Talk:Abigail Thorn/Archive 1

Notability
Though the article was deleted earlier this year (in an AfD at which I !voted to delete), I believe the subject is now notable. There has been significant recent coverage of Thorn's August Shakespeare stream—articles in The Times, Tubefilter and Pajiba are all independent reliable secondary sources (the first being particularly significant). Also new is a full-length Vox review of a video. Taken in addition to coverage of the YouTube channel spanning a number of months (TenEighty Magazine, Forbes, Hyperallergic), this shows the page does not fall afoul of BLP1E and that Thorn meets NPEOPLE.

Additionally, the high quality interviews in the BBC World Business Report and Evening Standard allow for expansion of the article into a substantial amount of content, but they do not count towards notability due to lack of independence. Same goes for the primary sources which follow WP:PRIMARY ("straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source"). — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * two out of the three you’ve named as RS are either not independent coverage or not reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I named seven RS that I believe count towards notability. — Bilorv ( talk ) 06:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have taken speedy deletion as "repost" off as the article is substantially updated since its original deletion. I agree that notability is borderline but not clearly enough in either direction that speedy deletion is appropriate. If this was at AfD I'd probably be voting neutral or weak keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Curious what you'd be keeping it on since there are still no truly independent sources that feature significant in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * G4 most clearly does not apply to a page that looks like this that was deleted when it looked like this, particularly when the re-creator has made sure to prominently point out that Though the article was deleted earlier this year (in an AfD at which I !voted to delete), I believe the subject is now notable. There has been significant recent coverage. please be more careful with your G4s in future; AfD is the right place to discuss whether coverage is significant or independent. Note WP:G4's It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, both of which applied here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 06:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 09:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy Tube → Oliver_Thorn – The content of this page is a biography of Oliver Thorn, not a desctiption of his youtube channel, Philosophy Tube. The title of the article should reflect this. 174.93.255.234 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: we decide an article's title based on WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which lists five criteria. The name "Philosophy Tube" is more commonly (1) recognizable and more likely to be a search term ((2) naturalness). Both options are (3) precise and (4) concise. For (5) consistency, we see through a quick glance at Category:YouTubers that there are a mixture of page names referring to a person's name and a channel's name (for the channel names, examples include JonTron, Cheese (speedrunner), NikkieTutorials, ASMR Darling). (Also take into account that anyone whose channel name is simply their real name falls into both categories.) So on balance, whilst both names would be fine under three of the naming criteria, I think "Philosophy Tube" has the edge over "Oliver Thorn" on the other two. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bilorv. If the article does too little to cover the channel content then we should look to expand that, insofar as reliable sources exist to support it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:14, 27 December 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.

Name and political positions

 * 1) I think it's important to add his former surname (Lennard) since quite a lot of material has been written under it. I don't think it should be a problem since the change was done for acting purposes;
 * 2) while he avoids labels, he's quite vocal about housing as a human right, decriminalization of sex work, freedom of movement. If there's no problem with that (and with it being selfpub -- his twitter and youtube channel) I can start adding a section about it. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The first point seems like a good idea. I don't agree with the second: he's been vocal about a large number of things over five years of videos and social media usage. Reliable secondary sources are needed to tell us which of his views are the ones that are significant for an encyclopedia to discuss, and to choose ourselves would give undue weight. Currently, they don't say much (so we shouldn't either), just that many of his videos reflect left-wing ideas and that he's discussed Brexit, Bannon and democracy in them. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Categorization
(Regarding User:Bilorv's recent revision) I do think there's a sizeable argument to be made that he's an anti-fascist and anti-capitalist. While not really secondary sources, we can accept Thorn's SPS as WP:ABOUTSELF and it's clear from his SPS that he has anti-fascist and anti-capitalist views. We would just need to cite the videos themselves.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 01:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that he's anti-fascist, anti-capitalist or socialist. However, it is not a good idea to start describing someone by picking quotes out of several hundred YouTube videos. The information will not have due weight and it is not an appropriate use of a primary source. Recall that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. ("It's clear" is not good enough; Thorn would have to say "Because I'm an anti-fascist ..." or better.) If the information happens to be important enough that the topic would not be complete without it then (by definition) a secondary source will discuss the information. Otherwise it is not relevant.
 * Political descriptions are particularly contentious and we cannot accept "it's clear from this argument he makes" or "the point of this character is to warn people about fascism". Remember that any precedent we set should be applied uniformly across all articles on YouTubers, whereas I've argued many times at e.g. Carl Benjamin against people who want to cite his videos to describe him as "a free speech advocate", "a classical liberal", "anti-pedophile activist", "a great guy with a large brain" etc., when we have no secondary sources saying such things. I'm sure you disagree with us including those descriptions in Carl Benjamin so you need to ask: what should the rule be so that we don't have to report such descriptions? And you'll find that your suggestions here fall afoul of that rule. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories should be supported somewhere in the article by at least one reliable supporting citation. Citing YouTube videos as references is not generally recommended (please see WP:YTREF). We should also be very careful when editing biographies of living people and placing labels upon them. Any categories that he is placed in should be cited by a reliable third-party source somewhere in the article. Helper201 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Contact with Thorn
Just a disclosure to keep everything completely above board: I have emailed Olly Thorn and asked him if he would like to donate any photos for us to use on this page, and asking if there were any errors on this page. He is planning to do the former, and in regards to the latter he noted that he has two older brothers, not three (as an earlier draft correctly said, along with the source ); and that the IMDb page is of a different person. After independently verifying both details to be true, I've fixed both of those errors in this edit. There are no other edits I have made in connection to contact with Thorn and I will note any future such edits in this section. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thorn has kindly uploaded three high-quality images, File:Philosophy Tube - "Brexit - What Is Democracy?".jpg, File:Philosophy Tube - "Sex Work".jpg and File:Philosophy Tube - "Steve Bannon".jpg (named after the videos each of the costumes/sets was used in). After experimenting with a bit of cropping, (Brexit, Bannon, Sex Work), I think that the Brexit image looks best in the infobox, though Bannon is also a possibility. I've included the other two images in the body, with appropriate captions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

2021 disclosure
I was in further email contact with Thorn recently about her coming out announcement. I am not receiving any compensation of any kind for my edits. Thorn was not asking me to make any edits, but asking what could be done within policy/guidelines. All of my edits are done at my own discretion based on my understanding of MOS:DEADNAME, but here are some preferences Thorn expressed that may be useful to take into account: — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Using up-to-date pronouns and name. (Already mandated by MOS:DEADNAME.)
 * Not using the old photos listed above. (As Thorn was generous enough to donate these photos under a free license, it seems poor practice and a WP:BLP concern to continue using them when the subject has expressed reasonable opposition to their usage. See also the next point.)
 * Using new photos taken post-transition. (Thorn has said that she will donate new freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons that we can use in place of the old ones. When these are uploaded they can uncontroversially be included.)
 * Not using Thorn's birthname or deadname. This one I have not done and I explained to Thorn that we may continue to mention either or both names. My reading of MOS:DEADNAME's implications in this case is that we need to mention the name "Oliver Thorn" (but not necessarily "Oliver Lennard"). This, however, I am putting up for separate discussion below.
 * I uploaded a photo post-transition from her twitter . I did this because I thought it would tide the article over until we get photos straight from her. SWinxy (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, I'm afraid. "Fair use" images of living people do not meet WP:NFCC#1, no free equivalent is available, or could be created. We just have to be patient. Nothing is lost if this takes a few days or even weeks. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no free equivalent is available means no free equivalent is available. I don't get how that is made false by the assertion that in the future there will be photos. SWinxy (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * or could be created. Clearly, if there will be in the future, they can be created. Did you just stop reading halfway through? Also, I would rather we postponed choosing an image as long as possible for the sole reason that I don't like being reminded of how much prettier she is me. OK, that was a joke, but yeah my point is that it violates the "or could be created" part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrexcorpEmployee (talk • contribs)
 * I interpret or could be created meaning that you could create it (ie photos you take), not that in the future it could be created. SWinxy (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This interpretation is not correct. It's simply not true to the original discussion which led to this policy and reasoning behind it, or in any of the enforcement of the policy I've seen in my seven years here. It violates our criteria and the criteria are in place for legal and mission-related reasons. Could they reasonably made lax enough that this image would be allowed? Yes. Have they been? No. — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, you do make an important point there. Where DO we draw the line? Because surely aren't many things that literally every human alive could create a Wikipedia-suited image for. Does it still count if only one person really can? Or does it have to be a certain number of people? How many? Just "the average person"? Honestly unsure on this juncture. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Note that my previous comment was written before the one immediately above it was posted. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Questions of theory rarely go anywhere on Wikipedia. Ask: why was the rule written, and how does that intention relate to this particular case? WP:IAR tells us that there are exceptions to every rule. This is not one such case, because there are many cases similar in all salient details—where we choose to omit pictures of living people rather than claim one under fair use even indefinitely (example: literally thousands; take Asim Chaudhry for one such good article I've worked on). — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ask them to get a photographer to release a recent photo with a free license. Or ask them to create a selfie video and upload that to their YouTube channel with YouTube's Creative Commons licensing option. I'll happily make a screenshot. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did say Thorn has said that she will donate new freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons that we can use in place of the old ones. Thorn said she would donate images through the OTRS process after the announcement, but the process can take a few days even if she did it simultaneously with the announcement (and I'd be surprised if it was that high up her to-do list). — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well just be patient in that case. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we mention the deadnames?
The salient details: Abigail Thorn has just come out as transgender. She was born "Oliver Lennard" but not notable until using the acting name "Oliver Thorn". MOS:DEADNAME says that for transgender people, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name and If a subject changed their surname (last name) for whatever reason (e.g. marriage, adoption, personal preference), then their surname at birth should generally also be given in the lead.

My reading of this is that "Oliver Lennard" does not need to be mentioned, as she was not notable under this name, but the spirit of MOS:DEADNAME applies in that we should mention the name "Oliver Thorn" once only and not in Wikipedia's voice. For now I have done this in the first sentence, as "Abigail Thorn (formerly Oliver Thorn)", but further input is desired. We could also do this in "Early and personal life", for instance. Or omit it entirely, which Thorn expressed a preference for (see ). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a major fan of WP:IAR in the case of the deadname policy, which I feel is problematic for a wide variety of reasons (Yeah, I know that's not what WP:IAR is "meant for." Fight me.). I'd support omitting per the subject's preference. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see the case for omitting it entirely; mentioning her coming-out is enough to explain away any potential confusion about sources potentially referring to her by the earlier name. The channel name seems at least as prominent as her acting name, so whether the person was notable under that name is kind of equivocal to begin with. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed it for the time being. I'm not necessarily objecting to this as an outcome, because I see disadvantages to all options, but I do think it's worth pointing out that mentioning the coming out does not eliminate all confusion. People don't read the whole article top to bottom (how many times have you seen an IP angrily ask why we don't mention something that is already in the article they're talking about? For me it must be in the hundreds or thousands) and could arrive here thinking that they're on the wrong page after reading a source with just the old name. I am wary of establishing a consensus amongst three people that is in direct contradiction to MOS:DEADNAME; on the other hand, it's not quite that direct as the policy only specifies "birth name if notable" and that's not the case here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support omitting from the lead per the subject's preference. Ceoil  (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Omitting her actual deadname is a no-brainer, both per policy and per basic decency. Deciding what to do with her dead stagename is more tricky. Almost all of the references refer to her using that name and readers might find it confusing if we do not acknowledge it at all. Unfortunately, she might fall into the category of people who are notable under their deadnames. If we are to include it at all, we should do so in the most minimal and sensitive way possible, i.e only once and probably not in the intro. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think including the dead stage name once (NOT in the lead) might be helpful, as she's likely quite notable under that name. As says above, it should be done as little and as sensitively as possible. The rest of the article of course should only use Abigail and she/her. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with the "if at all, not in the intro" sentiment. I'm still not sold on the "at all" part, however. Like, I can see disadvantages to any course of action. (I'm also doubtful that any text we write can significantly curtail angry IP's who don't read.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What about (addition to current early life sect text in italix): "In January 2021, Thorn came out as a trans woman and changed her first name from Oliver to Abigal". Ceoil  (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We should follow MOS:DEADNAME, and so the discussion is really about whether she was notable under her former name. If she was, then this should go in the first sentence of the lead as a "formerly...", as in the Elliot Page article. It shouldn't be relegated to after the intro - that goes against the guideline. I am inclined towards saying that she was not notable under this former name, and so it shouldn't be included, though I'm aware this raises the question of "why did she have a wikipedia article if she wasn't notable?" Awoma (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * She was clearly, and via the ADF, demonstrably, notable before adapting her current name. Saying otherwise is silly, and not helpful. Ceoil  (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case the guidance at MOS:DEADNAME is pretty clear, and we should just follow that. She was notable under former name, and so we put it in the opening line as "formerly..." Awoma (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * More inclined to IAR on a case by case bases than blind application of general guidelines. Ceoil  (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this article an exception? It seems no different to all the articles that follow the guideline. If the view is that none of these articles should follow the guideline then it would surely be more helpful to introduce nuance to the guideline than have a guideline which we expect to consistently ignore. Awoma (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, its just my view in this instance. I don't know enough to be wading into policy on the matter. I would say however, that am, in general impressed by the amount of respect overall shown towards her express preferences. Also...is this not a temp issue...ie the channel has steady growth, and the coming out will generate a lot of media coverage; soon enough Abigale will be the better known name. Best. Ceoil  (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need for passive aggression. I would have read and thought about your comment regardless of starting it like that! If you think we should treat this article as an exception, then it would be great if you could say why you think this. If the reason is likely to affect many articles, then it makes sense that this should impact the wording of the guideline. Awoma (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry Awoma, the "look" wasnt meant to be passive aggressive!...I was trying to be honest.... eg "I don't know enough to be wading in". But can see how it might have read like that...opps sorry!!! Ceoil  (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is ok! Awoma (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are guidelines, not policies. Under many circumstances, "formerly..." in the opening sentence might make sense. Here, I'm much more doubtful. The article is titled "Philosophy Tube", not "[deadname] Thorn"; that was the title of her YouTube channel all along, and the work is what earned her wiki-notability. Her former acting name — not even a "deadname" in the sense of a name assigned at birth — is just of less consequence than deadnames might be in other, comparable situations. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Ceoil  (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. Perhaps it is worth us using a more careful wording of "notable under a former name." It seems that the WP:COMMONNAME would be her youtube channel (and she is synonymous with the channel?) and not what we would consider her dead name. Awoma (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If this article is just about the channel then we have to remove the early life section.IPPON01 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the discussion. This is not a case of "channel vs. person", but what name they are notable under, and as it is a one person channel (where the person features prominently), they could be considered one and the same. A comparable example would be [Lady Gaga], this is not her name, but it mentions details about Lady Gaga (or Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta) as a person beyond her singing career. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Her former stage name Oliver "Olly" Thorn is how she was known and identified when she became notable. People researching Oliver Thorn in an encyclopedia should be able to find this article and have it explained that her stage name was Oliver and that on Jan 30, 2021 she changed her name to Abigail Thorn. Had Thorn not been famous under her former name then it wouldn't need to be mentioned, but this is a no-brainer. She definitely was known by Oliver Thorn and Olly Thorn and that is how she was referred to and what she called herself as she became notable. Vivaldi (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , is that how she was known? If you're a viewer of a Youtube channel, you almost certainly know it by the name of the channel and not necessarily the name of the commentator. The IMDB page under Abigal's deadname lists two acting credits, and the Wikipedia article doesn't have a list of stage performances or mention anything other than her acting degree. If she wasn't in anything notable, then she wouldn't have been well-known under that name. Instead, she was well known as "Philosophy Tube" or maybe "that person from Philosophy Tube." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "not necessarily" is about right. The comments sometimes, but not that often mind, referred to her as Oliver, but am not aware of her ever saying that name in a clip - anyays, refreshingly, the vids tend to look outwards rather than inwards. Ceoil  (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A number of the article's citations talk about "Oliver Thorn" as the YouTuber behind the channel "PhilosophyTube", with some even having it in their titles. I think that makes it notable enough that its brief inclusion in some manner is warranted. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 21:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HEADLINE, what's in a title isn't necessarily the most important thing or a even a well-chosen turn of phrase. Nor does the biographical sketch based on those sources include material about her earlier life that requires tracking the name change to make sense of. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The longer part of her two-video coming-out statement indicates that she has been living legally as Abigail for a considerable time, with [deadname] Thorn essentially a character she's been playing for her past several videos. And that character has now been played by two different actors. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, headlines are written by sub-editors after the journalist has submitted their copy, and are aimed to be catchy rather than reflective of the article content; they thus are indicative of little to base such a sensitive decision on. Ceoil  (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm planning to create an RfC about this in the next couple of days as we have a lot of valid policy-based opinions which are at odds with one another. At this point I don't think there are new arguments, just new people coming in with opinions, which is desirable but would be better structured as an RfC. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Ceoil  (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Dutch version of this article has the deadname right in the header. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_Tube --Mr. 123453334 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can link it with, producing nl:Philosophy Tube. Notice that there's been no discussion about it there, just three pertinent edits—mine instating the deadname as parenthetical in the first sentence, the translator removing it, and another editor reinstating it citing nl:Elliot Page as precedence. None of this is particularly good precedent for us as we have had much more discussions about this with much more reasoning and we have a different Manual of Style. — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As a trans person, I think that per MOS:DEADNAME and since they were notable prior to their transition, the deadname should be included in the same way was Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner or such. If they had just become notable under this name, no deadname would be appropriate. However, we shouldn't make an exception (IAR) for this one particular trans person because of any of our particular interest in them. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 03:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, and am not transgender, but I would tend to second what "Gwennie" said above, I feel the deadname should be mentioned in some way, however briefly, to resolve confusion. I say this because I just read this article, and for a time, I was confused as to whether or not the article was about the person that I thought it was about, I had to read the talk page to be sure. I think if I was confused, surely other users would be too. 2001:BB6:289B:4258:4D:C893:B600:7370 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Actor or actress?
Something that people seem to be edit warring over a lot is whether to use "actor" or "actress", but I don't think anyone has discussed it yet. My two cents are on "actor", as the gender-neutral usage of the word. When I say "X is an actor", their gender is not an important fact in the sentence. Contrastingly, I've not had time to watch "Identity" yet but in Thorn's coming out announcement she used "actress", so perhaps it's more in line with how the subject wants to be described (and there's no reason that there would be a financial/professional conflict of interest in the choice between "actor" and "actress"). — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should use actress by reason of referring to the person using the pronouns they wish to be referred to by. While the word actor can be used in a gender-neutral sense to refer to a male or female person, if the person wishes to explicitly refer to themselves using the explicitly female pronoun of actress then I say we go by that. Using the word actor could be ambiguous and unhelpful in this case as while it can be used in a gender-neutral sense it is still often thought of as referring to a male in this profession. Using actress makes it more explicit and less likely to confuse people about whether a gender is implied by the usage of the word in this context or not. Helper201 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While WP:WAW agrees with you that actor is the gender-neutral term, MOS:GENDERID states that we should not use gender-neutral language, but rather the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Therefore, actress is the word that should be used. --Equivamp - talk 00:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would normally use actor, but here actress seems clearer and more appropriate. Ceoil  (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the intent of MOS:GENDERID here is more that we don't use pronouns which contradict a person's gender self-identification e.g. calling a man "waitress". I stand by my belief in always using gender-neutral language where the role and context of usage does not rely on a person's gender (I like the mention of WP:WAW), but my opinion is relatively less strong than in many other content in other articles. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Her announcement uses "actress" specifically, so I say we go with that, even though I'd use the gender-neutral term in most cases. Perhaps the word choice was to underline the point — kind of a "yes, this is who I really am" moment — but for whatever reason, it's the word she picked, and it doesn't contradict our in-house style guide. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did that reading of MOS:GENDERID come from? I don't know how it can be more clear. --Equivamp - talk 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As some have alluded to in the discussion below, there is a fairly strong tradition within relevant professional communities that sees "actor" as the relevant term regardless of gender - like "politician" or "doctor" - "actress" being seen as an anachronistic term like "seamstress", "governess" or "empress". However, there is a competing tradition, represented in the Academy Awards, that sees "actress" and "actor" as appropriately gendered terms. Where a BLP subject has expressed a clear preference for the latter, I suppose we are expected to follow suit. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, she has expressed a clear preference for "actress", so we should use it here. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Her Twitter bio also says "actress", if that matters. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most other articles about actresses also use the term "actress" and not "actor". I see no reason to use different language here. Monkaaap (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even if we were to adopt "actor" as the default gender neutral term for actors of any gender we should still refer to female actors as "actresses" when it is clear either that the subject prefers this or when the sources predominantly use "actress" and there is no indication that the subject prefers otherwise. Just because "actor" is acceptable as a gender neutral term for those who do prefer it this does not invalidate "actress" as a valid description for female actors who prefer that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected
I have fully protected the article for a week to stop the edit warring. WP:BLP articles should be handled carefully and those wanting to add names need to gain consensus here first. Ping me or do an edit request if a wanted change has consensus. Reminder: edit warring is not permitted and continuing before there is clear consensus will result in blocks. If necessary, conduct the RfC mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

New secondary, independent sources
After the statement Thorn publicly came out as a transgender woman in January 2021. and/or On 30 January 2021, Thorn came out as a trans woman via a public statement on social media, releasing the videos "Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story" and "Coming Out As Trans - A Little Public Statement" later that day., please add either or both of these sources:

Wikipedia should include secondary, independent sources when available. This should perhaps be in lieu of the references to the primary source tweets/YouTube videos.

Umimmak (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Metro is not reliable but Vulture is great. The text in the body says ... releasing the videos "Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story" and "Coming Out As Trans - A Little Public Statement" later that day, which is factually wrong because the second of the named videos was released simultaneously with the announcement (as Vulture correctly says). But if we want to mention the "Identity" video name then we need to keep that primary source.
 * Specific request: change Thorn publicly came out as a transgender woman in January 2021. to Thorn publicly came out as a transgender woman in January 2021. and On 30 January 2021, Thorn came out as a trans woman via a public statement on social media, releasing the videos "Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story" and "Coming Out As Trans - A Little Public Statement" later that day. to On 30 January 2021, Thorn came out as a trans woman via a public statement on social media and the video "Coming Out As Trans - A Little Public Statement", releasing the video "Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story" later that day. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Gender transition and MOS:DEADNAME
Since Saturday, January 30, 2021 (at 20:00:11 UTC to be exact) the creator of YouTube channel this article concerns, Thorn, announced publicly via YouTube and Twitter their transgender status, revealing their current first name, Abigail. Since this, it has become into editing dispute whether or not to include their former name, Oliver, which previously was throughout the article. EDIT: This name is different from the subject's birth name (Oliver Lennard), and the subject was not notable under their birth name, but was notable under the name "Oliver Thorn".

So the question at hand: Should Thorn's previous "dead" name "Oliver Thorn" be listed in the article?

~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 04:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A — Yes, Thorn's previous name should be included (in limited fashion allowed by guidelines).
 * B — No, Thorn's previous name should be omitted entirely.
 * C — Omit in the lead, include in early life. (proposed by ) (added 08:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

(Edited slightly — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

Background / Related Policies
MOS:DEADNAME states: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the birth name with either "born" or "formerly"... If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity, and the article Deadnaming.)

MOS:GENDERID states: 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. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person only if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first.

WP:BLPPRIVACY states: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. The subject has expressed a preference (see ) for us omitting this previous name from the article.

Survey/Responses

 * Oppose the binary manner in which the options are presented. No in the lead, Yes in the early life sect. Ceoil  (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , given our MOS guidelines, mentioning a deadname, except for a very limited sense in a "formerly X" at the top or in the infobox under the "born" section, is currently prohibited. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 04:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That MOS guideline seems to be in violation of general guidelines about the lead - all content in the lead should also be somewhere else in the article. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that could be something you or someone else could bring to WP:VPP. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 21:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your interpretation of policy is correct here, actually. The relevant sentence is "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name." which is different from "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only in the lead sentence if the person was notable under that name." - basically, this is the guideline on if you put deadnames in the first sentence, not on "if you put deadnames in the article at all, they have to be in the first sentence".
 * However, it just so happens that the criteria for deadnames being in the first sentence are the same as the criteria for deadnames being in the article at all. That doesn't mean they should only be in the first sentence, however, the lead is meant to be a duplication of the rest of the article. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's not my understanding of the policy. It's merely a form of continuity. It's still verboten to smatter the article with deadname. It is only permitted under very limited circumstances when an individual was notable under that deadname to note it as former for encyclopedic continuity and future understanding.
 * You are right that this MOS guideline looks to conflict with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but this might be a special case exception to that due the impact of deadnaming. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 22:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure - are two instances of deadnaming in separate parts of the body really more harmful than one?
 * I feel like the MOS entry was more likely just poorly written. I'm tempted to try to clarify it, but obviously there are multiple interpretations... I mean, that's the issue of ambiguity after all!
 * An RfC on this seems excessive, though (and I am too busy to do that today). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A, the principle of WP:DEADNAME is to include if a person was notable under their former name as well. Hence, it should be included (in a limited fashion) even if it wasn't their birth name. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is a preference from the individual involved, I think Option C would work as well. Omission would constitute violation of WP:DEADNAME and lead to inconsistency with other articles which do follow the guideline. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * B her deadname was never a prevalent part of her YouTube identity. The whole goal of the channel was to impart information, independent of her. Notability isn't in her (dead)name, it's the channel. The primary name of the page isn't even her name. Exaisle (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to add that this is my interpretation of WP:DEADNAME (i.e., people famous for pseudonyms shouldn't be deadnamed on wikipedia) and not a specific issue with this case. I strongly suspect that Abigail would have no issue being personally deadnamed on Wikipedia (she did, after all, have an actor playing her pre-transition self in the most recent YouTube video) but would be vocal for a rejection of deadnaming in general (see: her twitter post) Exaisle (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , so we don't speculate, I have actually tweeted at her to see if she has any input (and to see if any updated media can be freely licensed for use in the article). ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 08:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * see . By email communication with me last earlier this month, Abigail said Ideally I'd like my old name and pictures not to be on there, but I realise that may not be possible and later, after I explained that we may not end up removing the old name, I do see the logic of keeping the old name there, that is fair enough. (She also said she would donate some freely licensed images through OTRS when the announcement was out.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * B. Don't deadname her anywhere. I have heard of Philosophy Tube, I've never heard of her deadname, and there is no valid reason to put irrelevant and harmful information like that in the lead sentence or anywhere else. (Update: keep in mind that she does not consent to being called by her deadname, so A is not an option.) rspεεr (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you seen any of her videos? I find it surprising that someone could be familiar with her output but never encounter her deadname. In her most successful video, her deadname appears in the first few seconds. In her second most successful, it covers up the screen in all caps right at the start. Awoma (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I have or haven't watched on YouTube is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Using the fact that a trans person used their own deadname (before they came out) against them is horrible. Do you expect closeted trans people to not have names or never take credit for anything? rspεεr (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked because it seemed odd to me that you have "never heard of her deadname." It appears in all of her videos, so I couldn't see how this would be possible unless you have never actually seen any of her videos. Anyone who has watched even a couple of her videos is aware of her deadname, so the argument from not knowing it strikes me as very strange. Awoma (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really watch YouTube, no. I said I'd heard of her, not that I watch her videos. I was giving an example of how much more notable her brand is than her previous name. And you still seem to hold the opinion that closeted trans people crediting themselves for things is something you can use against them after they come out. rspεεr (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What a horrible and unnecessary aspersion. Of course I don't think this should be used against anyone. Your argument seemed to be that her deadname was knowledge you didn't have, suggesting perhaps that it is little-known and constitutes WP:TRIVIA. I think this is a poor argument because, as it turns out, you are unfamiliar with the subject of the article - almost all the information here will be unknown to you. Awoma (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A (Bear in mind I am an active trans editor) We need to follow our guidelines regarding this. She was notable under the previous name. Her videos and accounts all were under that name. We need a better reason to omit the deadname than simply she's a particular recently-came-out trans person we like. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 08:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * B Since it's up to Thorn to consent on this and, after Bilorv asked, they did not give their consent. Alex (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A Someone had the opinion that this article is only about the Youtube channel. If this is the case we have to remove any links where they talk about the owner on another channel (hbomberguy) and replace it with something like "Abigail Thorn host of [Philosophy Tube]". Because Thorn then does not have her own Wikipedia Page. We would also have to remove the "Early life" part of the article because it is not part of the channel. (This would be fine for me too. But it sounds unpractical) If it is not exclusively about the channel than we should do it like with all the other notable women who transitioned after they were famous (Caitlyn Jenner, Elliot Page).IPPON01 (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A They were formerly notable under their deadname - I've been a casual viewer of their channel and I knew their name from it - so it should be mentioned in a limited fashion ("formerly" in lead and a mention in "early life"). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A. Reiterating what I previously said, a number of sources report on "Oliver Thorn" as the person behind the YouTube channel, and I believe that makes this deadname notable, so it should be mentioned per MOS:DEADNAME. I'm not specifically opposed to C, either, but it should only be chosen if there are good reasons to override guidelines and convention – I don't currently see any. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to just comment on this? Because I don't really feel like I could simply answer either "A" or "B" in all good conscience. You see, IDEALLY I wouldn't have her deadname mentioned anywhere, but then again IDEALLY I wouldn't have ANY trans person's deadname mentioned anywhere (I'd note where absolutely necessary to avoid confusion that they may be credited under A deadname in older stuff, but wouldn't actually post that deadname on the page), HOWEVER, given that what I just said is NOT in fact Wikipedia policy, and that policy still applies, I see no reason to omit the deadname on THIS page in particular and nowhere else. I know she has voiced discomfort with this, but, whilst I sympathise with that (as a trans woman myself, I can barely even bring myself to watch/read/listen to a piece of media whose main character happens to share my deadname, let alone would want it actually attached to me on one of the most popular websites on the internet), WP:NOTCENSORED also applies. I mean, we also illustrate our article on the Streisand effect with the very picture that gave it its name. Not that that's actually equivalent, since a trans person has far more reason not to want their deadname plastered all over the internet than Ms. Streisand had for her overzealous campaign, but, as I say, that's why, I'd, ideally speaking, want to omit any and all deadnames entirely, but, since Wikipedia doesn't do that, and a talk page on a YouTuber isn't the place to make grand policy decisions, I think omitting just THIS deadname would merely show a lack of consistency. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * *As long as all but one video contains her deadname it does not matter if it is not on Wikipedia. IPPON01 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * B with C as a middle-of-the-road alternative. To rehash my scattered comments from earlier, the channel name was at least as prominent as her former acting name, so whether the person was notable under that name is kind of equivocal to begin with. Under many circumstances, "formerly..." in the opening sentence might make sense. Here, I'm much more doubtful. The article is titled "Philosophy Tube", not "[deadname] Thorn"; that was the title of her YouTube channel all along, and the work is what earned her wiki-notability. Her former acting name — not even a "deadname" in the sense of a name assigned at birth — is just of less consequence than deadnames might be in other, comparable situations. The longer part of her two-video coming-out statement indicates that she has been living legally as Abigail for a considerable time, with "[dead acting name] Thorn" essentially a character she's been playing for her past several videos. I'm too old for YouTube, but my understanding is that her channel is very theatrical in nature, with multiple recurring characters; in a sense, "[dead acting name]" is just one of them (one who has now been played by two different actors). The secondary sources that used her former acting name did so in order to comment on the work; all along, the work has been the significant thing. It all adds up to a "eh, does it really have to be there?" in my view. If we preserve the former name out of an impulse for completionism, well, I can understand that (and it seems like Thorn herself would too), but I'm not convinced that it would be first-sentence material even then. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You do make a good point about O*** being more of a stage persona than a stage name. Looked at that way, it'd be like putting "also known as Borat" on Sacha Baron Cohen's page, or "also known as Tony Clifton" on Andy Kaufman's. Although she did genuinely use the name O*** for a time, of course, he wasn't just a character all along, but then the question would be when "O***" changed from a deadname into a fictional character, and if that time was before Abby became notable. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that they said that they started transitioning about a year ago, and this survived a deletion debate in 2019, I would say that they were notable under their deadname. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Belated afterthought: MOS:DEADNAME provides a criterion for when including a birth name in the lead sentence is acceptable, not a criterion for when it is mandatory. It's an "only if" statement, not an "if and only if". That leaves plenty of room to include a former name in "Early and personal life" but not in the lead. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While there is some room for what you suggest, If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it sets a pretty clear minimum threshold for inclusion. The case for placement in an "Early life" section but not the lede would arise if a person were technically notable while using the deadname but the WP article was not originally created under that name, it is not a likely search term and ASTONISH principles do not apply. I can see an argument how this scenario might be seen to apply in the present case, but it only covers a fairly narrow band IMO - most people either were not at all notable while using the deadname, or were so clearly notable that ASTONISH comes into play for links (or the deadname is a likely search term). Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably would be a fairly narrow band, yes. I'm just thinking out loud, as it were, motivated by the general concern that people may leap to option "A" out of a too-hasty conclusion that it's the only guideline-compliant option. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * People undoubtedly made that leap, which probably falls into the !voting before the issues were clarified conundrum. As you seem to imply in your preceding comment, some people have clearly read that passage (on this Talk page and elsewhere) as if it said IFF in an imperative sense, rather than saying if in a permissive sense. That text will have to be fixed some day, but I am still waiting for the implementation of the late 2020 RfCs before raising even minor points of language in the guidance. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice to agree with you for a change Newimpartial. :-) On XOR&#39;easter's premise, though, the DEADNAME revision after the RfCs in question has actually tightened not loosened this wording, so the wiggle room is no longer present anyway. Whether that's long-term desirable is an open question, but it is as it is for now. It's quite clear that if the name dates to the notability period it belongs not just in the lead but the lead sentence. (Personally I would like to see that revised to permit later-in-lead inclusion, on a case-by-case basis.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tentative A. This is clearly the option fitting the guideline. All of the articles on her use this former name, as indeed do all her previous videos. It is apparently beyond doubt that she was notable previously, and so the guideline is very clear. I think the only real reason not to go with A is that she has herself voiced opposition to this option. However, it seems natural that many individuals may voice similar opposition, so ruling based on this should be done by changing the guideline. Awoma (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A, WP:DEADNAME pretty clearly states that we should include a person's deadname if they were notable under that name. To be crystal clear, I support using "Abigail Thorn (formerly [deadname], born born 24 April 1993)" in the introduction and that is it, just as in The Wachowskis, Chelsea Manning, Caitlyn Jenner, and Elliot Page. I support putting Thorn's deadname in the intro because that name appears in every one of her videos and every article about and interview with her thus far, so it is strange to me that others are claiming she was not notable under that name. Other users bringing up the case of ContraPoints are neglecting that Wynn had zero features or secondary coverage written about her before her transition, whereas Thorn has had ample. I am a full-hearted supporter of trans rights, but an encyclopedia's responsibility is to provide notable information, not to omit notable information in the name of social justice, which is why we have WP:DEADNAME to resolve this very editing dispute. I also agree with other users that this page cannot be the only page which ignores this guideline. After all, it is never okay for people to ask Wikipedians to omit notable information about them in an article in any other instance. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it is never okay for people to ask Wikipedians to omit notable information about them in an article Even if this wasn't your intended implication, I want to be crystal clear here that Thorn expressed a preference but was more aiming to get information about what was likely to happen, and at no point directed me to make any particular changes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, and pardon me; I didn't mean to imply that was the case. What I should have said was "the preference of the subject is not something we should be taking into consideration." I really feel for Thorn or any trans person who has to think about this, but again, I don't think it's our place to decide that this one article is going to defy the Deadname policy if we meet the criteria. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The preference of the subject is absolutely something to take into consideration, because this is one of many places where what WP:DEADNAME has become is against the preferences of trans people. "We're allowed to do this to you because we made a policy saying we can do this to you" is, sadly, something that the powerful say in many areas of life, but that doesn't make it good. rspεεr (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You took what Leopard of the Snows said completely out of context: whether it was done deliberately to attack their credibility I don't know, but I certainly hope not. what they basically meant is that the same sets of rules should be applied the same way to all articles. and that IS what they said, if their entire comment is actually read, rather than only a fragment of a single sentence that, alone, appears to be saying something else entirely. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With relation to contrapoints you are inferring an argument which was never made. Nobody has said "contrapoints doesn't have her deadname so Philosophy Tube shouldn't either." Rather, several commenters (in this discussion and others) have noted the oddness that the article name refers to a youtube channel while the article itself contains personal information. The contrapoints article represents another example of this, demonstrating that our Philosophy Tube article is not unique. While WP:DEADNAME applied to that article leads one to option B, the same policy applied to this article leads one to option A. Awoma (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * B The rational choice. ~ HAL  333  16:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards a modified version of C. This doesn't have to be forever but, at least while the majority of the references use that name, it would be confusing to the readers to omit it entirely. It doesn't even help that much as the name is still right there in the title of one of the main references. I fear that the real question is how to include it in the least bad way? I don't think that the former stagename belongs in the Early And Personal Life section but instead in the Career section, as it was a name she used for her career as a YouTuber and actor. I doubt that she ever used it in her personal life. If we introduce it in the Career section explicitly as a professional name then that is accurate and does not grant it a greater importance than it deserves. If that also helps to rob it of some of its sting then so much the better. I'd also support some other changes. I'd like to see the subject of the article be more the channel than the person. Of course, it will always have elements of a BLP, as the channel is the work of one person, but the article is called Philosophy Tube for a reason. In keeping with that, I'd like to see the Early And Personal Life section recast in a less BLP like manner if possible. If not, it should be split with the Personal Life part moved to the bottom as is more common with other articles. Finally, there are three references that include her actual birth name in the title, which is worse than including her former stage name. Those are only being used to demonstrate that she did a bit of journalism, which is not essential content, and I think that could, and should, be removed entirely. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that old journalism comment—I don't think it's worth including and I was considering removal recently. I notice the HuffPost link is now (recently?) defunct. The Independent is just one article which would be better to cite directly if we are to keep it, but it and Broadway Baby seem just quite unrelated to the material that secondary sources cover (YouTube and the Shakespeare stream). Thorn didn't really have a previous career in journalism. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree. If someone who doesn't know who PhilosophyTube is watches an old video, they might be confused. To me, a passing mention in maybe the early or personal life sections would make sense to me. starsandwhales (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (I've now removed the old journalism content.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with DanielRigal, especially about the point that we should include the deadname in the "least bad way". A single mention in the article (not the lead) should suffice.--Zamomin (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * B, as I've said previously, I'm uniformally opposed to deadnaming in any context. (EDITED to remove info based on a misreading of the article). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand - she is credited as her dead name in (from what I can tell) every single Philosophy Tube video, and referred to with her dead name by all of our sources prior to coming out, and her acting roles are indeed covered in the article. Awoma (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's a strange claim to me that Abigail was only ever known as "Philosophy Tube". Find me a single feature or interview that only referred to her as "Philosophy Tube" and not by the name that appeared in every single one of her videos. Or find me a comments section on one of her or her affiliates videos in which she was predominantly referred to as "Philosophy Tube" and not her deadname. Obviously the latter is not a source, but both of these cases surely suggest that her deadname was what people knew this person by. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That covers the failure of this as a sourcing-based argument. But ThadeusOfNazereth's !vote is basically just invalid, being a WP:IDONTLIKEIT statement of personal opposition to the guidelines and to BLP; it's a wish about how they were written instead, this editor's perfect world. It's not an argument based on interpretation and application of the WP:P&G, nor on sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * C, I think the subject's deadname is absolutely notable, she often introduced herself in her earlier videos as "I am Oliver Thorn," and these videos are still up. In her coming out video, she described these old videos as "playing a character", and so I would suggest her deadname belongs in a section about her YouTube career. This is an encyclopedia, and this subject's deadname is something that belongs in their article, but because it is a deadname, it should be only once, and not in the opener, and not bolded. It was a character she played, she is an actress. NOTE: Please format my reply to fit the parameters of this RfC, I can't get it done right on mobile. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If O***** Thorn is a character, would it be appropriate to refer to the character (not the real person, of course), with he/him pronouns then? Because that I think would make difference. It is not considered acceptable (and quite rightly not) to "retroactively misgender" a trans person, and one should always use their current pronouns if referring to events that took place for them pre-transition. Both Wikipedia policy and general common courtesy hold this. But, if O***** Thorn is a totally fictional persona merely adopted by Abigail, surely this would not apply, since the CHARACTER is male. She was never male nor did she use male pronouns, so it would simply be wrong to refer to her with such under any circumstances, including describing things that she did before publicly coming out. And I don't dispute that in any way, in fact I'm a trans woman myself and honestly wish MORE cis people could grasp that concept. BUT, "O***** Thorn the character" is a whole different kettle of fish. Or should the character be she/her when played by Abigail and he/him when played by the guy who played them in the coming out video I forget his name? Or should we avoid the problem entirely and just refer to the character with they/them. Obviously there's no question about Abigail's pronouns, but if we hold that O***** is NOT Abigail, she just played him on the internet, I think that might lead to its own debate. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , herein lies the difficulty. As a trans person myself, I understand somewhat of what Abby is talking about. For many trans people once you mentally transition (that is, understand you're trans, in this and my case, understand you're a woman) things begin to shift. The person that you were, that everyone knows you as, fades away from you and you becomes a character. This isn't instant for most people I've known. That previous you wasn't always a character, but until you come out/live full-time as your non-cis gender identity, you find yourself having to perform this previous version of you. So, I highly suspect this is probably the case with Abby too. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , with due respect, I think you're stretching my statement beyond what was intended. Abigail Thorn credited herself in her previous projects as "O- Thorn". Those videos still exist, and she said, in her coming out video, that she CONSIDERS the old videos to have starred a "character". Her words, not mine. And the tone she used was joking, maybe sarcastic, but there are seven years of videos on her channel that feature O- Thorn. It also featured Abigail, who produced those videos, but she did not present or call herself Abigail in those videos. If, for example, someone wanted to see PT's old videos, or the YouTube Algorithm sent them in their recommended, and they saw "Hosted by O- Thorn", they might reasonably look that name up to see who that is. Wikipedia will be the first result. It will show Abigail, not O-. Which is appropriate. But if that were me, it would confuse me, and I'd try to find out who Abigail is vs who O- is. It's confusing. We don't need to put Abigail's deadname in the lead, of course we don't. But it should be featured at least once, in the YouTube section. RobotGoggles (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * C, I think the subject's deadname is absolutely notable, she often introduced herself in her earlier videos as "I am Oliver Thorn," and these videos are still up. In her coming out video, she described these old videos as "playing a character", and so I would suggest her deadname belongs in a section about her YouTube career. This is an encyclopedia, and this subject's deadname is something that belongs in their article, but because it is a deadname, it should be only once, and not in the opener, and not bolded. It was a character she played, she is an actress. NOTE: Please format my reply to fit the parameters of this RfC, I can't get it done right on mobile. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If O***** Thorn is a character, would it be appropriate to refer to the character (not the real person, of course), with he/him pronouns then? Because that I think would make difference. It is not considered acceptable (and quite rightly not) to "retroactively misgender" a trans person, and one should always use their current pronouns if referring to events that took place for them pre-transition. Both Wikipedia policy and general common courtesy hold this. But, if O***** Thorn is a totally fictional persona merely adopted by Abigail, surely this would not apply, since the CHARACTER is male. She was never male nor did she use male pronouns, so it would simply be wrong to refer to her with such under any circumstances, including describing things that she did before publicly coming out. And I don't dispute that in any way, in fact I'm a trans woman myself and honestly wish MORE cis people could grasp that concept. BUT, "O***** Thorn the character" is a whole different kettle of fish. Or should the character be she/her when played by Abigail and he/him when played by the guy who played them in the coming out video I forget his name? Or should we avoid the problem entirely and just refer to the character with they/them. Obviously there's no question about Abigail's pronouns, but if we hold that O***** is NOT Abigail, she just played him on the internet, I think that might lead to its own debate. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , herein lies the difficulty. As a trans person myself, I understand somewhat of what Abby is talking about. For many trans people once you mentally transition (that is, understand you're trans, in this and my case, understand you're a woman) things begin to shift. The person that you were, that everyone knows you as, fades away from you and you becomes a character. This isn't instant for most people I've known. That previous you wasn't always a character, but until you come out/live full-time as your non-cis gender identity, you find yourself having to perform this previous version of you. So, I highly suspect this is probably the case with Abby too. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , with due respect, I think you're stretching my statement beyond what was intended. Abigail Thorn credited herself in her previous projects as "O- Thorn". Those videos still exist, and she said, in her coming out video, that she CONSIDERS the old videos to have starred a "character". Her words, not mine. And the tone she used was joking, maybe sarcastic, but there are seven years of videos on her channel that feature O- Thorn. It also featured Abigail, who produced those videos, but she did not present or call herself Abigail in those videos. If, for example, someone wanted to see PT's old videos, or the YouTube Algorithm sent them in their recommended, and they saw "Hosted by O- Thorn", they might reasonably look that name up to see who that is. Wikipedia will be the first result. It will show Abigail, not O-. Which is appropriate. But if that were me, it would confuse me, and I'd try to find out who Abigail is vs who O- is. It's confusing. We don't need to put Abigail's deadname in the lead, of course we don't. But it should be featured at least once, in the YouTube section. RobotGoggles (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * C at least, possibly A. A, only. Since the person was notable (supposedly – I think we have too many articles on YouTubers and other so-called social media "influencers") under their original name, option B simply  under WP guidelines. People need to stop proposing the option B thing in cases where we cannot do that. I.e.,  MOS:DEADNAME and understand it before invoking it in discussions like this, and don't add red-herring options to RfCs that confuse drive-by commenters into !voting for something we will not actually do. The closer should interpret !votes for B as effectively for C (i.e., minimizing the use of the old name), since we cannot suppress it entirely in  case where someone was notable under both names. I don't feel strongly on A vs. C in this particular case, since the person is not actually very famous; I would be okay with C.  That would not be an okay result at something like Elliot Page, though, wherein the person's other name is at least as well-known to the general public as their current one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC); revised 15:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Update: Option C no longer appears viable, because MOS:DEADNAME, after months of RfCs, has been revised, and it is clear that if the name dates to the notability period, it goes in the lead (in the lead, actually).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This is exactly my opinion. IPPON01 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel otherwise, but to my knowledge MOS:DEADNAME does not, and has not in any stable version stated that all deadnames under which BLP subjects were notable should necessarily be included in WP articles. B is therefore a potentially valid option, though I understand that it has not been a common practice in cases where an article was initially created when the deadname was the COMMONNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes: MOS:DEADNAME says that deadnames should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name, but does not specify that they must be included. (Furthermore, even if it did, the template at the top of every Manual of Style page says it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.) While we normally do include the prior name in these cases to reduce confusion, this case may be exceptional because the person in question was previously notable under two names: "Philosophy Tube" and "Oliver Thorn". Therefore, it's arguable that the fact the page is titled "Philosophy Tube" makes it unnecessary to include the name "Oliver Thorn" as well.
 * Of course, some of the people arguing for B are arguing that Abigail Thorn wasn't even notable at all under the name "Oliver Thorn", which if it was true would mean MOS:DEADNAME instructs us to remove the old name. I personally find this dubious, though: articles on the channel almost always also use her old name as well, such that while I think it's plausible that nobody knows who Oliver Thorn is without knowing about Philosophy Tube, I don't think it's plausible that there are a ton of people who know about Philosophy Tube without also knowing about Oliver Thorn. Loki (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:WIKILAWYER, both of you. If you think that DEADNAMES means "only sometimes, maybe, include the old name even when the person was notable under that name" you are mistaken. We've even recently had a big discussion about this at the MoS talk pages, and it did not conclude in favor of any such supposition. If MoS meant to say "don't ever include a deadname even from within the notability period, except in rare strange cases like [some specific scenario here]", then it would say that. It very clearly means and has always meant to include the old name when the subject was notable under that name.  This is the result that numerous repeat RfCs and other consensus discussions have reached, and it has been the same every time.  No alternative interpretation has ever gained traction, or ever will, because it is unencyclopedic to suppress names that readers are looking for.  There is no way to hand-wave or what-if around that fact.  Aside from WIKILAWYER, see also WP:GAMING, and WP:P&G, and WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NOT, and ....  In many places and in many ways we are instructed to interpret the P&G as intended, not as you think you can bend them on a technicality to seem to mean what they clearly were not intended to mean.  If this silliness keeps coming up, then I suppose we'll have to tweak the wording yet again to stop it.  PS: There is no "was notable under more than one prior name" exception. You just made that up out of nowhere. If you proposed the guideline include such an exception it would be SNOW rejected, because it makes no sense, and would directly conflict with MOS:BOLDSYN, etc.  The entire purpose of mentioning an old or other alternative name is to ensure that readers who arrived at the page with that name in mind understand that they are at the correct article. That rationale does not mystically evaporate if there are three total names instead of two. [sigh]  PPS: You're also confusing a personal name (pseudonymous or otherwise) and a publication title; the person presently known as Abigail Thorn was not personally known as Philosophy Tube; that's their YouTube channel's title.  But that's basically irrelevant anyway; this RfC is about and only about the name "Oliver Thorn". PPPS: The real issue here is that this article is ostensibly about the work, the YouTube channel, but has been structured as a personal bio.  This is wrongheaded, and needs to be fixed in one direction or the other: rewrite it as an article on a work and minimize the bio material, or rename it to Abigail Thorn.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bit weird to accuse me of Wikilawyering when:
 * 1. I'm essentially arguing the exact same policies which you quoted to me. No policy on Wikipedia should be applied inflexibly 100% of the time, and that is particularly true for MOS pages, which all have a template right at the top of the page saying It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
 * 2. I haven't voted in this RFC because I honestly don't have a strong opinion either way on the root issue of whether Abigail Thorn's prior stage name should be included in the article. My objection is primarily to your statement that option B "simply is not possible". Any option is possible. An option that explicitly contradicts policy is possible if consensus is in favor of it.
 * In short, please put down the WP:STICK. I understand that policy generally says to include the deadnames of notable people. But even if everything you believe is true, a local consensus can contradict policy. Which is exactly what the several policies you quoted to me say. I don't know why you think quoting those policies help you when they say pretty explicitly say that consensus is the only thing that really matters and therefore there is no such thing as a policy hard-overriding the conclusion of a discussion. Loki (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And SMcCandlish, I disagree with almost the entirety of Loki's post immediately preceding, which is a good illustration of how misleading it is to lump together editors when all they have in common is the bare fact that they have disagreed with something you have written, q.v. Both of you. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A, to follow the guideline and assist readers who may have heard of her under the former name. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A, as unfortunately, Abigail's dead name is notable in relation to Philosophy Tube. I believe how often her name is mentioned in the sources cited under references establishes this notability. I also agree that if this article was only about the YouTube channel we could justify not including it, however I am not convinced this article is about "Philosophy Tube the YouTube channel" and not "Philosophy Tube the person behind the YouTube channel" as it is about a "British actress" which suggest it is about a person and not a channel. I am not opposed to C if that is the consensus, but I do not believe it follows MOS:DEADNAME and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I agree that we should respect Abigail's wishes and I agree we should follow WP:BLPPRIVACY, however, as I do not believe that she is a person who is relatively unknown, a subject notable for only one event, or a person accused of a crime and because of this, and is a notable person, I think we should refer to guidelines around public figures. In this case, we should document what reliable published sources say, and reliable published sources unfortunately include her deadname in specific relation to Philosophy Tube. - Andromadist (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A The guidelines are pretty clear that we should include it, no? The deadname use is not revealing anything Thorn is attempting to keep secret, so there is no contravention of their wishes. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ideally I'd like my old name and pictures not to be on there" (from above) is a rather clear statement of her wishes. rspεεr (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A – The MOS guideline on deadnames seems pretty unambiguous in regards to this question. Unless I'm missing something related to conflicting guidelines or aspects of notability, I don't see why an RfC was necessary. Her former name, Oliver, was and still is more notable and thus should still be present as a X (formerly Y) at the first mention of the individual to provide complete encyclopedic information.  H iddenL emon  //  talk  09:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument here is logically sound, but most of the evidence I've seen presented for the alleged "notability" of the deadname has been from the content on the channel itself, which would never be relevant to actual questions of Notability. Advocates of including the name really ought to be presenting independent RS using it, which has not really been the way the discussion has provided. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Using this custom Google search filter I've been using only to query mainstream RS sites, a search for "Oliver Thorn" shows several RS' using it. One of which, a New York Times article from one year and 2 days ago only 2 days ago, is surprisingly still using the deadname . A similar search switching Oliver for Abigail returns nothing (though the custom search is by no means an exhaustive query of RS'). That shouldn't be surprising though, it's only been two weeks, but thats also kind of my point on the notability matter. Even still, regarding ...content on the channel itself, which would never be relevant to actual questions of Notability, that's an arguable statement especially in this context (see WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:SPNC); a copy of her self-published video from her channel announcing her new name is literally embedded in this article for crying out loud! That standard shouldn't be so unevenly invoked as to create new issues of what appear to me as WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on one aspect of a BLP. Given the article subject and their deadname were both notable enough to be associated with one another in a dedicated WP article prior to the name change, it would be difficult to reason that the deadname all of a sudden becomes non-notable and that the new name should completely replace it. Especially when the subject's article has a non-trivial amount of information related (personally as well as in general) to topics of gender & sexual identity. That said of course, the issue of this essentially being a BLP is what blurs the lines here. Respecting the reasonable wishes, personal info, and other related concerns of a living person should be given weight in these cases. Yet at the same time, WP is a source of encyclopedic information above all else. Completely purging all mention of a name that a living person was commonly known by outside of their pseudonym/stage name (up until only 2 weeks ago no less) as option B suggests, should not even be an option worth considering in my opinion; the deadname was notable and commonly used/known as evidenced by RS, nothing can change its notability past or present, and given the recency and in not trying to act as a crystal ball, it would be even more incumbent on WP to include that name... just one time at the very least. Like I said though, maybe there are newer guidelines or broadly established points of consensus on this matter that I am unaware of, but I think it's reasonable to assume that this matter is largely unsettled and handled case-by-case. Yet there ought to be some hard guidelines to look at for these instances; I don't mean specific if-then style rules, rather abstract boundaries similar to WP:What Wikipedia is not but with more subject specific focuses. At the very least that might help keep newer, ongoing, and controversial matters more focused in discussions and inline with core functions of Wikipedia as a dynamic source of encyclopedic information.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  22:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just thought I should note that the NYT source is a year and 2 days ago, so before the coming out. (We're already an eighth of the way through 2021, it's crazy.) You've just introduced me to this cse.google thing, which looks really good—I think I might start using this in my day-to-day editing. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ah my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Time sure does fly! As for Google’s CSE tool, I definitely recommend using it, it’s extremely helpful to quickly find RS without having to sort through nonsense. The particular search engine I created in the link was mostly for finding cryptocurrency related RS so it has a more tech focused list of sites, but you can always craft your own, more editors should know about it!  H iddenL emon  //  talk  06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hidden Lemon, I don't think you are using Notability in the sense it is usually used on Wikipedia. WP:SIGCOV specifies that passing mentions do not contribute to notability, and WP:DEADNAME in all its versions specifies that WP uses current, chosen names for BLPs so long as they are verifiable. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF sources can meet verifiability requirements in showing that a new name has been chosen, but they cannot confer notability for either a current or a former name. So yes, cases are resolved individually without algorithmic certainty, but the bar for the deadname [being] notable is considerably higher than you seem inclined to recognize. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , The standard for notability which you describe is in regards to whether or not a person/subject is notable enough to warrant having a dedicated article on Wikipedia. We are discussing the inclusion of a specific bit of content to an already notable article subject. That is very different in terms of applying criteria for notability. The guidelines you linked to even say this if you scroll down a bit (WP:NOTEWORTHY).  H iddenL emon  //  talk  06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But in spite of what you point to here, the specific question of whether or not to include the deadnames of trans BLP subjects is based on whether they reached the requirements for article Notability while using their former names, as spwxitifed in MOS:DEADNAME. This is an exception to WP:NOTEWORTHY that has achieved very considerable community support in repeated RfCs, and is not to be set aside lightly.Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not at all what MOS:DEADNAME specifies... If there was clearly established consensus on this matter then this RfC would be unnecessary.  H iddenL emon  //  talk  03:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it - that wording seems pretty clear to me.
 * Also, please don't post replies in-between someone else's words and their .sig. Thx. (Fixed.) Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that quote from WP:DEADNAME doesn't specify anything in regards to the definition of "notable" for its specific context. Supposing that it did explicitly state what you interpret "notability" to mean, there would then be no need to establish it as an exception to WP:NOTEWORTHY that has achieved very considerable community support in repeated RfCs, as you claim. An exception to WP:NOTEWORTHY would only make sense if notability within WP:DEADNAME originally doesn't mean standalone-article-level notability, yet you claim that the wording of it clearly does. Even further still, to further explore the proposed idea of treating a person's name itself as an object of focus (i.e. rather than the actual biographical subject; a signifier or nothing) in terms of assessing standalone-article-level notability is impractically tautological. That is, for a notable BLP subject (individual person) of interest most commonly known as A, and with the formal name of X (previously with the formal name of Y until recently), it would be wholly illogical and unreasonable to have previously used the formal name, Y, as if verifiably/notably synonymous with A and then later effectively treat Y as completely non-notable and unaffiliated with name/person known as A, unless and until a separate article solely regarding the name Y is justifiable (something akin to justifying separate titles like New Amsterdam/New York or Constantinople/Istanbul). Still assuming your interpretation of notability, treating Y as non-notable only now would contradict WP:NTEMP. Needless to say, this issue of interpreting what notability means in very specific contexts as this, is highly over-semantic and I would respectfully suggest taking a step back to try and make an unbiased assessment of the encyclopedic purpose and function of BLPs on Wikipedia. Does allowing one single mention of a deadname in BLPs diminish the encyclopedia more than it contributes to it? To the point of warranting the establishment of contorted exceptions and interpretations to fundamental guidelines in order to avoid it? Oh, and yeah that was my bad on cutting off your signature in the last reply. I made that edit on mobile and probably didn't realize that I did that. Apologies. H iddenL emon  //  talk  21:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The term notable, as in the person was notable, never refers to anything else in WP policy and guidelines except for article-level notability, and this is the way MOS:DEADNAME in particular has been interpreted since the relevant language was added. This is specifically conjoined to WP:NOTTEMPORARY, embodying the same principle, in that what determines whether a Trans person's pre-transition name should be included is whether the references from that period meet article Notability standards. Treating coverage as TEMPORARY would imply that more recent references to the deadname would be required, but that is not what policy enjoins us to consider.
 * Also, please note that, per MOS:DEADNAME], the changing names of trans BLP subjects are treated differently than the changing names of other BLPs, of cities and of companies. Challenges to this distinct treatment, like your question, Does allowing one single mention of a deadname in BLPs diminish the encyclopedia more than it contributes to it?, should be addressed to [[WT:MOSBIO, rather than here - except that it had already been asked repeatedly (and recently) and answered clearly, with the answered being "it depends on whether the person was Notable while using their deadname". For some reason, you just don't want to hear that clear answer. Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to follow the point you're trying to make in the first paragraph. You keep referencing some supposedly established interpretations and exceptions to guidelines, perhaps you ought to provide some relevant links with those statements in the future. Anyways, as I expressed previously, this business of focusing on semantic legalese in order to justify a position is largely unproductive. To be clear though, I wasn't attempting to equate the name change of trans individuals to that of cities or companies, there just aren't multiple BLP articles concerning the same person under different names (which was my point). Similarly, my argument isn't that trans BLPs ought not to be treated uniquely compared to other article subjects regarding name changes. I'm simply saying that the difference shouldn't go so far as to purposefully omit highly relevant encyclopedic information that was previously included unquestionably in the article (which is the purpose of this RfC, to determine to what degree of distinct treatment the deadname should receive). To that point though, you are driving in circles when you say with the answered being "it depends on whether the person was Notable while using their deadname". For some reason, you just don't want to hear that clear answer. Not only did I literally begin this discussion by providing sources on the use of the deadname, this entire discussion has been centered around the exact issue of notability. I can see that continuing this thread further will be of no practical use, we've provided enough discussion for a closer to chew on anyways. H iddenL emon  //  talk  11:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But, in your terms, we in fact do purposefully omit highly relevant encyclopedic information that was previously included unquestionably in the article - as a matter of practice as well as policy - by removing deadnames from articles when a trans person chooses a new name. This is what editors have done at Elliot Page for the birth name (though not the stage name), and the same at Gabbi Tuft, but not at The Wachowskis because they were sufficiently notable with the birth name. In other words, this is the standard interpretation, and has been noted as such at WT:MOSBIO. And there is likewise nothing about the present article that would justify an WP:IAR treatment, so the issue should be decided based on whether pre-transition coverage using the deadname represents a WP:N pass. I don't think it does, but that is a reasonable topic for the RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the opposition to A here is really opposition to MOS:DEADNAME in its current form. There should probably be an RfC on that guideline as a whole rather than this particular application of it. Awoma (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is as may be, but there a recent and very widely-participated RfC on a different aspect of MOS:DEADNAME has just been thoughtfully closed. Anyone trying to gauge where the WP community is at concerning these issues would be well-advised to sift carefully through the discussion there before bringing out their TNT. My own sense (not the closer) is that we have enough "inclusionists" and enough "deletionists" at the more polarized ends of the spectrum, when it comes to deadnames by which people were actually known during their period of Notability, that the consensus is going to remain a compromise on these issues for some time to come. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, and any RfC will never be settled in favour of a policy which can be summarised in a single sentence. However, I think there is significant scope for nuance if the wording is chosen carefully. The RfC you mention was concluded very productively by being focused on a specific question of credited names in separate articles. I do think we could make progress by asking a specific question around what constitutes a person being "notable under a former name." Awoma (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that; there could be a question like, Under what conditions should the reliably sourced deadname of a trans BLP subject to be included in the main article on that subject, with options like A. The subject must clearly pass the GNG while using that name by choice, B. there must be multiple RS mentions of the deadname while the subject was using it by choice, C. there must have significant mentions of the deadname even after transition or whatever. Some might insist on the always or never options as well, but those are not going to meet with consensus any time soon IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To what end? This party clearly qualifies under all three. And it's not the job of an article-talk-page RfC, or even an MoS-guideline-talk-page RfC, to try to redefine what "notability" means. (You'll note that the big-ol' RfCs we had about DEADNAME/GENDERID over the last several months did not attempt to do that). We already know that it means . So, your questions are already answered: it has to be in multiple sources, that are reliable, that aren't the subject's own (or fan, sponsor, etc., material), and which are in-depth material about this person, not just passing mention (like in a list of 'tubers by revenue or something like that). It requires no additional discussion of any kind to get this result, because it's already the decade-running .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A (or C at least). -   (talk)  11:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Mention the name she formerly presented herself as in her channel (Oliver Thorn) in the career section. Did she use that name during her early years? if not, it makes no sense to mention it in the early life section.  -   (talk)  04:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure she removed her dead name from the credits from the videos of last year. But in her last video in 2019 her deadname still appears screen-filling IPPON01 (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * B - I didn't really want to do the research, but having done so, I am not at all convinced that Thorn was Notable under her deadbame. I only found one secondary reference to the name that wasn't an interview or a passing mention, and neither of the latter counts for Notability, so that search result would never pass WP:GNG. And the birth name would be even less appropriate for inclusion under MOS:DEADNAME, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the test for this be WP:CREATIVE, not WP:GNG as the GNG is targeted to articles, not content as per WP:NNC? In that case, we know that her creative work is notable as per |the last deletion debate, and the secondary sources like this Vox article seem to establish her dead stage name as notable in relation to her creative works. Andromadist (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Without going down the rabbit hole of the SNG/GNG relationship (to which I command the reader, at Talk:Notability) more than minimally necessary, my own reading of MOS:DEADNAME and the discussions on its reformulation in 2019-21 is based on the following test: did the subject pass NBIO (of which CREATIVE is a part, but which doesn't bypass the GNG) based on sourcing from before the chosen name was announced. This is one instance where the currently formulated guideline does relate inclusion in article space to a Notability criterion, at least the way I read the status quo. (I have suggested elsewhere in this discussion some options that could be offered in an RfC to clarify this, but I haven't tried to guess the community's future direction on the matter.
 * So in this case of this subject, I don't think the Notability requirements are met (I saw the same Vox piece, but nothing else that would give SIGCOV under the deadname). Since we recognize BLPPRICACY concerns for such deadnames, the notability of the channel and reliable sourcing that the stage name was used are not sufficient to meet the current threshold of MOS:DEADNAME. And the ready availability of the name on YouTube videos is not a policy-compliant rationale for inclusion, AFAICT, per NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response. The problem I'm having following the logic is this: if this is a BLP, and we established that the subject (Abigail the content creator, not Philosophy Tube the YouTube channel) was notable in the September 2019 deletion debate, I think it follows that the subject passed the NBIO test based on sourcing from before the chosen name was announced. Otherwise, if Abigail the content creator wasn't notable at that time, but only Philosophy Tube the channel, this shouldn't be a BLP and we should remove those sections as I don't see Abigail currently as being noteworthy without her prior work on Philosophy Tube. I think this should be a BLP, therefore I can't see B being consistent with it being a BLP. Andromadist (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the BLP policy concerns BLP subjects as individuals and not only the articles on them, so the underlying policy considerations don't change depending on whether or not this is a BLP article, at least not in any important way. And the recently closed RfC on deadname references in relation to previously-released works seems to follow the same Notability-based threshold as MOS:DEADNAME as a baseline for allowing possible inclusion of the deadname. So no matter which way the situation is sliced, the policy conclusion seems clear to me based on the status quo.
 * On the other hand, whether or not Abigail is notable under her current professional name (and I really don't have an opinion on that), there is no policy of which I am aware that would inhibit the inclusion of her name and of sourced biographical information, so long as it is due in relation to her created work (the YouTube channel, presumably). Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I follow. I misspoke with the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to argue that BLP policy changes based on whether or not this is a BLP, but rather that because this is a BLP about Abigail and not the YouTube channel, and it was decided to be notable, it establishes Abigail herself as notable as we shouldn't have BLPs on non-notable persons. Since it was decided that Abigail was notable prior to her name change, and our test for MOS:DEADNAME is whether the person was notable under that name prior to the change, it's compliant with MOS:DEADNAME to include her dead name. As per the RFC closure you cited, if we are to include her dead name it should either be footnotes or parentheticals, either of which preclude B and only permit A (or C if you stretch "footnote" to mean "early life"). Put more simply, I don't think you can have an argument for B under the point of "she wasn't notable under that deadname" without also arguing that she's not notable enough to justify a BLP, in which case we shouldn't have this article. Andromadist (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the 2nd AfD, that isn't really a model discussion for anything, and I don't see evidence that participants were applying criteria based in the article being about the BLP rather than the channel. And of the three sources that people might have been talking about in that context, we've mentioned Vox and the other two are a passing mention (NYT) and another (The Times) that looks rather BLP1E. So I definitely don't see a clarity of discussion there about the Notability of the person that would circumvent the NBIO requirement that is a prerequisite for including the deadname. People have given me a hard time at Talk:MOSBIO for making loose references to "marginally-notable deadnames", but I wasn't joking when I agreed that this might be worth a guideline RfC at some point. In the mean time, though, my sense from the MOS discussions is that most of my interlocutors want to put the BLPPRIVACY bar higher, rather than lower, in the non-obvious cases.
 * Also, please note that the recent RfC closure specifies that the parenthetical/footnote question does not arise when the deadname is not notable enough to override the privacy interest of the subject, which I am arguing to be the case here based on standard NBIO principles. And while it seems BLUESKY to me that the coverage of the channel satisfies GNG, that is an instance where NNC actually does apply, in the sense that the notability of the article's topic and the BLPPRIVACY concerns of the BLP subject prior to transition have no bearing on one another. I have been convinced by others on Talk:MOSBIO that people can and have produced Notable works under non-notable deadnames, and those creators retain a BLPPRIVACY interest in those deadnames. Newimpartial (talk)


 * Structural problem with the RFC (invited by the bot) The RFC is unintentionally designed to favor "B" by splitting the "include" support between A and B. To remedy that you'll need to combine support for A and C as being "include" support.   That said, IMO it would be unthinkable to leave out their birth name.   I'm neutral on where it is in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your objection to the framing is personal POV, as is clear from IMO it would be unthinkable to leave out their birth name. Obviously it is thinkable, and some people are thinking it: in fact, I see some support in this RfC for including the professional DEADNAME, but essentially none for the birth name. In any case, your vote is a clear A or C but happens to be based on ILIKEIT rather than a policy justification, so I trust it will be ignored by the closer. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that this RFC concerns the inclusion of Thorn's former stagename. None of the options envisage the inclusion of her actual birthname. That is not on the table for discussion here, nor should it be. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , whether or not it's a stage name is complicated. The first name of what you call a "stage name" was the same as their birth name and that's what changed. Also it is unknown whether or not "Thorn" is now their legal surname or not. Since the given name and first name are the same, they're effectively the same argument and discussion, really. If she had a stage name which was vastly different from their birth name, this wouldn't even be a discussion. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * my understanding is that when you graduate from acting school in the UK, if you share a name with another recognised actor (or have a very similar name) then you are asked to change it, which is what happened in Thorn's case. Some people change their legal name and others just adopt it as a stage name, and I would guess she did the former but am not certain. Now "Abigail Thorn" is her current legal name, as she specified I think in the public statement. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , so yeah, that's the difficulty. While "Thorn" was originally a stage surname, it became, over time, her real surname. While her former first name was both her given name and first name she used with the stage name, which became her real name kinda. Goddess this is a sticky wicket. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 15:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I too am a bit confused by this comment, as I don't know how the RfC text could reasonably be clearer that this discussion is not about Thorn's birth name (which no-one has yet expressed support for including), but I'd like to see rethink their comment and express a new opinion with the new information they've been given. It's rare to see an RfC of this size nowadays without somebody objecting to its framing but the three options presented were the most common opinions offered in threaded discussion beforehand (and we saw early objection to excluding option C). — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, regarding my comment on the formatting, you should consider striking your comment which baselessly assigned a false bad faith rationale to my comment which had a very clear, solid, simple mathematical rationale given. DanielRigal, thanks for catching my lack of understanding of the terminology in th RFC. Bilorv, I was pointing out the unintentional (noted as such) mathematical problem and how to remedy it; I understand that everyone did their best to frame the RFC.  With the new understanding my suggestion would be mild include  (A or C).   In an article about the individual (which this seems to be) including birth name and previous stage names should clearly be proper content for the article.  The "mild" is because the topic of the article is "Philosophy Tube" and info about the individual would be another step removed in WP:relevance from the topic, combined with a former stage name not having as strong of inclusion arguments as a birth name. BTW please ping me if you'd like me to respond further; I came due to a bot request, was just doing my best with suggestions, am not worried about the result and don't plan to watch. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Stating that you presented your personal POV is not an attack; it is a factual statement, and is readily supported by the fact that you did not present any policy considerations in your !vote. Also, literally nobody else has presented an argument for a former stage name not having as strong of inclusion arguments as a birth name, so if this is an argument you want reflected in the RfC result, you would actually need to offer some policy support for it. Which is more advice and certainly a comment about the contribution, not the contributor. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had two things in my post. One on the structure of the RFC, the other an attempt at commenting on the question at hand.   Your post said that my comment about the structure was POV based.  Also in wikipedia "POV" us usually code for having one's personal biases override considerations for the quality of the article (rather than the real world meaning with is simply "point of view").  I'll just go with that you did not intend either, in which case: Thank you for your feedback.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with North8000's objection, which dovetails with my own that option B is not actually permissible in this case because the subject was notable under that name. This RfC is basically a big exercise is "do not look at the man behind the curtain" misdirection.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That argument is only cogent if the subject was actually notable under the deadname, a presupposition which you decided to handwave completely in your own !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A or C (the framing of these as separate options is really weird). The majority of sources use the former name, and so do the majority of her videos at this time, so it should be included, but it can be included as background to the channel with a single sentence explaining. --Equivamp - talk 15:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * C (I don't know why this is separate from A). But I'd have no objections of it's omitted entirely. Her deadname should not be mentioned more than once. Jonmaxras (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's mentioned in the lead, then it should also be mentioned in the body, since leads are summaries of bodies and are not meant to contain facts that only appear in the lead. (See WP:LEAD.) Even if the article were temporarily miswritten that way, it would be corrected later, e.g. in a WP:GAN review.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A and C. These should be added together.  It seems beyond silly that an encyclopedia would cover up the stage name that a person became notable under or that they transitioned from one name to another.  The very announcement of this change was a notable event worthy of mention.  Vivaldi (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A/C: Notable under former name. Additionally, if the name change itself is notable, the previous name certainly should be included. Twassman &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 01:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * C, A second choice. Definitely notable under the deadname (e.g. see the last AFD) and was frequently referred to by that name in both their content and in interactions with other YouTubers. That being said, the deadname was not super integral to her notability and was more of an insider baseball kind of thing (cf Elliot Page), so it's not necessary to have in the lede. A brief mention alongside with how she now perceives it as kind of a stage name is fine somewhere appropriate in the body. Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * B for this article: MOS:DEADNAME says that A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. But this isn't Abigail Thorn's main biographical article. She doesn't have a main biographical article since she's currently not notable enough by herself to get one. This is the article for the work she creates, Philosophy Tube. If we ever do make a separate article for her (and if you look down on the page, that's very likely to happen) we should include her former name there. Loki (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A. This article is Abigail Thorn's main biographical article. She does not have her separate biographical article (Abigail Thorn redirects to this article), the YouTube channel is run solely by her, and she is (as far as I can tell) not notable apart from Philosophy Tube. Furthermore, the article belongs to the "Living people" category and plenty of other categories that suggest that this article is about Thorn herself as much as, if not more than, it is about her YouTube channel. RisingStar (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A per RisingStar and others above. She is notable under the previous name, and that's tied pretty clearly to her YouTube channel. — Czello 06:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC draft
Sorry to be a nuisance but I think there should be an initial discussion on the question to be asked and I have temporarily disabled the RfC. Would people please post here to briefly say whether the question above is the one that should be discussed: would resolving it solve the recent problems? Or is this the first of possibly two RfCs? Before enabling, please refactor the collapsed material because the start of each RfC is transcluded at WP:RFC/A and it has to be short and should not be collapsed. Instead, put it after a "Background" or similar heading immediately after the question. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I edit-conflicted with each of you when I tried to add this section. Please say what you think about the question first. This doesn't need to take long but there should be some agreement before starting a month-long and contentious discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also had some weird e/c things in last few minutes, but have said my peace, that's it from me; have confidence in the process. Ceoil  (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK but that sounds like an endorsement of the current question. If someone else also endorses with no opposes first, please would anyone re-add just after the RfC heading. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done that as there was no further feedback yet people are voting. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose, I'm late to respond but just to clarify, I don't have any objections with the question. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've moved the collapsed material to its own section. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 05:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Responding to the RfC, I would just ask: Why can't somebody just ask for Thorn's consent for this? If they agree, great. If not, also great. It's up to them I think, rather than us. Alex (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * read my threaded comment in the "Survey/Responses" section. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. Thanks for doing that. Then like I say, that's great and let's not do those things. Peace. Alex (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * if you could add a comment for option B (ideally with the reasoning you've just given) under I think that would help the eventual closer assess consensus. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks again. Alex (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added some content to your comment because I think the RfC lead comment should introduce all of the pertinent information, and it's relevant for policy reasons that (a) this isn't a birth name and (b) the subject was notable under the name. I've also added a quote from WP:BLPPRIVACY. Feel free to reword what I added, take your signature off or adapt if you think it looks too much like you wrote that bit rather than me. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
It is perhaps fruitful for contributors to be aware of and familiar with the article on contrapoints, another transgender youtuber whose WP:COMMONNAME is the name of her youtube channel. As she is synonymous with her channel, the article contains an "early life" section, prior to the channel's advent. Applying WP:DEADNAME in that case has lead to no inclusion of her dead name, as the channel was only considered notable once she had already expressed preference for the name Natalie. Her channel had been active for a year prior to expressing this preference. Awoma (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pings
Pinging those who have already expressed an opinion or made relevant comments—it would be helpful if you could read the RfC, repeat that opinion (or, form a new one based on all the available evidence and other people's reasoning) under so that the eventual closer can take your view into account. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion
It seems to me that the conclusion in favour of including the deadname and with no consensus to do this in the body only is reasonably obvious. Per WP:RFCEND, If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. As such I have changed the article to include the deadname once in bold in the lead (matching almost all similar cases) as we've now got a much clearer outcome which is much more representative of the community than the initial wave of suggestions within 24 hours of the public coming out. If the outcome is contested then I will recommend that an uninvolved admin close the discussion. (Notice that I did not !vote in the RfC but am nonetheless WP:INVOLVED, and also not an admin.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: tidying up a sentence
We should remove later that day from the last sentence of Early and personal life. One video was posted along with the announcement, while the other followed about an hour and a half later. We could tweak the phrasing to get the chronology exactly right, but it's overkill to get into that much detail anyway. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This could be done if someone agrees it is worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it's a good copyedit. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 22:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I concur. It's a harmless, beneficial copyedit unrelated to the cause of the full-protection. RobotGoggles (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅RobotGoggles (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

New reference
Think this might be useful, interview with Abigail about her transition


 * https://xtramagazine.com/culture/abigail-thorn-philosophy-tube-194324

John Cummings (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely will be, along with The Independent, ET Canada, News 24 (France) and perhaps (not sure about reliability) The Gay Times and Junkee. Planning to flesh these out into a proper rewriting of the coming out paragraph, to highlight the parts of Thorn's statement that were most widely quoted/emphasised in the sources, but anybody is welcome to beat me to it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, here's my suggestion, incorporating all the reliable sources given (including Junkee and Gay Times, which after researching I've concluded are reliable here) and eliminating the now-redundant primary source "Identity":
 * Replace the sentence On 30 January 2021, Thorn came out as a trans woman via a public statement on social media, releasing the videos "Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story" and "Coming Out As Trans - A Little Public Statement and subsequent references with a new paragraph as follows (EDIT: added Out):
 * On 30 January 2021, Thorn came out as a trans woman via a public statement, posted on social media and recorded as the video "Coming Out As Trans - A Little Public Statement". Jezebel's Harron Walker described it as a "feminist, anticapitalist appeal in support trans people's legal equality, physical autonomy, and broader liberation in the United Kingdom and beyond". The statement discussed issues in access to healthcare, journalist fearmongering about transgender people and a lack of elected transgender representatives.  She also says that other issues in society like homelessness disproportionately affect the trans community. "Abigail" trended on Twitter subsequent to the announcement.  Thorn also released the video "Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story", which drew on the work of the American writer Audre Lorde and saw Rhys Tees acting in the role of Thorn's former self. Thorn told the Daily Xtra that studying works by trans philosophers helped her gain insight about her identity, but that she felt significant societal pressure as a transgender public figure. Prior to the announcement, she had come out to friends and family but experienced difficulties in avoiding being publicly outed in day-to-day life, and in accessing trans spaces anonymously.
 * Remove the citation from the end of the lead to avoid a reference error (and Vulture is already good enough for the sentence there).
 * Add the following as the final sentence of the second paragraph of "Reception":
 * Merryana Salem, writing for Junkee, said "The Trouble with the Video Game Industry" was one of her "all-time favourite Youtube videos".
 * — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * are you able to look at this edit request? It doesn't introduce or remove anything that's been edit warred over and these types of edits—summarising new sources—have been something I've been doing regularly without controversy since recreation in 2019. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do people think about removing article protection? The full protection is set to expire 01:21 7 February 2021 and that is long before the RfC concludes. The protection could be removed now or downgraded to semi-protection. Then article development could continue. If wanted, I'll do that but would encourage people to discuss any issues that arise because further edit warring or attempts to short-circuit the RfC would result in protection. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the pageviews it looks like the mass influx of views is sharply dropping, so I think yes it would make sense to remove protection, entirely if possible. We could reasonably anticipate IP/new user vandalism but it is always my preference to give rope rather than assume. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect there will be further trouble but I removed protection as a trial. See below. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Freely licensed image
It looks like the photographer has uploaded File:Portrait of Abigail Thorn.jpg to Commons under a free license. (I'm expecting OTRS confirmation when they get around to it). Please could an admin replace: with:

(Or any alt/caption that seems reasonable.) Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Context: bullet point three of .) — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I omitted the alt as my recollection is that an alt is only useful if it adds context to the caption. Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

subject/lead confusion?
Once this is unprotected perhaps interested editor should revisit this. As soon as I started reading this I get instantly confused if this article is supposed to be about a "channel" or about a person - the article is titled about the channel, but the lead opens up talking about a person. If this is about the person, the title should probably match. — xaosflux  Talk 17:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's mostly a question of phrasing, and the content and title are fine. It'd just be a matter of switching from  to something like She created her YouTube channel [...] and so on. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's been some confusion above but the intention by me when re-creating this article was that it's about the person, often referred to as "Philosophy Tube", and this is the name she is most recognisable by. See Talk:Philosophy Tube/Archive 1. But I wouldn't feel too strongly if others preferred this to be changed. While you're here would you mind taking a look at the two hopefully uncontroversial edit requests above? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ah ok so "Philosophy Tube" is a nickname for this person - in which case that seems fine, but the lead doesn't make that clear - it seems that is the name of a "channel" not a nickname/personality/character. Will peek at those (I think it was ER's that brought me here in the first place!)  —  xaosflux  Talk 20:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pass - I mostly stay out of anything to do with sexology/gender/etc - if these were "technical" type ER's I'd do them but will defer to any other patrolling admin here. — xaosflux  Talk 20:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I would have thought the image one at least is just a technical one (subject just released a free image via Commons) but that's your prerogative. As for the subject above, I think I've just created more confusion with my clarifying comment—"Philosophy Tube" is the name of the channel, but YouTubers are often referred to by their channel name, as in this case. People will form sentences like "Philosophy Tube came out as trans". It's like a stage name. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't edit many (any?) articles about "Youtubers" either (not specifically avoiding them, just not interested in the topic) - as far as the image one I'm not going to try to determine if this picture of a living person is representing them appropriately or not when there is a gender/sexology component - if this was just something like replacing one set of cropped image with another, or someone gamma adjusted the lighting, etc - I'd consider that "technical" and not care - I did just shrink the FPROT backlog though, so hopefully an admin will be by soon for you! — xaosflux  Talk 20:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much confusion. It mirrors the article on ContraPoints where a person is treated as synonymous with their channel and the article contains information about the person thought it is really the channel which is notable. Awoma (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 February 2021
The page of Elliot Page includes the previous name of Ellen Page, so why not do the same Abagail, and include her previous name Oliver Thorn? Sarsath3 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not an admin but there is a currently-running RfC about this above,, and edit requests are for uncontroversial edits or edits with consensus. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just removed protection per discussion above, although I was hesitant after seeing this section. No one should try to change how names are presented before the RfC above is closed. Please revert any such changes and ask them to wait for the close of Talk:Philosophy Tube. Edit warring will result in sanctions and/or protection. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Italics
Should we use "quotes" or italics when discussing videos released by Thorn? I originally used quotes but two people have sinced used italics, so it's time for some discussion. I see them more as episodes, which we use quotes for, but one could see them as short films or something else that we would normally italicise. I'm not familiar with any YouTube-related precedent but it appears from first glance that articles in this area aren't consistent ("Charlie Bit My Finger" but YouTube Rewind 2019: For the Record). Pinging the italics users, and. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooh I much prefer italics; I've always thought "quotes" make things sound sarcastic. Maybe it's a generational thing? My former English professor hated using quotes for emphasis and titles. I respect her for that and it's something I'll always fight for. Jonmaxras (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Her videos seem to be mostly at least a half-hour, sometimes exceeding an hour, and they seem to be presented as short films mostly independent of one another. I'd slant a bit in favor of italics. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am coming around to italics a bit myself—all other factors equal, it sets apart the title in a more obvious visually distinguishing way, which seems desirable. Since that would leave a total of 0 people in quotes gang I might change the article to use italics consistently soon unless someone makes an impassioned case against it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Italics for now. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * definitely, they're not really "parts of works" - at least, not the later ones, which tend to be more relevant. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

'Abby's Mum's eyes?'
As mentioned in the PhilosophyTube episode "What is Color?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxaFZNPOcq4), Abigail has claimed that her mother is in fact the subject known to science as "cDa29" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Humans), the first known human with functioning tetrachromacy (four different types of color-sensing rods in the retina). I don't know if this would be considered noteworthy enough for a mention in the "Early and Personal Life" section or not. Note, to my knowledge we only have Abigail's word on this. --not logged in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:800:2B40:3D5F:FCFD:4B40:66E (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting fact and it would be absolutely fascinating to know more about how she perceives colour. Would she say things like "An actual banana is properly yellow but a picture of a banana on a computer screen is just an unrealistic greenish red"? Unfortunately I don't think we can source it reliably. Even if we could, I doubt whether it could be done without at least partially compromising the anonymity of somebody who is a completely private individual, so we shouldn't do it anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With no secondary sources this is not suitable to include. There are thousands of facts from Thorn's videos that I'm sure would be interesting to readers (this definitely is an interesting fact) but Wikipedia is not the place for those which have not been reviewed, written about or republished by secondary sources. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Kill James Bond! Podcast
Thorn has a podcast with her friends Alice Caldwell Kelly and Devon called Kill James Bond! where they talk about the events of each film through a feminist lens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintwinist (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * without a secondary source (like the podcast being mentioned in a news article), I don't think this is worth adding. Podcasts are cheap and lots of people have them. On talk pages you can end your comment with a signature by adding the code . — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If we can find an RS reference for it then I think it would be OK to add a single sentence about it. That said, I had a quick look and I didn't find anything that wasn't a primary source so I don't think we can add it for now. FWIW, I can recommend the podcast. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)