User:Tamzin/Disfavored name

Whenever possible, people should not be referred to by a name that they would object to. Accordingly, this guideline draws a distinction based on whether a name is disfavored. The most straightforward evidence that a name is disfavored is the subject saying so—for instance, "Cassius Clay is my slave name". Past names may also be presumed disfavored based on circumstance, such as a person who changes their name for reasons related to gender identity, to distance themself from their family of origin, or for safety reasons. This presumption may be rebutted by clear statements to the contrary. In cases of ambiguity as to whether a former name is disfavored, it should be assumed disfavored unless proven otherwise.

Nothing in this guideline supersedes WP:BLPPRIVACY. If a living person's former name has not been published in reliable sources (either secondary or by the subject), it may not be included anywhere on Wikipedia; violations should be reverted and reported to Oversight as personal information. Furthermore, even where a pre-notability former name is verifiable in reliable sources, it is not inherently due weight to include it in an article, particularly for low-profile individuals.

While the existence of a legal name change may be useful evidence in some cases to show that a name change is sincere, the absence of one is in no case an argument against the validity of a preferred personal name.

Article titles
A biography should usually be titled after the name that the subject is most often referred to by in recent English-language sources.

Exceptions include:
 * If most such sources refer to a living person by their personal name, but they have changed their personal name, their current personal name is preferred—and if the old name is disfavored must be used—even if most sources use an older name, provided that the name change is verified by reliable sources.Examples:
 * Jane Doe wins Olympic gold in track and field. Years later, she marries John Smith and takes his surname, as verified by a local news article. While most cited sources will say "Jane Doe", the article should probably use the surname "Smith".
 * Bob Adams is a minor child star. Long after he has left the limelight, he changes his surname to "Williams", saying in a Facebook post that his parents stole all of his earnings and he wants no connection to them. The article title must use the surname "Williams", as the old surname appears disfavored.
 * If most refer to a living person by their professional name, but they are known to prefer being referred to by their personal name (either in general, on Wikipedia, or in a set of contexts including Wikipedia), their personal name should usually be used. (A preference for one professional name over another should be taken into account in a titling decision, but there is not the same assumption that it will be honored, unless the old name is disfavored.)Examples:
 * A retired musician tweets, "Wikipedia still lists me by a silly name I used in my 20s. I'm a respected businessman now under my legal name, and would prefer that used." The article should probably be moved.
 * An active musician announces a rebranding from one stage name to another. While some weight will be given to this preference, the article will probably not be moved if she is still much better known by the old name.
 * An active musician changes from a feminine stage name to a masculine stage name as part of a gender transition. The old name is presumed disfavored and so the article should be moved.
 * An active musician announces that they have changed their name for all purposes, professional and personal. This should be treated akin to scenario 1.
 * Similar guidance applies for deceased persons who expressed similar preferences when alive, but more leeway may be granted in the face of posthumous sources clearly preferring a name someone used partway through life (e.g. Wallis Simpson, not Wallis, Duchess of Windsor). However, even with deceased people, disfavored names should generally not be used as article titles (e.g. Gloria Hemingway, not Gregory Hemingway).
 * If an organization changes its name for reasons related to an individual's name change (e.g. a music duo "Smith & Jones" becomes "Smith & Brown" upon the latter's marriage, or a business "John Doe & Son" becomes "John Doe & Daughter" upon the latter's gender transition), the guidance in this section applies there as well. (The former example would match scenario 2 in the stage name examples; the latter would match scenario 3.)
 * When there are multiple possible titles of roughly equal validity under this guideline, precedence should be given to the one preferred by the person in question, especially if they are currently alive.

Changed names
There are three key questions when a person has changed their name: whether to include their name in their biography; if so, how prominently to include their name in their biography's lede; and whether to use their past or current name in other articles.

Mentioning disfavored past names
If the name is disfavored and the person was not notable under it, it should be omitted in almost all cases. If the pre-notability name is not public knowledge, omission is strictly required by the oversight policy (see above). If someone is referenced in articles under such a name, do not connect it to their current name.

If they were notable under the name, include but minimize. In their article, consider omitting it from the lede and infobox unless they were particularly notable under it. If used in the lede, do so with a straightforward "born So-and-so" or "formerly So-and-so"; consider not boldfacing. In either case, include precisely once in the body of the article, at the point they first used the name, only mentioning the term, not using it: Smith was born Jane Smith in London in 1960; Jones took the surname Davis for several years in the 1990s during a marriage she later described as abusive. Otherwise refer to them by their current name. In other articles, refer to them by their current name; if this could cause confusion (for instance, because the article concerns a work that credited them under the past name), give the past name in a footnote or parenthetical.

Mentioning not-disfavored past names
If the name is not disfavored, but the person was not notable under it, treat the matter as a question of due weight. For a well-known figure whose pre-notability name change is discussed in reliable sources, e.g. Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, it will usually be appropriate to mention the previous name in the body and, if applicable, infobox, although usually not in the lede section. Where a pre-notability name change is a minor biographical fact, it often does not need to be mentioned, and for living lower-profile figures there is a presumption of omission on the basis of privacy.

If the name is not disfavored and the person was notable under it, include it in the lede, boldfaced.

Referring to someone by their past name
It is never appropriate to refer to someone by a disfavored past name in the encyclopedia's voice.

If someone has both disfavored and not-disfavored past names, use their current name throughout their biography (and throughout any other article that spans the time period in which they used the disfavored name) to avoid confusion and inconsitency. For instance, James Stephanie Sterling has the not-disfavored past name Jim Sterling but also a disfavored birth name; it would be confusing to call them James Stephanie Sterling when referring to their early life, switch to Jim Sterling at the point where they assume that name, and then switch back to James Stephanie when they change their name; instead, consistently use James Stephanie. (That said, in many cases this is made irrelevant by the Manual of Style's preference for referring to people by surname.)

Otherwise, whether to refer to someone, in the past, by their current name or a not-disfavored contemporaneous name, is a matter of editorial preference, to be resolved as any other stylistic matter. In general, the former approach works better for those whose earlier names are less well-known (e.g. Bill de Blasio), the latter for the converse (e.g. Charles III). In articles where a person is mentioned in passing, it is usually best to use a contemporaneous name, if not disfavored.