. This (sadly) includes date formats. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATERET does allow for a consensus to form around using another date format. Looking at the article history it looks like it was first tagged by FMSky back in July 2021. Prior to that edit, the article had no consistent date format.

Looking at the page content at the time it was tagged, I could see MOS:DATETIES argument being made, as there was a predominant US focus on the content. However now the article looks more internationalised, so I would argue that we could change to a DMY format per DATETIES and the second bullet point of DATERET. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadnames

I would like to add a list of deadnames to this article, since it appears to be relevant. I think it will take a while to make it comprehensive so I would welcome any help compiling it. 129.222.253.60 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would pretty clearly be a violation of MOS:DEADNAME, which outlines the few cases where mentioning a deadname is appropriate on Wikipedia, and general considerations for avoiding their use. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I think you’re misunderstanding. It would just be a list of deadnames. The article wouldn’t actually be using the names. It would just be for reference. 129.222.253.60 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "for reference"? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that people coming to Wikipedia would know. I just think that it would help Wikipedia in its goal of compiling the sum of all human knowledge. 129.222.253.60 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From MOS:DEADNAME: If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists., emphasis mine.

The guideline goes on to state that for people notable under the prior name, it is only appropriate to include the name briefly in the lead of their biography, and only if absolutely necessary to avoid undue confusion in the narrative of another article, with pains made to avoid emphasis. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that would be a sacrifice of wikipedias mission, no? If we’re intentionally omitting information? 129.222.253.60 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:BLP, specifically the section WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. You can read the extensive community discussions that crafted this and related gender identity policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Discussion_timeline, as well as the talk page of WP:BLP itself for considerations of the policy outside of the context of gender identity. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The privacy thing seems like a bit of a double standard, though? There have been numerous instances of editors maintaining sensitive information in BLP articles despite the reasoned objections of the article subjects, and then gone on to attack and even smear the article subjects further for their objections, with the implicit support of the community? I mean, I’ll defer to you since you’re an admin which pretty much guarantees you win any disagreement with anyone who ranks under you. I just think it’s strange, that’s all. 129.222.253.60 (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of this is correct, from the There have been numerous instances of editors maintaining sensitive information in BLP articles despite the reasoned objections of the article subjects, and then gone on to attack and even smear the article subjects further for their objections to the you’re an admin which pretty much guarantees you win any disagreement with anyone who ranks under you. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an example of sensitive information being maintained in articles I'd be interested to hear it (I'm not an admin, if that helps). "Sensitive information" and "information which an article subject would prefer to see removed" are far from the same thing, though. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there surely are some articles where we include information about living people that they'd rather we omit. And that includes deadnames, which we do in some cases include even if the subject objects, because sometimes the interests of readership come first, just as they sometimes do with including other sensitive information. Anyways, if IP 129 would like to relitigate MOS:DEADNAME, they can do so at WT:MOSBIO, at least for as long as anyone cares to debate the matter for the umpteenth time. (I'm not the hugest fan of MOS:DEADNAME myself, but it's pretty thoroughly settled at this point.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's goal isn't compiling the sum of all human knowledge. There are lots of things that are known but don't belong on Wikipedia. One example would be the policy against original research. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]