Talk:Peppermint (entertainer)/Archive 2

Request for comment on whether to include Peppermint's birth name
Should Peppermint's birth name be included in the "Personal life" section of the article, or omitted from the article completely? (To clarify, it seems to be agreed that the name should not be included in the lead, and that is not the topic of this RfC). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Formalizing this discussion in order to solicit wider input. There was a discussion about this two years ago at BLPN that never reached consensus, and so I think it ought to be revisited. There's also a brief discussion above at . GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Omit. To summarize my comments above, the onus on us is not to assume publicizing her deadname, which is something known to be hurtful to many transgender people, is by default not hurtful; it's the other way around. If Peppermint has stated explicitly and recently that she is comfortable with her birth name being public information, then I have no objections to its inclusion. If she hasn't, we should err on the side of minimizing potential harm by not including it. This falls in line with the guidance at WP:BLP, particularly on presumption in favor of privacy. Peppermint has said she does not wish for her birth name to be used and she is not notable by that name, so it should be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * RE: "If Peppermint has stated explicitly and recently that she is comfortable with her birth name being public information": That's not how it works. Alan Alda does not have to state explicitly that he is comfortable with his birth name Alphonso Joseph D'Abruzzo being made public. Secondly, Peppermint and her mother clearly gave approval for the Wilmington News Journal / USA Today article to include it, since no major news outlet ever would have done so otherwise. Major news outlets do not out people. And LGBT outlets themselves report her birth name. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alan Alda didn’t change gender, a controversial act, and one that many religious people see as sinful. And one that will make you a target for violence.
 * And no, that a paper published her birth name is not proof they consented; it’s proof that they felt it was true and that they could publish. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will reiterate my comment below: Just as no responsible journalist would publish the name of a rape victim unless consent were given, no media outlet the likes of the Wilmington News Journal or USA Today would ever out someone or reveal a trans person's birth name without consent.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re fooling yourself if you believe that. A reporter asks questions of many people and the editors assess the risk of publishing. Nowhere is a code they won’t print without consent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If only that were true. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Reaffirming my support vote with the added information that Peppermint specifically wants her deadname to be removed from Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the article is now relying heavily on the use of archived links to verify Peppermint's birth name, as the sources have retracted the name from the current versions. We should follow suit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don’t include. There is real world harm to trans people in Deadnaming them, the vast majority go to great lengths to distance themselves from their birth name and life before transitioning. In this case she used her legal name until getting it changed to Agnes Moore, all while building the Peppermint brand. As soon as possible the birth name disappears. Added to this is Wp:BLP Privacy and similar which cautions to presume a conservative approach on BLPs, to not include unless unavoidable; that is not true here, there is zero gain in publishing her birth name verses just stating she was born male. We have every reason to believe, like most trans people, that deadnaming would distress her. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include. The birth name is supported by multiple reliable sources. And according to IMDb, she was credited as Kevin Moore for several of the works that we currently list as notable under "Filmography", e.g. Fur (film). So, contrary to what was said above, there is clear encyclopedic value in mentioning the birth name, and it is actually an open question whether this may be one of the cases for which WP:DEADNAME suggests it can be appropriate to not just mention the birth name, but also include it in the lede as well.
 * I appreciate the general concerns about transphobia, and it's certainly true that inappropriate deadnaming has been an issue in case of various other Wikipedia articles in the past, so vigilance is justified. But in the end every case has to be judged on its merit. If we follow Gleeanon409 and GorillaWarfare above, we must condemn the venerable Bay Area Reporter (quote from our article: "one of the largest-circulation LGBT newspapers in the United States, and the country's oldest continuously published newspaper of its kind") as a transphobic and harm-causing publication for mentioning the birth name as recently as 2018. And honestly I trust the BAR more to navigate this balance correctly.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Do not omit until evidence of potential/actual harm is produced, or evidence of the subject's displeasure with its usage. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources and reports encyclopedic information found therein. Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted to make sure you see, since that would seem to qualify as "evidence of the subject's displeasure with its usage". GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I agree, so I would support omission based on this evidence of the subject's preference. Elizium23 (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include Birth names are standard, pertinent, basic biographical information in any encyclopedia. The subject has never objected to this information, and certainly gave approval by revealing it in an article in which she and her mother both were interviwed. If Peppermint, who is a public figure and not a private individual, had any objection, there is a easy process for a subject to contact Wikipedia to register concern. Two editors appear to have a sweeping notion that all trans people are alike and cannot make decisions for themselves, and that we need to be paternalistic and "protect" them since they're not capable of protecting themselves. No: Peppermint is a strong individual who can speak for herself. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * False. That a publication printed her birth name is not proof she consented. Media publish whatever they want and can. Often knowing it will cause harm. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you're talking tabloids and not mainstream newspapers like USA Today, no, media do not "publish whatever they want and can. Often knowing it will cause harm." If that is the false and inaccurate premise from which you are operating, then your position can only be described as fringe and extremist. There are libel laws, There are media watchdogs on both ends of the political spectrum. There are standard journalistic ethics such as those espoused by the Society of Professional Journalists. Just as no responsible journalist would publish the name of a rape victim unless consent were given, no media outlet the likes of the Wilington News Journal or USA Today would ever out someone or reveal a trans person's birth name without consent.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A reporter asks questions of many people and the editors assess the risk of publishing. Nowhere is a code they won’t print without consent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is, by the Society of Professional Journalists and standard, basic journalistic ethics. According to you, mainstream papers go around publishing the names of rape victims without consent. They do not. This is why.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we're talking about rape victims suddenly. But newspapers (including mainstream ones) have absolutely published trans peoples' deadnames without consent: . GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece in HuffPost reprinted from some website. It's not a neutral, objective news report about any purported systematic ethical breakdown of journalism. We're making the rape-victim name comparison since the only other editor here with an issue was making outrageous claims that journalists can publish anything they want without any legal or ethical restraint. That's false, and I was using one example to demonstrate this is false. If someone is starting out with a false premise, then his subsequent argument is unsupportable.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And the examples that HuffPost opinion piece uses are about two tragically deceased individuals. Once someone is murdered, it becomes a homicide issue with public-record police reports of the murder victim. There is no indication any mainstream press released the names while the individuals were alive.
 * As for the Daily Mail example, it's a notorious tabloid and not a responsible mainstream outlet; I believe Wikipedia doesn't even allow Daily Mail to be used as a citation. I specifically said tabloids, which are the dregs of mass communication, are not responsible journalistic sources. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet those tabloids are professional journalists and so real world harm. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But we're not talking about tabloids here, are we? We're talking about The News Journal and USA Today. We're talking about Newsday. We're talking about the venerable LGBT paper the Bay Area Reporter. All responsible newspapers.
 * I have the impression you are not here to improve Wikipedia but rather to pursue an agenda.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your bad faith accusations are equally unhelpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong? All the arguments you've made so far can apply to every single trans person with a Wikipedia profile — no matter how famous, no matter how big a public figure, no matter how RS the sources, no matter that the subject themselves has not requested anything of Wikipedia — even though we have birth names for everyone else and birth names are a biographical standard in any biography, in Wikipedia or elsewhere. That sounds like an agenda. In fact, it sounds like a crusade.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are wrong. Many articles don’t have birth names including of trans people. Some trans people aren’t openly so and their article mentions nothing of their Deadname life. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The main article outing her, Bay Area Reporter and Newsday, btw have the briefest possible mentions, was not The News Journal *and* USA Today, it was part of their network, and it was written by one of her old classmates who is now a writer for the paper. Chances are more likely he reported what he knew to be true and the newspaper knew it couldn’t be refuted. That’s how reporters work, within grey areas. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that these accusations of bad faith are not useful. There's no evidence of Gleeanon409 being some sort of SPA. I get that you do not agree with their stance, but that does not make their comments in bad faith. Let the RfC run its course, and stop questioning the motives of those who disagree with you when they are doing nothing wrong. We all want this article to be improved, in the end. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I never said they were an SPA, so please don't accuse me of something I never did. I said their arguments amount to never including a trans person's birth name in Wikipedia ever. I also did not say "The News Journal *and* USA Today" ... I said the Wilmington News Journal *or* USA Today" ... which is accurate: It's the News Journal syndicated online through the 'USA Today network, giving it a national reach.

RE: their "Chances are" speculation: That's all it is, Gleeanon409's personal speculation. And it's inaccurate: No journalist for a mainstream newspaper would ever' out a living trans person and give their birth name without permission. That would be a fireable breach of journalistic ethics. RE: "That’s how reporters work, within grey areas": I'm a journalist. Gleeanon409's statement is blatantly false. Our whole mission to to find and report black-and-white fact, as objectively as humanly possible. We absolutely do not "work within grey areas."

Having a difference of opinion is fine, even necessary, for Wikipedia to continually improve. But making demonstrably false statements, as two editors have done here, goes beyond that.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Peppermint herself wrote on deadnaming “This all the way. My Name is what I tell you it is. That's it. stop digging. If you use a Name OTHER than the one I tell you, you dont appear " clever" you appear out of touch.” Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good find! That seems to make her preferences pretty clear, and also appears to be the most recent statement from her on the subject. I also found an older comment from her in an interview: "She doesn’t use (or share) her birth name, she says, because that identity is behind her." GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That was clear all along and is not the issue here - nobody has proposed that the article should use her birth name to refer to her, and the current version calls her "Peppermint" throughout. Rather, it about mentioning the birth name (see use-mention distinction). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the tweet and the Metrosource article it's clear that Peppermint does not like her birth name to be used or mentioned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That alone is not determinative — lots of celebrities don't want their birthdates mentioned, or they give a false birthdate. Unless she contacts Wikipedia with a formal request, her comment is no different than that of a celebrity fudging their age. Subjects may contact Wikipedia, but they do not have veto power over everything this encyclopedia includes about them.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly we disagree on that point. It doesn't change my opinion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclude - per the subject's preference, I also saw that article yesterday in Metrosource, when researching for this RfC. And also, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I don't see her birth name being mentioned as an improvement to the article. Isaidnoway  (talk)  12:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you see birth names being mentioned in other biographies as an improvement, or would you remove them from all other articles? Birth names are a de facto important biographical fact. Removing it weakens an article. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on the article and the circumstances. Not every WP:BLP is the same. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad RfCs aren't decided by vote but on the nature and persuasiveness of the arguments pro and con. Here's what I see:
 * Exclude - It doesn't add anything of substance to the article to include that name. We know she is transgender and that is written about extensively in her article already. Wikipedia's policy is always to err on the side of respecting BLP's privacy in the case of contentious information. Peppermint has expressed herself that she views that name as contentious, as most people in the trans community do as well. cave (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude - If this was an important fact it wouldn't be so rarely found in RS.  Wikipedia is based primarily on RS and not editors personal assumptions of what should be relevant. There also seems to be evidence from Gleeanon409 that such inclusion could lead to WP:BIO issues. Rab V (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include Exclude. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but she was never notable under her deadname, it's not already widely known, and she's expressed a desire that it not be used. Thats good enough for me to exclude it. Yilloslime (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC) After reading addition opinions, in particular those of, and cogitating on this while jogging, I now think it should be mentioned. Her birth name is much more widely publicized then I had initially realized, and she is a very a public figure. I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where I'd err on side of not including a subject's birth name, but in this case it's already out there and Peppermint is too much of public figure. Yilloslime (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you may want to rethink that, the anon up may have made this entire thread TLDR but essentially Peppermint was never notable before she legally changed her name, and despite Blackkites’ assertion her deadname was not well known or publicized widely.And then we have the sadly callous idea that ‘her, deadnaming causes no harm until you can show me proof of what happened’; as if most victims want to or even document the creepy things that happened to them.Then the sad assertion that ‘her, what harm could possibly come from deadnaming on Wikipedia?’ The world’s number one source of free information seen everywhere. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Celebrities don't have veto power over pertinent, factual information in Wikipedia. Celebrities want to control their branding. Wikipedia isn't here to help celebrities burnish their brand.
 * 2) Birth names are pertinent for every other bio in Wikipedia. They're a basic part of any biography. If we're going to question why include a birth name, then that's an argument affecting all of Wikipedia.
 * 3) Any celebrity can tweet anything, depending on how they're feeling that day. Like a Trump tweet, it doesn't replace the process Wikipedia has for dealing with subjects' concerns. The celebrity or her management or assistant can avail themselves of this simple process. I disagree with those who want to circumvent that process. Why, then, have a process at all?
 * 4) There is no indication of harm whatsoever. Peppermint is as big and as popular as ever — a public figure, a television celebrity. This is not some private individual with a bio here because, for example, they're the CEO of a company and has fear of being outed.
 * 5) There has been no harm (and her popularity is high) though the name has been in wide RS sources like USA Today, IMDb (which is not useable on Wikipedia but in this case factually correct), and Newsday — as well as on Wikipedia for years and on LGBT sites and newspapers. No harm. That means we'd be removing pertinent, factual, information in order to help a celebrity's branding. That's not a good reason.
 * 6) MOS:MULTIPLENAMES allows birth names of trans individuals who have changed their names. They only must be notable under that name for it to appear in the lead. Otherwise, Wikipedia allows the name to be in the article body. If we're excluding the birth name of a high-profile, public individual with no harm issues and highly RS citing, then where would we not exclude it? If, as at least one editor appears to argue, we should never include it, then that's not a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS debate to be held at any one bio. This is something that affects Wikipedia overall: "We don't include it for Peppermint, so we can't include it for any other celebrity either."

Wikipedia's purpose is to help provide pertinent, factual information — for students writing theses, journalists checking the footnoted sources in order to be accurate and not "fake news", ordinary people wanting background on people influencing culture. Its purpose is not to write press releases where the celebrity tells us what to say. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've moved this comment up to adjoin your original comments; with it placed at the end of the conversation it appeared like a separate !vote in the RfC. Okay, I see your placing it at the end of the conversation is (bafflingly) intentional. But please AGF—I'm not editwarring or "tampering" with your edits, just trying to make it clear that you have already !voted and commented in this RfC (at length) above, and that this is not a separate argument.


 * To move the rest of my comment down: Peppermint is a celebrity, but she is still a human, and harm can be done to her beyond just to her brand. She does not wish her deadname to be mentioned, a common wish among trans people who find mentions of their birth names painful, and given that she is not notable under the name we should respect her wish for privacy. Your argument on this subject started out by saying that she did not care if her birth name was used, and now that it has become clear that she does, shifted to saying that she hasn't contacted Wikipedia directly, or now claiming baselessly that her opinions on the subject are inconsistent and based on "how she's feeling that day". Furthermore your attempts to make this about all biographies appears to be an attempt to delay the decision here. It's already been established in policy and precedent that birth names of trans people are a unique issue (see the Manning arbitration case and associated discussions)—that does not need to be relitigated. It's absurd to claim that removing the birth name of a trans woman from her article when she does not wish it to be used would require all birth names to be removed from all biographical articles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't believe someone who has commented as much as you have in his thread should castigate another editor for "comment[ing] in this RfC (at length)." I'm also disappointed in your bad-faith language, calling one of my points "baseless", another "absurd", or, especially, that another is "an attempt to delay the decision." That's false and I'm surprised at that accusation given your general civility up to then and the fact RfCs are generally up for 30 days to give enough editors time to comment. I am not delaying anything, and your suggestion of a decision's inevitability in your favor is neither fair nor accurate.
 * This is a legitimate point, coming from a journalist: Celebrities wish for lots of things not to be said, whether it's a name or their age. It is widely disseminated public information about a public figure. If we exclude pertinent content just because a celebrity tweets something (in this case an allusion and not even a direct statement), then why not do it for other celebrities? There's no harm here — yet an actor can argue that their real age being known can do them harm. So do we remove every actor's birthdate if they indicate they don't like it here? --65.78.8.103 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the length of your comments—the parenthetical was intended to refer to the fact that you have commented at length above, and so it would make sense for this comment to go up there. I do take issue with the misleading placement of this comment, though. I don't think it's appropriate to claim on Peppermint's behalf that no harm is being done here—we should err on the side of doing no harm, especially when deadnaming people is known to be harmful. As for birthdates, yes, we do sometimes remove birthdates from BLPs when people do not wish their DOBs to be public information. On the topic of long comments, though, I think I have responded to your primary arguments sufficiently and we are beginning to repeat them—I do not wish to make this RfC longer than it needs to be by going in circles. Hopefully others will continue to weigh in on this RfC in the coming weeks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming anything on anyone's behalf: I'm stating concrete facts. As I have been careful to say, there has been "no demonstrated harm" — this celebrity's career and popularity are as high as ever. And she has never claimed any harm by the mention in this Wikipedia article.
 * I don't know of any case where we've removed a celebrity's birthdate at their request. If you know of any example, please give it. Otherwise, you're making an unsupported claim.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's explicitly stated in WP:BLPPRIVACY, which I've repeatedly linked on this page. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. If you need a specific example, a quick search at WP:BLPN turns up plenty; Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) is the first example I came across. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All due respect, that actually supports my point: Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) made an OTRS request. Peppermint has not "complain[ed] about our inclusion" — she has neither filed an OTRS request nor ever even mentioned Wikipedia is any public forum that I can find. She certainly isn't "borderline notable" — she's a television and Broadway celebrity.
 * And this brings up a very serious point. The (straight) radio personality Elvis Duran doesn't like his birth name known, though it appears in broadcasting trade magazines. He doesn't even mention it in his memoirs. But he, too, has not made an OTRS request. Here's why this is serious: Is Wikipedia now going to start proactively deleting pertinent, accurate things from celebrities' articles that are allowed under policy/guidelines, even though the subject has never formally asked.
 * If that's your position, then this is a much broader issue than that of any one article. We're talking about a WP:BLP policy change, and this discussion would need to be move there.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This thread is long so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. There is the suggestion that we leave information deemed inappropriate in a BLP until the subject contacts Wikipedia to have it removed. In no way is that accurate, even for borderline information, the default is to remove it until it’s clear it should stay. As editors we are trusted to do no harm in decisions wether or not a BLP subject contacts the project. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a straw-man argument. In this instance, for this individual, there is no demonstrated harm here, and the subject is in no way claiming harm. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * False again. The clue that harm is being done is in the voluminous media reports on Deadnaming in general, and the trans women of color, in particular, face exponentially more transphobic violence including deadnaming. A further clue is Peppermint’s own comments on the subject. Now if you can prove there couldn’t be any damage I’d certainly be interested in that logic. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're asking someone to prove a negative? That's a bad-faith, discredited argument.
 * And you took exception to my suggestion you have an agenda. Yet in saying that "harm is being done ... [by] deadnaming in general", you're ineed pursuing the agenda I suggested you were pursuing, which is: Wikipedia should never give a trans person's birth name since it's harmful to everyone ... even when, as in this case, there's no demonstrable harm to one of the most popular and successful celebrities in her field. As I said, that's a Wikipedia-wide argument and not something for local consensus.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally, a "clue" is open to interpretation. The fact is, that tweet was commenting on someone else's case, and as far as I can see she has never stated, "No one can use my birth name" — which she could have said if she had wanted to. Nothing's stopping her. Perhaps she has more respect for facts than some may think.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * She does not talk about her former identity or use her deadname as “that identity is behind her”. I think she has spoken clear enough on the issue you seem to be litigating. I consider the issue resolved until and unless contradicting information from Peppermint arises. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're free to consider this any way you wish, for yourself. This RfC, however, is not decided until an admin closes it. RfCs are generally open for 30 day to allow enough editors time to comment.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * INCLUDE - include all names in proportion to the WEIGHT of coverage - drag name, real name, birth name. I see them in IMDB, Pinterest, hyperleap, newsday, delawareonline.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include because she was credited with her birth name in film, and the birth name was connected to her career in several reliable sources including gay-friendly Bay Area Reporter in 2018. A birth name is standard encyclopedic information, to be included in every case where it's reliable sourced unless a strong reason is shown to remove it. I don't see any strong reason. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice this, but the editor above is correct: She was credited onscreen as Kevin Moore in at least two TV programs: The Queens of Drag: NYC (Peppermint, credited as Kevin Moore) and CSI: NY episode "The Lying Game" (2007), playing Female Impersonator (credited as Kevin Moore).--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include per the current WP:BLPNAME policy: the article's subject is not "discussed primarily in terms of a single event", the birth name has "been widely disseminated" in published sources, and the name has not "been intentionally concealed". That the individual has disassociated from the name and considers it to be a former identity is not the same as requesting it be concealed, and in any case I am not convinced that, as a matter of policy, we would or should default to removing the published birth name of a public figure at his or her request. Regarding the claim that the information is not meaningful, I strenuously disagree. A person's birth name is basic biographical information, even in cases where a person no longer identifies with that name, legally changed his or her name, assumed an alias, etc. Finally, the assertion that including the name leads to "harm" has not been established, in my view. What harm, specifically, will result from including within the article information that is already publicly available? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I already voted, but I just wanted to add a reply to your good faith questions about harm. The argument that it causes harm stems from the fact that the name is of the incorrect gender, it has been demonstrated that publicizing these names has an emboldening effect on real world transphobic violence. Even though Peppermint has had a couple of (very minor) acting roles under that deadname, she didn't really break out into notoriety (Worthy of a Wikipedia article) until she was already out as trans woman, as Agnes. For this reason I think the deadname does not have very much relevance at all, and according to Wikipedia's policy on gender can indeed be a candidate for removal on basis of privacy, since respecting the integrity of a BLP takes precedence to discussing every minute detail about their life. I am adding to this comment some further reading material to substantiate the claim that including deadnames is harmful.     cave (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We've reached a middle-ground solution (see below) that I'm happy to say I devised, with a fellow editor then taking it to the next step. So now that we're winding down, I want to add from the perspective of a journalist that the term "deadname" is a deliberately emotional, obfuscating label, like "alt-right", and does the cause of objective accuracy far less good than the neutral "birth name of a transgender person" or "right-wing youth". --65.78.8.103 (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good job! I don't care much about the word deadname, call it "incorrect gender name" if you will. Apologies if I have offended. cave (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * cave, thank you for providing additional context. I think there is a substantive difference between not referring to someone by a former name (i.e., not using that name throughout the article) versus never mentioning a former name. The former respects a person's ability to choose their name whereas the latter is (self-)censorship. Regarding the question of harm, I did not see any evidence or demonstration of a link to violence within the sources (caveat: I could not view the WaPo article due to my adblocker), a couple of which I recognize as having poor editorial/journalistic standards. To be sure, they discuss "deadnaming" in a negative light, but unless I missed it, none offered evidence supporting a causal link. Finally, on the significance of a birth name, we may just have to agree to disagree: you appear to consider it a "minute detail" whereas I consider it basic biographical information—not defining, of course, given its malleability, but basic nonetheless. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include and wait for RfC period to end - To refer to someone's legal and/or former name in the context of it being a legal and/or formal name is the clear norm for BLPs and not "deadnaming," as the article still refers to the subject by her current/preferred name in compliance with MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. This guideline also makes clear that the legal and/or former name should not be used in the lead sentence, which is already the case for this article. Multiple external reliable sources as to the legal/former name makes the use of said name objective information suited for a BLP, clearly in compliance with WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:BLPPRIVACY. The idea that the mere mention of this objective information leads to "trans violence" is emotionally loaded and not made in good faith, nor is the use of "deadname" in this limited context. As mentioned above, celebrities do not have veto power over the substantive content of articles—see WP:COI. WP is not a social media platform or autobiographical tool. Map42892 (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Include MOS:CHANGEDNAME is a fine guide to apply here. WP:NOT applies to public relations as well. Hekerui (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude: It offers nothing to the article but mental anguish to Peppermint. Knowing this kind of personal information doesn’t benefit anyone so if the subject does not want it (and urged her fans on Twitter to remove it anytime they see it) why must we cause further pain and dysphoria for her? It’s just cruel and frankly shameful that this discussion even needs to be had. Also, while I will stop reverting (because I don’t want to be blocked) this will continue to happen until it’s removed permanently. Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that I've been in a Twitter DM exchange with her about this issue and she claims that she contacted all the sources used to find her old name and all say they got that information from Wikipedia so we may have a case of Circular Referencing on our hands. In any case, the articles have been revised to omit the information, so as they are currently sourced they would not actually have the information the source is trying to verify. Gagaluv1 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * She also told me that the name Agnes is "categorically false", she never went under that name.Gagaluv1 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclude The new evidence directly from Peppermint indicates that this fact causes direct harm to her, I think it's an appropriate discretion to apply a notability standard here. If the information were notable I would have no issue with it's inclusion. I simply don't see the encyclopedic value of non-notable deadnames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antisymmetricnoise (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  — Antisymmetricnoise (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Under other circumstances I could see how discretion could be argued despite the irrelevance of the subject's personal preference and notability to article content, i.e. WP: BLPPRIVACY and WP:NLISTITEM, respectively. However even if we applied a notability standard similar to those used under MOS:CHANGEDNAME for lead sentences, the subject's birth name is still credited in multiple films and a drag-related webseries, and inclusion of the birth name clearly passes the three-pronged harm test. It's reliably sourced, it's objective, it's basic information for a BLP that assists readers finding the page via those media appearances, and it doesn't cause harm except to the extent that the subject personally does not prefer using it. Map42892 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not reliably sourced though. All the articles got the information from Wikipedia in the first place. Her early film work is hardly relevant. Also who is anyone to determine how much something hurts someone? We can’t assume that it isn’t hurting her because it clearly does. And deadnaming hurts the entire trans community as well, it’s merely a tool for abuse.Gagaluv1 (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * would you mind explaining how mentioning her birth name once, in the context of her transition, is dead naming? Because I honestly don't see it. Admittedly, I am not an expert, and I am relying on our definition (at deadname), which may need to be updated? Yilloslime (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Deadnaming is referring to a trans person by their birth name, in any situation. The only times when it’s necessary is if the person was already famous prior to transition (i.e. Caitlyn Jenner) but that is not the case here.Gagaluv1 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also who is anyone to determine how much something hurts someone? Following that argument, i.e., of accepting every claim of "harm" or "hurt" at face value, then is there any information in a biography you would not remove if the subject of the article requested it? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Exclude: Omit mention of her birth name because of BLP harm and WP circular sourcing. She discussed the harm in a tweet directly about this WP discussion, so it clearly distresses her. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Include It is useful biographical data that may be useful for future generations. This is sources, and it is true, that fact she does not like it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong exclude per WP:BLP. I was neutral when this conversation began. Since then, however, Peppermint came out and strongly objected to her deadname being disseminated, People and USA Today removed the deadname from their articles, , and it came out that People, and possibly other sources, might've gotten the name from Wikipedia, creating a circular feedback loop . It is now clear that the name should be removed from the article.
 * What about the fact that Peppermint was, apparently, credited to her deadname in a few minor film/TV roles? This does not obligate us to include the name. Quite the opposite: film/TV credits are primary sources, and WP:BLPPRIMARY says to Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources in BLPs.
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY says that a potentially private name can be included if it has been been widely published by reliable sources, but that is not the case here: the vast majority of sources don't mention it. The policy also says that it can be included if it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Again not the case: Peppermint explicitly objects to the name being published.
 * Respecting the privacy and the humanity of living people is one of our most important obligations as editors. WP:BLP says that biographies of living people must take human dignity into account, that they require a high degree of sensitivity, and that they must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Omit In most articles, I would strongly support including an individual’s birth name, but there is a valid reason for not including Peppermint’s birth name. ~ HAL  333  03:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC vio
A redlink editor here violated WP:RfC by unilaterally inserting his own preferred version as if the RfC had already been ruled in his favor! That blatantly violates WP:RfC: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved."

If this recurs, it is grounds to initiate a WP:ANI.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was removing contested info due to BLP concerns.
 * You should definitely start an ANI complaint, I think they love Wikilawyering. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I just rolled this back to the last qausi-stable version, i.e. with her birthname and subsequent name. As these names are well sourced and already well known, and they have long been included in the article, the burdon of finding consensus is on those people wanting to remove them. Ergo, they should stay unless and until a consensus to remove them emerges, or wikipolicy changes. Yilloslime (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible solution amenable to both sides?
Peppermint is reachable through social media and probably her management. Perhaps an editor might want to contact her and send her a link to the OTRS noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard)?

This way, there's no speculation and no wider Wikipedia policy issues. She can make her exact wishes known. Or she may choose not to. This way, we're not being paternalistic and the choice will be hers and hers alone.

What do my fellow editors think? --65.78.8.103 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a good idea. I can see if I can find a way to contact her. Though this RfC should continue—if we can add Peppermint's explicit preference as a data point then that's great, but if she doesn't contact OTRS we should still find some consensus here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and sent an email to the email address in her Twitter bio, asking she please cc any reply to the OTRS queue. I also tweeted to her: . If I hear back from either I will post here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have heard back from Peppermint's management! I have asked them to forward the email to OTRS so any OTRS agent can verify it. In the meantime, they have clarified that Peppermint would like her deadname removed from this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, and thank you for your initiative. This avoids wider policy issues. I'm certainly onboard as soon as OTRS verifies — though as a journalist, I cannot respect her whitewashing and censorship; it's ironic and hypocritical. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a few questions related to this approach.
 * What would be the basis for removing this information in response to the subject's request?
 * Would we automatically accept any living person's request to remove his or her birth name or former name from an article?
 * If yes, then what other information would we also remove upon request?
 * If no, then what criteria are we using to say "no" to some people but not others?
 * I generally favor a presumption in favor of privacy, so I am not (yet) suggesting that it would be wrong to accede to the request, but I do think it would be wrong to treat article subjects inconsistently. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:TRANSNAME
 * No, not automatically, but we should certainly seriously consider it. If someone no longer uses the name, wishes the name to be removed, was never notable under the name, and the name is not widely reported in reliable sources (I know Peppermint's has been mentioned a few times in a handful of sources, but that is not "wide" IMO), it should be removed. Conversely, if the person was notable under the name, it should at least be mentioned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY does not directly contain guidance regarding names; instead, it points to WP:BLPNAMES, which does not support removal in this case. The article's subject is not "discussed primarily in terms of a single event", the birth name has "been ... disseminated" in published sources (we can reasonably disagree whether it has been widely disseminated, but I would consider multiple news sources and 27,000 Google hits to be "wide"), and the name has not "been intentionally concealed". WP:TRANSNAME is an essay, and should carry no special weight, and in any case it merely advises not mentioning the birth name in the lead sentence and excluding it altogether only in cases "where the prior name is known only as the result of being outed", neither of which applies here.
 * Personally, I find your criteria ("no longer uses the name, wishes the name to be removed, was never notable under the name, and the name is not widely reported in reliable sources") to be more compelling, and would probably support a broader policy along those lines, but disagree with your assessment of how "widely reported" the name is in this case. Out of curiosity, if it was up to you, would you apply these criteria to names only, or also to other biographical information? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest this entire exercise might have already been discussed by OTRS. Maybe we don’t need to relitigate it here? Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of re-litigating. OTRS is "not above English Wikipedia policies and do[es] not have any specific editorial control" (see Volunteer Response Team). This is, fundamentally, a discussion about the application of policy, and I do not see what would be gained by substituting a closed-door decision for a transparent discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to say this, but...slow down. Just becuase a subset of RfC participants may have come to an agreement among themselves, it does not negate or "overrule" the RfC. Yilloslime (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm pretty sure while an official ruling hasn't been reached, standard policy is to NOT display the contentious information about a BLP. cave (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , this does not fall under WP:BLPREMOVE, if that is what you're thinking. It is anything but poorly-sourced. I do not know if there is a consensus formed yet from the RFC, probably not. RFCs can run up to 30 days. Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the RFC finish. I suspect he's referring to the top of BLP "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."  However, the birth name seems not contentious in the sense of possibly untrue, and it is seen commonly enough in RS and social media to seem not super-private.   A simple Google shows me IMDb,  pinterest,  Newsday, flickr, yootube, delawareonline press, etcetera.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the birth name was used as her onscreen credit on national television. As far as BLP goes, the birth name is not contentious whatsoever in terms of it whether it is true and accurate. And it has caused no demonstrable harm to this famous and highly successful celebrity.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is zero evidence this has caused Peppermint no harm. Indeed she’s made a point to show how the practice is hurtful and that she has had to deal with it. That some feel we need to litigate proof of damages shows how tonedeaf they continue to be in the face of mounting concern on the real world harm deadnaming contributes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be an expert or to speak for anyone other than myself, but merely mentioning her birthname, as we do in this article, does not appear to constitute "deadnaming", at least according to the wikipedia definition of the term. Yilloslime (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is in fact deadnaming Peppermint by citing and publishing, on the world’s most referenced source of information, a name that is dead to her which she does not want to be associated with, it is a form of misgendering her thus invalidating her transition and gender identity. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an absurd claim. A birth name is a matter of record (i.e., a fact), and facts are neutral. While we can certainly debate whether a particular fact should or should not be included, the fact remains a fact irrespective of whether we choose to publish it. Our publication of the fact does not make it any more or less factual and, therefore, can have no bearing on how Peppermint identifies. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to this discussion that I have a feeling the term "contentious information" is being wikilawyered to mean "false information". Nobody here is arguing that the birthname is a lie, but the very fact that this is garnering this much discussion, that the subject has oficially stated she doesn't want it publicized, should make it clear that this information is contentious. So in that respect, we do have a guideline that says we should be conservative and err on the side of not publishing it, unless there is broad consensus to publish it, which we do not have. cave (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To which guideline are you referring? I've re-read WP:BLP a few times now, and I just can't find it. It's not WP:BLPREMOVE, since that is specifically limited to "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", and it can't be WP:BLPPRIVACY or WP:BLPNAMES since, as I outlined above to GorrilaWarfare, they do not support censoring the information in this case. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the template to the top of this talk page. It specifically mentions to give preference to the subject's wishes on how they wish to be named, even when sources might say otherwise. cave (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the template. However, you appear to be conflating two distinct issues: not referring to someone by a non-preferred pronoun, adjective, or gendered noun (which this article already complies with) versus never mentioning a former name. The former respects a person's request to be addressed or referred to in a particular manner now, whereas the latter is censorship of historical information. In other words, the template and MOS:IDENTITY do not apply to the question of whether or not to include a single mention of a former name. I ask you to self-revert and let the discussion conclude. Also... why did you revert my addition of portal links? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The portal links revert was a mistake, I meant to revert the addition of the incorrect gender name. I'll add the portal links back, but as for the name, I still believe it makes more sense to err on the side of caution and not display it unless the RfC consensus is reached to add it. Again the default when there is no consensus should be not NOT publicize contentious info on BLP pages. cave (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, emphatically. It's one thing to leave the information out for the duration of the RfC, but censorship of sourced information is not the default when there is no consensus. There needs to be consensus to remove the information, not to leave it in. If you claim otherwise, please point me to the policy or guideline that supports removing an article subject's former name based on the subject's request. As I've highlighted above, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:BLPNAMES do not support removal in this case; so far, the only one page I've seen that does is WP:TRANSNAME, which is merely an essay. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We have clearly different interpretations of the policy. FIY though, Peppermint has also recently tweeted she would also not like to be known as Agnes, so IP's edits are not disruptive, they are also according to policy, respecting the subject's self-identification. We should probably take Agnes out as well and just keep Peppermint. cave (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep referring to the policy, but you have yet to cite which one... So, again, which policy? With regard to Peppermint's tweet, we do not delete reliably sourced information solely based on an article subject's request. Respecting the subject's self-identification is a red herring: mentioning the fact of having a former name does not in any way deny the subject's ability to now self-identify however he or she chooses. If the article consistently used "Moore" when referring to the subject, your point would be valid; but it does not, and so it is not. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that there are thousands of BLPs on Wikipedia which contain well-sourced information that the subject would likely prefer to not be in there. We don't generally exclude info simply because the subject doesn't want it in there. Yilloslime (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Facts can cause harm, we all agree this is not a reason alone for them to be ommitted. On the other hand I don't see why a notability standard should not be held in cases where facts cause harm thereby elegantly minimising unnecessary harm. By that standard if the harmful fact was notable it's encyclopedic value would neccesitate inclusion, if not it would naturally not be included. Conversely not holding potentially harmful material to a notability standard projects the vibe of maximising harm unless proven otherwise. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of should or should not. Facts are not notable. A topic can be notable, but an individual fact is not. Therefore, as a concept, notability can be applied only to topics, not to individual facts. Please see Notability for more information. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't lie

 * née Agnes Moore — her birthname is definitively not "Agnes Moore" and we should not be claiming that it is by using "née"! Elizium23 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought née could be used for any former name, not just a birth name. I may be mistaken, though... In addition, I see now that the cited source uses "né", not "née", so maybe that would be more appropriate. I'm happy to self-revert per WP:BRD if "née" is wrong. Let me know. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that on dictionary.com. Wikipedia's entry specifies "at birth" which fits with the literal meaning of the term, "born". I have only seen it used for birth names, and surname before-married-name at that. Elizium23 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, please revert me then. I just realized I'm at 3RR, and I cannot in good conscience self-revert to a broken version. I would suggest either this version or this one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A criteria for notability of birth name
Sorry if this is not in the right place in the discussion, but I think mostly the source of conflict is that we're trying to determine whether Peppermint was notable enough under her birth name to warrant the inclusion of that name in the article, is that correct? I'd like to propose a thought exercise here. What happens if we only count the achievements made under her birth name? Would that be notable enough to deserve an article? I would say no. The achievements made under her birth name add up to a minor supporting character in TV and a local entertainer in her hometown. I'd personally say, if that wouldn't warrant an article on its own, it doesn't warrant inclusion in this article. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a criterion which is not necessary for inclusion in articles. I repeat myself over and over when people make this mistake. A fact or person or other item does not have to be notable to be mentioned in an article about something else. Let's not muddy the waters. Elizium23 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed BLP:LPNAME does not explicitly apply the full notability criterion to such names. However I think we can take a little advice in that editorial discretion around such privacy issues may be warranted, and that these names being generally allowed may not preclude situational privacy first editing. I don't think the proposition of a slightly higher privacy standard for deadnaming notability, especially attempting to propose a concrete guidline, is muddying the waters. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that misstates the issue/source of conflict. Notability, as a concept, applies to article topics or subjects, not to individual facts. A fact has to be verifiable, not independently notable, to be included. I would say the more fundamental sources of conflict are: 1) Should reliably sourced information be censored because it is not to the liking of an article's subject? 2) If a person no longer identifies with a name, we should not actively refer to them by that name. Should we also never mention that name even once? On both counts, current policy clearly says "No." -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with Not A Superhero, if Peppermint wasn't notable enough to warrant her own article on Wikipedia before she transitioned, there is no need to mention an incorrect gender name in her article whatsoever. It's not useful information to article readers, causes not just the subject but the entire trans community harm   , and the guideline that we should be following above all others is to preserve a BLPs integrity and privacy. The fact that this name is still up there, without any reason it needs to be disseminated besides "muh freedom of speech" is shameful. It is at times like these I am embarrassed by the Wikipedia community, who in my view is absolutely failing to keep up with the times on gender issues. cave (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, it truly is disgusting how little empathy people have and how they willfully misunderstand this issue.Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, to answer 's question: "the source of conflict is that we're trying to determine whether Peppermint was notable enough under her birth name to warrant the inclusion of that name in the article, is that correct?" No, that is not correct. No one is arguing that she was notable under that name. Secondly, I don't think notability under a prior name is relevant criterion for determining whether to mention the prior name. To use an example from MOS:DEADNAME, Bill de Blasio was not notable when he was known as Warren Wilhelm Jr., yet that name is nonetheless mentioned in the first sentence in the article. There might be good reason to treat some subjects differently, but it's not the simple notable-under-prior-name test that you propose. Yilloslime (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean Bill de Blasio is under the general section for changed names, further down and there is a further section entirely dedicated to transgender and non-binary people introduces the notability criterion. Is this the point you are trying to challenge here. The whole idea is that notability is a criterion, especially for BLP to avoid harm. Point 1 of the inclusion test for potentially harmful facts is a form of notability checkAntisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are talking past each other, but I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:HARM. Point 1 of the inclusion test is "Is the information already widely known?", and I would argue that is. I would also argue that the trans-specific part of MOS:DEADNAME ("In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name,") offers no useful guidance for the dispute at hand. (I brought up MOS:DEADNAME in my previous comment merely to demonstrate that a "notable-under-prior-name test" would not be a good criterion.) Finally, as I have repeatedly indicated, I think there are cases when we should err on the side of excluding potentially (or actually) harmful/unflattering/embarrassing/whatever material from a BLP. We need to look at things on a case-by-case basis and weigh the subject's privacy against our mission to serve our readers. The more famous the subject and the more well-known the information already is, the less weight I'd afford to privacy. And that's the case here. Yilloslime (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Three archived versions of sources that have since retracted the publication of her birth name, and a fourth source that may be a circular reference, do not strike me as "widely known". You have to dig pretty darn hard to find her birth name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to dig pretty darn hard to find her birth name. That's just not true. A simple search for peppermint rupaul "birth name" -wikipedia or peppermin rupaul "stage name" -wikipedia will easily provide it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of those results are false positives for RuPaul's birth name, which he still goes by outside of his mononymous stage personality. RuPaul is also not transgender. The few that do refer to Peppermint are either extremely unreliable sources, or are talking about the name "Agnes Moore". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. You and Antisymmetricnoise (below) are correct that many of the results are irrelevant or unreliable. That's not the issue, though. The search results (and other variations, such as peppermint transgender "real name" -wikipedia) merely serve to demonstrate that it is, in fact, fairly easy to find both "Kevin" and "Agnes" in relation to Peppermint. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first result is IMDB with the deadname for me, the second and third are false positives. The fourth result for me is a media source that explicitly refuses to give her birth name. I don't see much other than some basic actor list sites below that. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this as a good step forwards for finding a concrete criterion for deadname nptability issues. In the case of BLP in particular, non-notable deadnaming is a potential cause for harm through being a source of perpetuating outing as well as the direct disrespect to the subject. It this case strong presumption in favour of privacy is the kind thing to do. I also fail to see how a non-notable deadname has encyclopedic value in an article about someone whose entire article justifying notability occured under their new name.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, notability applies to topics, not information. Please see Notability. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't notability how we determine whether something is giving undue weight? For certain topics like fringe theory notability is used to balance the quantity and presentation of information in an article. The idea of applying it here is not the obvious but does seem like a reasonable proposal as an elegant scheme to naturally minimise uneccesary harm, preven BLPCOMPLAINTs before they occur, and avoid the clear trend of circular citations for deadnames. I think something needs to be done policywise and I agree with this suggestion. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, notability is not how we determine WP:DUE weight, but it is related. DUE and UNDUE weight are determined by coverage in all available RS. Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair, however in the case of BLP we have issues with circular citation for coverage and the time it takes to sort this is at odds with keeping BLP pages clean. I think a tend towards a less inclusive policy based on notability here is a good way of pre-empting such issues while losing no encyclopedic value. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the term "relevance" might better capture your meaning than "notability". Notability applies when deciding whether a topic should have its own article, and has nothing to do with including/excluding information within an article. Your argument seems to be that the fact of Peppermint's birth name is not relevant (out of scope) to this article. Of course, you have every right to hold this opinion and make this argument, but honestly it is quite extreme to argue that a person's birth name or former name is irrelevant in the context of his or her biography. Since "relevance" is often hard to define (one of the reasons we do not have a policy or guideline for it), we generally rely on verifiability to decide what facts are included, and in this case the name is definitely verifiable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Going on verifiability alone makes sense when the information is not controversial. But in this case when the article subject has explicitly objected to her birth name being included, I don't think verifiability alone is enough to warrant inclusion. We're kind of in uncharted waters here—there's not really much in policy that covers this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But in this case when the article subject has explicitly objected to her birth name being included, I don't think verifiability alone is enough to warrant inclusion. That's fair. As I suggested before, I might even agree with a policy to censor former names of BLPs who were not notable under the names and object to their inclusion. However, this should apply or not apply to all BLPs as a matter of broad consensus and policy, and neither just to transgender individuals nor haphazardly through local consensus. My struggle throughout this entire discussion is that the existing policy on the privacy of BLPs' names (WP:BLPNAME), simply put, does not support censoring Peppermint's former names unless one argues that multiple reliable sources does not constitute "widely disseminated". -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you. It would be great to get some sort of wider decision on this so this discussion doesn't have to happen any time someone asks for a previous name to be removed from an article. Though I think if we were to start a conversation at VPP or somewhere, it would be hard to separate it from this RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but in my experience VPP discussions tend to get messy/unfocused... I'd recommend starting the conversation at WT:BLP, maybe after this RfC concludes, to see if there is consensus for modifying WP:BLPNAME in this way. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's very fair that you mention a criterium of relevance as opposed to notability. Where I disagree with you is I believe it's not extreme at all to take the position that her deadname is not relevant, it's actually quite reasonable. The clue to that might be the overwhelming majority Peppermint's current coverage on mainstream media, even when outlets do write up a bio of her they also do not mention her incorrectly assigned gendered name, because these outlets have also deemed this information irrelevant (and potentially harmful). Currently we have handpicked a handful of sources that do mention her deadname, but as you know they are by no means the majority. You guys had to specifically Google for head deadname in order to find them. This is another clue. You keep just calling it a mere 'birth name', your main argument for keeping it in hangs on the stance that because it's a birth name it's basic biographical information and therefore it's unreasonable to want to redact it, but I feel like you are not considering that for trans people it is different because that name is of the incorrect gender. It is factual that she was assigned the wrong gender by her doctors and parents in her early life, it is not factual that that name ever reflected her actual gender, even pre-transition. Publicizing something like "Born John, Mary is a trans woman..." not only reads awkward, it can be confusing because it can be interpreted that that that person was a different gender or a different person earlier on, which is why I feel like Wikipedia's policy for respecting a subject's self-identification (as seen on top of this talk page) can and should be applied to previous names as well and not only pronouns, since a name of the incorrect gender also recalls a pronoun of the incorrect gender. An exception to that would be when failing to mention different gender names could potentially cause even more confusion (For instance Caitlyn Jenner, who was actually famous under previous name) But this is not the case for Peppermint whatsoever. Anecdotal, but still worth sharing I believe: I have personally been following her for a few years, and I only found out about these names from being involved in this wikipedia article a few weeks ago. I've seen her perform live, I am very interested in her, and it never really occurred to me to want to learn that, it's something that was assigned to her but it's obviously not who she is or was. Our role here at Wikipedia is to inform and to be objective, and that also includes knowing when to edit things out because there is information out there that even if it's verifiable causes more confusion (and dare I say drama to the Wikipedia project) than it adds to an article, and digging up trans people's incorrectly gendered previous names is an example of that. cave (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very well-argued comment, and I just wanted to note here that I agree with and second basically all of it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * cave: I don't want to (and we don't need to) get into a debate on transgender identity here, so I won't even argue with your debatable claims of what is or is not factual. Allow me, instead, to list a few points on which I think we both agree:
 * Opinion: An individual should be able to decide by what name they would like to be addressed, and Wikipedia should respect that decision.
 * Axiom: Name and gender are separable. Ex: Joey is a woman, not a man. If Joey rejects the name Joey and assumes the name Joe, she is still a woman and not transformed into a man by virtue of the new name. Ex: Jack is a man, not a woman. If Jack rejects the name Jack and assumes the name Jackie, he is still a man and not transformed into a woman by virtue of the new name.
 * Fact: Peppermint was named Kevin Moore at birth but no longer identifies with the birth name.
 * Fact: Peppermint no longer identifying with the birth name does not change the historical fact that Peppermint's name at birth was Kevin Moore.
 * Fact: The person known as "Peppermint" is the same person as the person known as "Kevin Moore".
 * If we agree on these, then statements like for trans people it is different because that name is of the incorrect gender, it is not factual that that name ever reflected her actual gender, and a name of the incorrect gender also recalls a pronoun of the incorrect gender make no sense.
 * Regarding Wikipedia's policy for respecting a subject's self-identification being applied to previous names as well and not only pronouns, I think you are conflating a form of address (e.g., I called you "cave" per your signature, this article refers to its subject as "Peppermint") with a statement of fact (e.g., your user name is "Eurocave", Peppermint's birth name was Kevin Moore). I can understand if you think the policy should cover both situations, but currently it does not—and that would be a discussion for WT:BLP. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon: Re: I don't want to (and we don't need to) get into a debate on transgender identity here. > This is at it's core a transgender specific issue, and it would go a long way in demonstrating good faith from your side if you were to address the above points (even if you disagree with them) and not just dismiss a message that took me a good amount of time to carefully and politely write up as something not worthy or relevant of getting into. cave (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to dismiss, merely to not get side-tracked. My response above addresses what I viewed to be the most salient points in your comment, but your request that I address the rest is fair and I shall do so within the next couple of days (to fit my work schedule). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * in response to your longish comment [|comment above]: you note that "the overwhelming majority Peppermint's current coverage on mainstream media, even when outlets do write up a bio of her they also do not mention her incorrectly assigned gendered name"--this is irrelevant. Apply this test just about any famous person who has changed their name for any reason, and you find that the overwhelming majority of person's current coverage on mainstream media does not mention their birth/maiden/legal name. (Think Madonna, the RZA, Michael Keaton, Elizabeth Warren, etc.) This info might be irrelevant for news items or profiles, but it standard pertainent information in an encycopedic biography. Later you write "An exception to [the redacting a trans person's name] would be when failing to mention different gender names could potentially cause even more confusion ... But this is not the case for Peppermint whatsoever." I'd argue that it is the case for Peppermint as she has been credited on screen under her birth name, and according to the comment below by gnu57, she has even said on screen on TV that her name is Kevin. Yilloslime (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of archived links
I see that the article is now relying heavily on the use of archived links to verify Peppermint's birth name, as the sources have retracted the name from the current versions. We should follow suit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * GW: other than the fact that you have argued for the information to be removed since the outset, why?
 * @Gleeanon409: A couple of points:
 * You stated: "Peppermint herself denies ever using the name ever if some media have printed it. Please gain consensus before reinserting it, we may be dealing with circular reporting of Wikipedia stated facts." Then try to demonstrate that it is circular. You do not get to claim that there "may" (or may not) be a problem, and then put the burden on others to prove that there is none (see proving a negative). Given this is a question of factual accuracy, I think it makes sense to temporarily omit the information until you have had an opportunity to demonstrate citogenesis. Peppermint's denial is, quite frankly, hard to reconcile with the sheer number of sources that mention "Agnes".
 * You removed three sources (1, 2, 3) but appear not to have checked the archive-url's included within each source. Support for either "Kevin", "Agnes", or both, is in all three sources; as such, I have restored them. If you disagree, please follow WP:BRD.
 * I also have a personal request: please spend a little more time to discuss your thoughts here, instead of explaining as you revert. If you'll indulge me in a half-serious comparison, what you're doing is analogous to President Trump explaining national policy as he is announcing it via tweets. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians dont't HAVE to make a talk page section for every new proposed change. At this point is seems like you are just auto-reversing every single improvement to this article, back to your personal preferred version? cave (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Every single improvement? You know very well that all of the contested edits are related to the removal of Peppermint's former names and the associated sources. Let's not be disingenuous. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon take a tour through this article’s history. Her alleged former/legal names have been edit warred since the very beginning. If someone edit wars it successfully onto the article it is then stated as basic fact for every lazy journalist who assumes such a basic fact must be true. Wikipedia reported her alleged names before any reliable sources did.
 * As for the sources? They have corrected and removed the deadnaming. It is doubling-down to then use an uncorrected version of a source just to deadname a trans woman against her wishes on the world’s encyclopedia.
 * Thus we only have one possibly reliable source, as it’s now quite suspect where they got the names from, supporting this contentious and contested information. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reported her alleged names before any reliable sources did. If confirmed, and assuming the sources cited in the article relied on Wikipedia, that would indeed be a problem. I wonder when the earliest mention of the name was in this article... I'll see if I can find it. I see this is being discussed further below, so I'll add further comments (if any) on this point there.
 * Thus we only have one possibly reliable source... As I noted to GorillaWarfare below, it depends on why the sources retracted the information. If they retracted it because they got the information from Wikipedia, then I agree with you. If, however, they are self-censoring, then it should not matter for us since Wikipedia is not censored. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I said why: if reliable news publications are retracting information that they have decided is unfit to publish, we should take a strong signal from them. It also sounds like there is circular referencing happening here (see this tweet, and the below section). GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you agree that it depends why they are retracting the information? Wikipedia not censored, whereas publications may choose to (and often do) self-censor. If that explains the retraction, then we definitely should not follow suit. If, however, this is a case of citogenesis, then I agree completely with you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that retraction because of citogenesis or because of a request not to deadname Peppermint is worth emulating. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you on the former (citogenesis) and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the latter, which is not supported by WP:BLP. It would be different if you were arguing to change WP:BLP to honor all BLPs' requests to retract their former names, but making single exceptions to the policy just leads to inconsistent treatment and favoritism for certain BLPs over others. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By calling it an "exception" to the BLP policy you're implying the BLP policy requires names to be included, which is not true. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point, "exception" is not the right word. The BLP policy does not support removing the name, but it also does not require the name to be included. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

, you just re-added bad sourcing, rolled back other article fixes, and cited this talk page without explaining why re-adding bad sources was best for the article. Given this section, and the one below which suggests all those sources relied on Wikipedia for the wrong names please consider reverting yourself. Please read the talk page RFC; you’re re-adding archive links on sources that have self-corrected. They got Peppermint’s alleged legal name(s) from...Wikipedia. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct difference between a) a newspaper's online article voluntarily deleting something as a courtesy to a hometown person and b) leaving it intact in the print edition without printing a correction. A voluntary courtesy — which is questionable as journalistic professionalism — is not the same as disavowing the print record with a correction. The Wilmington News Journal story remains, without any later correction notice, in bound volumes in libraries and archives. Facts is facts. Whitewashing and censorship is extremely serious business.
 * On an unrelated topic, Stan Lee was never notable as "Stanley Martin Lieber". Yet it's a stain on historical accuracy and on an encyclopedia's mission if Wikipedia were to use that an an excuse to delete "Stanley Martin Lieber" from Stan Lee's article.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was think something similar, too. A few online new sources recently revised articles to remove mentions of her birth name, but we don't know why: a) was the name erroneous, b) could it not be confirmed, or c) did they remove it out of deference to the subject at her request. An editor has asserted that it was b), but none of the revised articles actually say what prompted the removal. So I don't think we can use the fact that the articles were revised as evidence that her birth name is wrong. Yilloslime (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't know why the articles were revised, except for People which Peppermint said had sourced the information from Wikipedia. But we can't assume they others were revised solely because of option C—we should not rely on those archived sources to verify the information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Peppermint's Twitter account, as a WP:SPS, is not reliable for the claim about Wikipedia and People. Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting it be added to the article, I'm just mentioning here that that's the reason she gave. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies everywhere, even talk pages. And I don't see why we should give credence to a contentious claim about a third party from someone's Twitter account, just because it is found on a talk page instead of an article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ...what? People is not a living person, nor is using Wikipedia to research an article a "contentious claim". GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Where did either/both names come from?
Although not exhaustive, I have some preliminary findings. The Kevin name was added unsourced from the start and wasn’t contested until Peppermint came out as a trans woman on Drag Race. The Agnes name was also added by anons without sourcing and removed as such after being left on the article for a while. It was re-added with a source that has since corrected their article. It looks like the Agnes name came from Drag Race wiki fandom, unreliable unverifiable and anonymous. Both names were widely published by Wikipedia before any reliable source did, and have been edit warred over for the last 3-4 years.

The only name that is reliably sourced is her stage name. And possibly Angel, another stage name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I Agree with everything, just one observation is that it seems Peppermint claimed on her twitter that she doesn't consider Peppermint a stage name, just her name period, so I would refrain from calling "Peppermint" a stage name in the article, as it may also very well be her legal name. cave (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's readily apparent from her twitter posting that a) Peppermint doesn't want her birth name repeated, and b) the one and only name that she wants people to use is "Peppermint". On the other hand, she's hasn't actually stated, at least to my knowledge, that "Kevin Moore" is not her birth name. Nor has she stated that the idea she was once known as "Agnes Moore" is factually incorrect. She's just saying, don't use/repeat those names now, right? The tweets I'm talking about are, , , , and . Am I missing others? Yilloslime (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe she did state that Agnes was never her name. AFAICT it came from an anon on Drag Race fandom, and populated on Wikipedia and IMDB with no one questioning it. That’s part of the irony of all this, we were focused on her birth name but we were spreading two names. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that if we include these names, we need to get it right. If she has ever said that she never went by Agnes and the name is totally erroneous, then it would be great to have a link or citation. And what about her TV credits? According to IMDB and other sources (which may or may not be appropriate for using in an article, but OTOH aren't necessarily incorrect), she has been credited under both these names. While I can see wikipedia getting this kind of thing wrong, it's hard to imagine that the TV producers and networks would use these names erroneously. Yilloslime (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty sure IMDB is generally unreliable as it’s mostly crowdsourced. Edits are accepted unless obviously in error. So that leaves looking at sourcing about the cast but even whoever reps the production may have looked to Wikipedia for her legal name if they didn’t have it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Peppermint was credited as "Kevin 'Peppermint' Moore" in the 2006 film "Fur", seven years before this Wikipedia article was created. (I believe she is also credited as "Kevin Moore" in the 2005 short film "Beyond the Ladies Room Door" and a 2007 episode of CSI:NY, but could not verify this directly.) "Queens of Drag: NYC" includes a title card introducing her as "Kevin", and features her stating "My name is Peppermint ... I was born Kevin". ASCAP treats "Kevin Moore" as an alias of a "Kya Gina Moore", who is credited with composing a number of Peppermint's songs. Peppermint's talent agency published her acting resume under the name "Kya Moore". Regarding "Agnes", she said in 2019 "I never made it up or told it to anyone. So, the Internet kind of assigned it to me ... I am trying to get away from the idea that I need to have a 'non-drag' name." Cheers, gnu 57 13:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be good for the text to read something like "Born Kevin Moore and sometimes also credited as Agnes Moore or Kya Gina Moore,...." with the appropriate citations, etc. We could also add something about her recent statements that she only goes by Peppermint both on stage/screen and off, but we probably would need a secondary source for that, i.e. not simply cite her twitter postings. At any rate, it is a fact that she's been credited under the 3 names mentioned above in addition to the name Peppermint.Yilloslime (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let’s get support from the reliable sources notice board on whatever proposed sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

So let’s look at the re-added sources
Especially the second “legal” name, Agnes Moore, also added early in article history with no sourcing and both names have been edit-warred on and off since. Agnes is complete fiction, never being used by Peppermint, she actually has expressed no need for an offstage name. We need reasonably strong reliable sources to support “Born Kevin Moore”:


 * People, the present version has been amended to remove Kevin, Peppermint said People got the information from...Wikipedia, a circular reference.


 * USA Today, and Gay Italia , these references also have removed Kevin. All three of these rely on old archived versions to support the statement. It’s possible all three are WP:Circular references.


 * Newsday, and Bay Area Reporter both use Kevin and Agnes, Agnes is a completely fictional name with no connection to Peppermint besides her Wikipedia bio, so it's likely these two are also WP:Circular references. Neither source could have verified Agnes so it’s probable the same care went into verifying Kevin.
 * , this might be a self-published source(?), and certainly a primary source and only lists Kevin “Peppermint” Moore as a cast member, with no other information.

Is it just me or are these “sources” looking pretty damn weak for a BLP? Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your post directly above is essentially identical to your post over at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Rather than starting the same discussion in two different places, I think it'd be easier for everyone if you simply replaced (or hatted) the above with a link and invitation to particapte over a WP:RSN. Yilloslime (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s my hope that the editors here will actually refrain themselves from swaying the RSN in any direction allowing those specialists to knock down or support the concerns raised.
 * I’m alarmed at the sourcing we’re using but they may suggest I’m overreacting. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I didn’t get much response but the one main one concluded that all six of the sources we have are problematic for a BLP and likely should not be used. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked/possible COI issue
65.78.8.103 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. They might also have a COI issue, as another editor has contacted me claiming 65.78.8.103 is also the author of one of the key sources we’re presently using. Absent proof it’s hard to do much about that claim so I’ll follow up to see if it leads anywhere. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Third Opinion request
The Third Opinion request made in reference to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) for two independent reasons. First, only one dispute resolution process can be used at a time and an RFC is still open and pending on this dispute. Second, more than two editors are involved in this dispute and Third Opinions are available only when exactly two editors are invovled in the dispute. Once the RFC is closed, if dispute resolution is still needed, consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)