Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 173

Village pump (policy)/Archive 121 close
has closed Village pump (policy)/Archive 121. Here is Drmies' conclusion: "In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and 'retroactive' application of any 'new' gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as 'MOS:IDENTITY is rejected'--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation." Best, Cunard (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated. I was pinged for what apparently already is a support for the updated version: Talk:Jack Halberstam. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick and dirty count, which means I did not read the reasons for each oppose. This discussion is complicated by the fact that someone might have expressed support for one proposal or opposition to another but not both.
 * Option 1: In articles not about the subject, use the subject's presenting gender at the time of the relevant event; Option 2: Use only most recently announced gender; Option 3: mention both, recent name first; Option 4: mention both, recent name second; Option 5: case by case basis.
 * Option 1: 17 opposes out of 73 entries (one is crossed out, so not 74)
 * Option 2: 23 opposes out of about 27 entries
 * Option 3: 8 opposes out of about 24
 * Option 4: 10 opposes out of about 35
 * Option 5: primarily discussion
 * Here's something that's been in my head for a while. MOS:IDENTITY was written a while ago, and the political situation about trans men and trans women has become much clearer.  Could we consult a few LGBQT organizations (I know we've seen the style guides but few address this issue directly) and ask a bunch of trans individuals for their opinion on the matter?  One of the big concerns in this discussion was historical accuracy and a rejection of revisionism. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Highlights:

"Because 3 and 4 were presented later there are fewer editors who spoke out for them; this is perhaps unfortunate, though one could, in principle, pull out supporters of proposal 1 and figure out whether they support 3 or 4."

"the GLAAD guideline: 'Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns preferred....' The argument is made, and cited with approbation, that in this case Jenner's previous accomplishments are both newsworthy and pertinent."

"roughly 29 of the 51 supports for proposal 1 explicitly mention some aspect of Jenner's athletic achievement. Most single out the 1976 Olympics, etc., and a number of those say explicitly, in bold print"

"what finally points to the conclusion of the RfC, opposers align themselves with the unambiguous blanket statement currently in place in MOS:IDENTITY, whereas supporters squarely endorse the preservation of 'historic gender' in one shape or another (see proposal 4) for this individual case."

DrMies is clearly biased in favor of preferring trans individuals' most recent declared gender in most cases (and rightly so, says this bio-minded indiv.); we should keep that in mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , I do not agree with your closing this discussion, which I don't see as a "challenge". made some comments and highlighted a few points, which is not a challenge. Darkfrog, one or two things, though: I take issue with "DrMies is clearly biased in favor of preferring trans individuals' most recent declared gender in most cases". That bias is not mine; it is the opinion of most of those who opposed proposal 1, and most of those who supported proposal 1 did so on the basis of the athletic past of Jenner's. I assume the "bio-minded individual" is you: I'm not sure what it means, but I would never describe myself that way. What I read was a clear consensus for a guideline to edit the article for an exceptional case, but the discussion could not possibly determine whether that would be an exception to a law (MOS:IDENTITY), even if that sounds a bit paradoxical. One can subscribe to proposal 1 without having to endorse it as an exception to a rule; to which extent Jenner is seen as "exceptional" is a matter of degree, as the discussion indicated, and that extent depends on how strongly one agrees or disagrees with IDENTITY. It is for that reason that I think further tweaking of IDENTITY is important. Francis Schonken's and Darkfrog's recent modifications of IDENTITY are doing that in a manner that (at least at first glance) strikes me as in agreement with the discussion I closed.  As for where I stand, I will tell you that I do not like this tweak so much, since it seems like "gender identity" is used here in a non-fluid, monolithic, and essentializing way, but now I'm speaking not so much as an editor but more as a theorist; for practical purposes it probably doesn't make much of a difference. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Self-reverted intermediate close. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll be clearer. DrMies, your personal opinions seem to be consistent with the modern, progressive idea that trans men and women really are men and women, respectively, really were male and female throughout their lives, and that it really is best to use their preferred names and pronouns.  The fact that you closed a discussion and whose consensus was in opposition to your own views speaks well of you.  However, since you referred to "biological essentialism" in the negative, I felt the need to say that a person (myself) can believe that gender is primarily biological and also believe that it is best to take trans individuals at their word regarding whether they are male or female.  If anything, biological studies have proven them right. [post refactored by original poster] Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Darkfrog24, as was noted by me and others in the aforementioned WP:Village pump discussion, the experiences relating to transgender people's gender identity vary. Not all transgender people feel that they were always one gender. There's also the fact that the term transgender is sometimes used as an umbrella term to include genderqueer people and cross-dressers. As for biological studies, the verdict on the causes of transsexualism is still out, and enough scientists believe that there is more than one cause; the cause can be a nature and nurture matter instead of a nature vs. nurture matter, just like sexual orientation is generally believed by scientists these days to be a combination of both biology and environment (meaning not just womb environment). Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I think we should talk to some transgender organizations, find out what they think about this. Maybe some input would help us update MOS:IDENTITY.
 * My disdain for the use of "biological essentialism" comes from the assumption that everyone who takes a biological view of this matter thinks that trans men and women are making it up. I view this matter in biological terms and I don't think they're making it up, and that is largely because of the studies that have been performed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wording of new MOS:IDENTITY section on gender identity

 * While I agree with moving gender identity to its own subsection, the new text must stipulate that the individual's previous name is to be used only if it is relevant and not in general. I don't believe your wording establishes that.  I believe something like "If the person's previous presented gender is relevant to the subject of the article, then it is acceptable to use a previous name" would be best but that's not the only way to phrase it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "...the subject of the article..." – I'd say "...context...". Meaning: can be section or paragraph, doesn't need to be the article as a whole.
 * "...relevant to..." – not the right choice of words imho: it isn't about relevance, it's about style (manual of style): making sentences that are clear and don't raise more questions than they answer.
 * Also "...previous presented gender..." adds more complication than it solves: intersex people may not have a "previous", it may have been the first they chose (being modern as we are, I think the time that every intersex person was "forced" to choose a gender at a very young age may hopefully for the largest part be behind us); others may have presented as male, then female, then male again before ...etc. what is the "previous presented" of such person?
 * Also, we didn't have a large discussion, !vote, and finally someone who spent the time to read it all and write a conclusion to end up with vaguishness like "...it is acceptable...", imho it is clearly unacceptable to write unsatisfactory vaguishness like "Beate Schmidt ... sexually assaulted a number of people" at Rape in Germany. The MoS needs to be clear on that point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Context" is a little vague. How about "subject of the passage"? That would include whole articles and specific paragraphs.
 * I disagree. Telling people when and when not to do something is part of this style guide's job. "Only use the previous name if it is relevant" is the style instruction that we're trying to give.
 * I agree that "previous presented gender" is a little clunky. What we need to express is "the gender identity that the person presented to the world at the time of the event in question" (preferably more concisely than that). That's not always the name on the birth certificate, but it is most of the time. "A previous identity" leaves open the idea that there may have been more than one.  We could even just say "name."
 * Well we could do as Davis recommends, refine the RfC and run it again. One way to do that would be to work out a new wording and post it up for ratification.  Davis says, for example, that a lot of the early supporters of option 1 might have liked options 3 or 4, so we could give the community a few alternate wordings to choose between:
 * "It is acceptable to use a previous name if it is specifically relevant to the passage. but, where Bette Smith is a trans woman previously known as Bill Smith. Generally, however, it is not necessary to address changes in name or gender presentation."
 * vs
 * "It is acceptable to use a previous name if it is specifically relevant to the passage. Generally, however, it is not necessary to address changes in name or gender presentation."
 * vs
 * "It is acceptable to use a previous name if it is specifically relevant to the passage. . Generally, however, it is not necessary to address changes in name or gender presentation."
 * I'm feeling the need for an adverb in there... "highly relevant," "clearly relevant," "profoundly relevant," "unambiguously relevant" Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So much of this is article specific... in an article on the 1980 Olympics, the fact that Bill/Betty Smith had a subsequent gender change is really an irrelevant distraction. I would simply ignore it and just use "Bill" without even mentioning the name "Betty" (This is similar to the way we ignore the name "St. Petersberg" in our article Eastern Front (World War II) and only use the name "Leningrad"... historical context drives which names we use). In the article on Betty Smith, on the other hand, the gender change is highly relevant and should definitely not be ignored.  But... as far as names go... exactly how we "don't ignore it" will probably be different from person to person.  I don't think there is one single way to do it... and I think it is appropriate to treat the gender/name change differently in different articles (because there are different factors involved). It is appropriate to use old names in appropriate contexts... but determining what the appropriate contexts actually are is subject specific.  That makes it difficult to write "one-size-fits-all rules".  Instead we need to write very flexible guidance with lots of exceptions allowed. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter what we tell people, they'll treat whatever goes into the MoS as rules and not optional guidance, so let's just explicitly state that there's more than one way to do it:
 * "There are some cases in which it is acceptable to use a previous name: when the that name is specifically relevant to the passage. Where Bette Smith is a trans woman previously known as Bill Smith, it may be appropriate to say, (that Smith used to identify as male is highly relevant to an article about an all-male athletic event and that she currently identifies as female is not) or (no relevance; use preferred name and pronoun) or  (moderate relevance). These distinctions are highly subjective and should be considered carefully on a case-by-case basis." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or just have:
 * References to the person in other articles: Use the name and gender identity that fits best in the context of the article where the reference is made (principle of least surprise for the reader). When it is unclear which one suits better, default to the identity as defined for the main biography. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.
 * (1) shorter; (2) less vaguishness (except maybe for the use of the word "context" which is indeed the subjective appreciation that has to be made); (3) why add examples and (too) specific minutae (e.g. "previous", see above)?
 * Expanding on that last point: I think WP:Trans? is a better place to elaborate with examples that are specific for transgender people. At WP:IDENTITY I think it better to have a compact general formulation that applies as well to e.g. non-binary people. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that your version means. "Always use the name and gender identity most appropriate to the passage," but what we're trying to say is "Always use the most recent preferred name and pronoun except under these very specific circumstances." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "...we..." being pluralis maiestatis I suppose. I feel your version less conforming to the WP:VPP RfC outcome, or let's say less in line with the thrust of that RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. "We" being the consensus population of this talk page. The finding of that discussion was not to reject or replace MOS:IDENTITY but to allow an exception to it.  The new text should allow that exception to be applied to more than one article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, declaring consensus for your view before there is, which essentially is pluralis maiestatis.
 * No, the RfC wasn't talking about "exception" in this sense (apart from a few mentionings in the rejected option #2), none of it appearing in the closure statement.
 * For a good understanding, going to a person's most recent choice is generally regarded as the "exception", to e.g. the principle of using the most common name in the (whole set of) reliable sources. In some instances going back to the most common name is an exception to the exception... or: going back to Wikipedia's standard MO. I'd avoid "exception to the exception" setups for MOS guidance.
 * Also note that the RfC was about something that hadn't been regulated yet by the previous WP:IDENTITY versions: what to do about mentionings of people with more than one gender identity in other articles. Meaning: it is an addition to the guidance anyhow, not an "exception" to the previous wording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You're reading the wrong things into my words. If you're confused about what I meant, ask me.
 * This is what the closure statement says: "here is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article (emphasis closer's) ... Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected." The finding is that one article gets an exception. Even expanding this to apply to other articles that are like that article is a step away.
 * Actually, because the previous MOS:IDENTITY didn't say it was limited to only articles about the person in question, yes it did cover this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which led to a recommendation to find consensus for a WP:IDENTITY update. Nowhere implied that what by RfC was considered "normal" in the case of Jenner in the Olympics article should be framed as an "exception" in the updated guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a reexamination of MOS:IDENTITY was recommended, but that hasn't happened yet. In the meantime, we're at liberty to incorporate the exception recommended in that discussion into the existing rule.  Establishing phrasing for the existing consensus and finding a new one are two different discussions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going for a wording that could obtain the broadest possible consensus. My proposal is this:

Gender identity

 * Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in the article.
 * Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., she became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).


 * References to the person in other articles: Use the name and gender identity that fits best in the context of the article where the reference is made (principle of least surprise for the reader). When it is unclear which one suits better, default to the identity as defined for the main biography. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.

It is my feeling this is in line with the thrust of the WP:VPP RfC, as summarized by Drmies in the closing statement, and indeed taking both steps (current consensus + update proposal). let's hear from others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Between Francis's wording, and Darkfrog's wording, I would prefer Francis's ... While Darkfrog's version may reflect the LOCAL consensus of editors at this talk page (as expressed in previous talk page discussions), I think what Francis proposes better reflects the consensus of the broader community (as expressed in the RFC). Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should make it very clear that names and identities other than the person's most recent expressed identity should be used only when highly relevant to the passage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion on the matter... I disagree with it. More importantly, I think the broader community prefers a somewhat more flexible approach... closer to what Francis is saying than what you would wish. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Broader guideline for gender identity
The debate was initially between Option 1 and the straw dog of Option 2. Given that, I think the closer's suggestion that more discussion is needed before revising MOS:IDENTITY should be heeded, rather than diving in and making significant changes. In particular, I think it would be helpful to look at what a broader guideline could say, rather than jumping to adding a special new rule to the MOS that only applies to trans people, and not to anyone who is known by more than one name. For example, something like:
 * Where someone is known by more than one name, write in a way that conveys the name in use at the time while also informing the reader that they may know of the individual under a different name.

Examples could include "The trophy was won by Lew Alcindor (later known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)." Or "The play starred Cary Grant (billed as Archie Leach)."--Trystan (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all for following through with the suggestion that MOS:IDENTITY be reexamined, but for the present, I don't think the changes that FS made to the MoS are for the best.
 * Regarding such a new discussion, do you think the overall use of gender identity and the use of gender identity in articles not about the person be treated in one discussion or two? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of those is the conversation we should be having first. The missing foundational piece is "how do we refer in passing to people known by two names?", without singling out trans people known by two names.--Trystan (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But a trans person's situation is fundamentally different from that of, say Cassius Clay or of a woman who changes her name when she marries. Using "Clay" is not a rejection in the way that saying "he" for Caitlyn Jenner would be. It's not that the people are more or less important than anyone else; it's that the name change is different from other name changes.  Any RfC should at least address this idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be unique considerations that warrant creating a departure from the general guideline to create a specific guideline for trans people. But what is the general guideline?--Trystan (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The general MOS:IDENTITY rule reads "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." I guess you're asking whether we should stop making an exception for trans individuals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Er, no. That's not what I'm asking. Sorry, I'm not making myself clear. I think Francis' recent addition to MOS:IDENTITY was problematic and should be reverted. (I see this was .) The close of the RFC specifically says it isn't drawing conclusions beyond the specific case, and I think a broader discussion is needed about if a guideline is needed, and what it should be. If a guideline is needed, I think we should first look at the broader case of how to refer to people known by different names at different point in their lives, when referring to them at different points in their lives. I don't think that question is really addressed by the portion of MOS:IDENTITY you quoted.--Trystan (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we could use a more detailed guideline for the general case of people changing names. Maiden and married names are another common origin of difficult situations for the early parts of the biographies. However such guideline should be more nuanced than the current "use the more common name"; for example Manual of Style/Biographies provides contradictory advice on that point; Maiden names says use the "most commonly used name", and Changed names says "the name they were using at the time of the mention" (which is also an exception to MOS:IDENTITY not specific to transgenders, BTW).
 * Among both guidelines there seem to be three different criteria, and there's no consistent advice on how and when they should be used:
 * The most common name appearing in reliable sources.
 * The name by which the person themselves identify (as of "now").
 * The name that was most relevant at the time of the mention.
 * These three names are frequently different, and the guidelines are giving contradictory advice on which one(s) should be used. Diego (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We actually have two distinct (and yet overlapping) issues to wrestle with here... 1) how to refer to people known by different names at different points in their lives?... and 2) how to refer to people known by different genders at different points in their lives?
 * In some articles, the first issue is what drives the discussion, in others the second issue is what drives the discussion... and in yet others we are are confronted with a mix of the two. Not easy.  Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why !voted for "make sure that the reader is informed about the mess" option in the RfC... :-) Diego (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree... the question is HOW and WHERE to inform the reader about 'the mess' (as you put it). Sometimes, "the mess" isn't really relevant in the context of a specific article... and in those situations I think it can be omitted (or perhaps relegated to a foot note).  There certainly is no need to go extensively into Jenner's gender change a simple list of Olympic decathlon gold medalists...  the gender issue is an irrelevant distraction in that context.  So, in such an article, we can treat the entire issue as a simple name change... I would point to our article Boxing at the 1960 Summer Olympics and how we deal with the Cassius Clay---> Muhammad Ali name change (the article refers to him as Clay, but with a footnote to inform the reader of the subsequent name change). Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how I suggested that Jenner at 1976 Summer Olympics should be handled (a name and a footnote), yet many people opposed that solution. Diego (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies suggested that many of the people who contributed to the RfC early might have supported those options if they'd been available at the time. The way I see it, there are two issues here: 1) How should the MoS be changed right now to reflect the specific findings of this RfC (which is already complete)? 2) In what way should MOS:IDENTITY be revisited?  Which questions should we ask the wider Wikipeia community and how should those questions be phrased? (This has not yet happened.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. 1) I disagree the MOS needs an update "right now". Jenner in the Olympics article and Schmidt in the rapists article are safely covered by "[The MoS] ... will have occasional exceptions" as explained in the guideline template on top of the page, so rash action isn't necessary: when there's going to be an RfC better to wait for its results. I see no imminent danger that would make necessary to precipitate action before a solid consensus. Also, I don't see the closer of the RfC suggesting that the update of the MoS and a broader consultation of the community should necessarily be different. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Francis, you're the one who changed the MoS. I'm including "whether to keep FS's recent changes" under "what the MoS should say right now to reflect the findings of this RfC." (If you mean that you've changed your mind about those changes, then that's another matter.) As for IAR/occasional exceptions, my experience is that that's not useful in practice.  We shouldn't rely on it.  2) Here is where the closer expresses that the findings of this RfC are one thing and that a reassessment of MOS:IDENTITY is something else: "the application of proposal 1 to this article" (emphasis closer's). This usually means "but not to things other than this article." "And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY"; "Do NOT read this as 'MOS:IDENTITY is rejected' (emphasis closer's).  This shows that a) a decision was made to make an exception to MOS:IDENTITY for one specific article (and your changes expand that exception to cover other articles in the same situation, rightly so IMHO) and b) that MOS:IDENTITY itself should be reexamined but has not at this time been rejected.  And there's more in the full closing statement.  Do you at least see where I'm coming from now?  My overall point here is that we should 1) make a minor change or addition to MOS:IDENTITY for now, and then 2) prepare a wider review of the overall rule, and I brought it up because I think it'll be easier to do these things if we remember that the are two different things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I still feel my proposed update is good for a broad community consensus. If the choice is to go through RfC to check whether I'm right or wrong I'm fine with that. However, when there's an RfC coming up it would imho be counterproductive to try finetuning an "intermediate" solution. I don't agree with yours, you don't agree with mine, there's no immediate apparent consensus on an "intermediate" solution, so instead of losing time with that go for a broad consensus solution.
 * In the mean while the under discussion template is enough to guard off unilateral interpretation of the guidance in main namespace if another contentious gender change would turn up there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The following matrix contains the possibilities with respect to the above factors. Each cell may be a name different from the others, that could be potentially used at any particular sentence in any particular article.

(The "expressed gender" positions may guide usage of pronouns, choice of "father/mother", etc). Diego (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Does the issue of pronouns and similar gendered words really come up regularly outside of a person's main article? Absent a few concrete examples that show some guidance is required, I'm not convinced we need to address it in the MOS. It's easy enough to avoid pronouns in an entire article about someone; it would be trivially easy to do so when they are simply mentioned in another article. Focusing the issue on name changes (including those name changes which reflect a change in gender expression) might simplify the issue.--Trystan (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Adrian Lamo article spends several paragraphs on Lamo's interactions with Chelsea Manning and could plausibly use pronouns, but under the circumstances it manages (easily and unobtrusively, IMO) to avoid them outside of direct quotations. The Kris Jenner article discusses her marriages at enough length that it too could plausibly use pronouns, but currently doesn't. -sche (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Examples (broader guideline for gender identity)
From Eschatology: From Indian Water-lilies: From LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area: From Morning Has Broken: I propose to consider some practical examples like the ones above to get a better grip on the general point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life by Joseph Ratzinger. 1988 Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press ISBN 978-0-8132-1516-7.
 * 2) Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life by Pope Benedict XVI. 1988 Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press ISBN 978-0-8132-1516-7.
 * 3) Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life by Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI). 1988 Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press ISBN 978-0-8132-1516-7.
 * 4) Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life by Pope Benedict XVI (at the time Joseph Ratzinger). 1988 Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press ISBN 978-0-8132-1516-7.
 * 5) As #3 with the "later..." addition in a footnote
 * 1) The theme is based on one of the twelve stories in the book Los doce Cuentos maravillosos, written by Fabiola de Mora y Aragón in 1955 ...
 * 2) The theme is based on one of the twelve stories in the book Los doce Cuentos maravillosos, written by Queen Fabiola of Belgium in 1955 ...
 * 3) The theme is based on one of the twelve stories in the book Los doce Cuentos maravillosos, written by Fabiola de Mora y Aragón (later Queen Fabiola of Belgium) in 1955 ...
 * 4) The theme is based on one of the twelve stories in the book Los doce Cuentos maravillosos, written by Queen Fabiola of Belgium (at the time Fabiola de Mora y Aragón) in 1955 ...
 * 5) As #3 with the "later..." addition in a footnote
 * 1) Lesbian Maria Nys left Belgium before moving into literary circles like the Bloomsbury Group.
 * 2) Lesbian Maria Huxley left Belgium before moving into literary circles like the Bloomsbury Group.
 * 3) Lesbian Maria Nys, later Mrs. Aldous Huxley, left Belgium before moving into literary circles like the Bloomsbury Group.
 * 4) Lesbian Mrs. Aldous Huxley, at the time known as Maria Nys, left Belgium before moving into literary circles like the Bloomsbury Group.
 * 5) As #3 with the "later..." addition in a footnote
 * 1) Writing credit for "Morning Has Broken" has occasionally been erroneously attributed to Cat Stevens, who popularised the song abroad.
 * 2) Writing credit for "Morning Has Broken" has occasionally been erroneously attributed to Yusuf Islam, who popularised the song abroad.
 * 3) Writing credit for "Morning Has Broken" has occasionally been erroneously attributed to Cat Stevens (later Yusuf Islam), who popularised the song abroad.
 * 4) Writing credit for "Morning Has Broken" has occasionally been erroneously attributed to Yusuf Islam (at the time Cat Stevens), who popularised the song abroad.
 * 5) As #3 with the "later..." addition in a footnote
 * Film and television credits usually use the word "as" to denote a previous name: "Robbie Gee (as Robbie G)." That would do for the simple name-change cases. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think your examples 3 & 4 are the most accurate and clear, and in line with the general guideline I suggested at the top of this section.--Trystan (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, in articles where the person or their work is not the main topic and when the person was notable under an old name I think a guideline "use both names" is probably the most satifactory option. (We could leave it to people to decide case-by-case whether to do "Old (later New)" or "New (at the time Old)", because some people might feel like I do that a person adopting a regnal name is different from simply changing names like Cat Stevens, which is different from changing names like Laverne Cox. Trystan seems to have suggested the same thing: have the guideline be "use both names", without mandating one sequence for all cases.) As I wrote in the VP RFC, using both names is not my first choice for all cases, but it combines the benefits of using the current name (accomplishments are correctly attributed to people, rather than to strings of letters; readers familiar with the person only under the new name can recognize them; and in trans cases, readers who find misgendering / misnaming jarring will see that Wikipedia recognizes that the name change happened) with the perceived benefits of using the old name (readers familiar with the person only under the old name can recognize them; editors who want Wikipedia to report historical events using only information that was available at the time, e.g. reporting the winners of the Olympics the way a paper at the time would have, are mostly satisfied; etc). Using both names would be a compromise that would probably be more palatable to people who only wanted to use Name A than the option of only using Name B would be. -sche (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To tweak Trystan's wording in a way that I hope makes it less likely people will read it as suggesting a certain sequence:
 * If a person is known by more than one name, and is to be mentioned outside of the main article about them, write in a way that both conveys the name used at the time and informs the reader that they may know the person under a different name.
 * -sche (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing I want to know is what we have to wait for before closing this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on MOS:IDENTITY proposal
MOS:IDENTITY says that the only times we refer to a trans woman with male terms are direct quotations, titles of works (e.g. if there were a book titled "Bruce Jenner at the Olympics" that's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia would keep the title) and situations where the statement that the person is a trans woman is an unverified rumor per WP:VNT.

However, someone above is changing the rule. It still applies for articles on the person (e.g. for Caitlyn Jenner we keep the article at her name and limit male terms per the above paragraph) but for articles that feature the trans woman exclusive to before her body was changed with surgery we must use male terms and refer to the person as a cisgender man, ignoring the "respect transgender identities" rule. Any corrections?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. "someone above is changing the rule" – who? I followed WP:IDENTITY some time now, and its current talk page discussion, didn't see anyone propose anything near to the rule change you seem to imply. So please say who you're talking about, ping them, and continue the discussion preferably at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The person who closed the Village Pump discussion, Drmies, suggested revisiting MOS: IDENTITY, in part because the "use both names" options showed up too late for many of the participants to see them. After much thought, I'd do something like "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner)" with a wikilink for any confusion in, say, a list of participants in the 1976 Olympics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * &emsp;I like the idea of using "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner)" with a wikilink; and not exclusively for things like lists but also for any instance where it seems appropriate.
 * &emsp;But that still leaves the problem of pronouns.  To write something like "She won the gold medal in the men's decathlon" creates the absurd impression that female athletes competed in a men's event.  And to write "She was married to Chrystie Scott" sure makes it sound like Chrystie Scott was in a same-sex marriage.
 * &emsp;I know the MOS offers the suggestion: "Avoid confusing constructions (she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., (she became a parent)."  But that kind of linguistic acrobatics only goes so far.  Sooner or later we inevitably run into situations where we must either deviate from strict adherence to the MOS; or end up writing something either absurd or historically inaccurate or both.
 * &emsp;Concerning people who have undergone this transition, I'm as much in favor as anyone else of referring to them in the way they wish to be referred to.  But why does the MOS assume that how someone would wish to be referred to now is necessarily how they wish to be / should be  referred to in the past when their circumstances were very different?  What is the rationale for that guideline to begin with?
 * &emsp;I believe that 's suggestion of revisiting MOS:IDENTITY needs to be taken very seriously at this point.  I believe it's time to reevaluate consensus concerning this particular issue.  And not just in terms of how it applies to a particular article, or certain kinds of exceptions; I mean what it says and how it is applied in general.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The current guideline doesn't assume that is necessarily how someone would want to be referred to; it creates a rebuttable presumption. It sets the default while allowing for individual preference for some other usage.
 * The retroactivity is based on a presumption that coming out as trans involves revealing, rather than changing, one's gender identity. Similarly, we would generally not describe people who come out as gay as becoming gay, but as revealing something that was true all along. There are exceptions (in both cases), which the guideline allows for as noted above.
 * That said, we should always be clear. If someone's expressed gender at the time is relevant, it should be clear to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In retrospect I think my last posting placed too much emphasis on questioning the reason for the presumption made in WP:IDENTITY, and insufficiently discussed my primary concern which is the fact that the guideline is rigidly stated with no provisions for dealing with resulting statements that can sometimes be misleading, historically inaccurate, etc.  I think it would be better if the guideline read something like this (note the added language):
 * Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise; unless a rigid adherence to this guideline would lead to statements which are inconsistent or self-contradictory, confusing or misleading, absurd, or technically historically inaccurate.  In these rare cases, it may be necessary to discreetly make a brief reference to the person's previous gender identity.  In the rare cases when this is necessary, it should be done with the utmost respect and consideration for the person's preferences.  For example, "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner) married Chrystie Crownover" rather than  "Caitlyn Jenner married Chrystie Crownover"  or  "She married Chrystie Crownover."
 * This might be a bit long, but it could always be trimmed down a bit if necessary.  I am interested in what other editors have to say about this suggestion.
 * I have said this before, but it is worth saying again. We need to separate the issue of gender identity from the issue of NAME changes.  Stating "Chrystie Crownover married Bruce Jenner" does not negate Jenner's gender identity... a woman can be named "Bruce". Blueboar (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The terms "historically inaccurate" and "misleading" open an unnecessary can of worms, worms that sound like: "Oh there's no such thing as trans women! They're just men playing pretend.  No saying he was ever a her!" I'd go with  Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "a woman can be named 'Bruce'": actually, no, she can't, in many countries: in Germany, for example, the law requires names to be male- or female-specific, and requires men to have male names and women to have female names. Even in countries where a parent is allowed to name their daughter "Bruce", most names are gender-specific, and the argument that "Bruce" and "Caitlyn" are not gendered, and that the switch from one to the other is not part of the switch from one gender presentation to another, exceeds believability. -sche (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [insert]
 * Hello.
 * &emsp;With all due respect, I don't know what gave you the idea that I think "Oh there's no such thing as trans women!  They're just men playing pretend.  No saying he was ever a her!"  You seem to have somehow gotten that idea from my use of the terms "historically inaccurate" and "misleading."  I'm sorry if my wording was not sufficiently clear; but I assure you I do not hold the opinions you suggested I hold.
 * &emsp;We seem to agree that some change to the MOS is called for, but we seem to disagree on what would be appropriate wording, and perhaps to some degree, the purpose.  My main concern does center around the risk of something being misinterpreted, or something stated as fact which is technically incorrect.  I will provide two examples:
 * To state that the Olympic men's decathlon has, to date, ever been won by a woman (trans or otherwise) would be historically inaccurate.  In the Olympics women do not compete in men's events and vice versa.  And more specifically, the winner of the 1976 men's decathlon was, at the time of the victory, publicly gender identified as male.
 * When Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner married Chrystie Crownover, Jenner was publicly gender identified as male.  Of course I do not speak on behalf of Chrystie Crownover; but there are certainly some women who would be outraged if it were, under any circumstances, written about them that they had married a woman (trans or otherwise).
 * &emsp;The above two observations are examples of situations where, I believe, strictly adhering to the MOS in its current form could cause problems.  And events such as those are the reason I believe the MOS should be modified to allow (even encourage) clarification, when necessary, of a person's publicly identified gender at the time a particular event occurred.  If it's mainly the phraseology of my proposed change that you object to, how would you feel about changing the words
 * unless a rigid adherence to this guideline would lead to statements which are inconsistent or self-contradictory, confusing or misleading, absurd, or technically historically inaccurate.
 * to something like
 * unless a rigid adherence to this guideline would lead to statements which could be misconstrued, or cause people to draw incorrect conclusions about factual events. ?
 * &emsp;I'm not so much concerned with the exact wording of the MOS as I am about having the MOS allow editors a little latitude when these types of situations come up.  (Your own "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner) competed in the 1976 men's Olympics" is a perfect example of  the kind of clarification I'm talking about.)
 * &emsp;Please write back and let me know if we're at least on the same page.
 * &emsp;Please write back and let me know if we're at least on the same page.
 * I certainly don't mean that I thought you specifically believed that there's no such thing as trans women or that "historically inaccurate" means no referring to pre-transition trans men and women by their latest expressed gender identity. I mean that of all the people who'll use this MoS, there will be enough people who think that to be a problem, and we should use wording that is less likely to bring that out.
 * If a men's Olympic event was won by someone who later came out as a trans woman, then yes it was won by a woman, just a woman whom everyone thought to be a man at the time, and it is certainly not historically inaccurate to say so. Your second example is a little better, but I'd take out the word "factual." It is a fact that Jenner presented as male in 1976 and a fact that Jenner was not a cis man in 1976. "Factual" would raise issues about which of these facts is more relevant and important, and it's not necessary to do so.
 * Regardless of the philosophy behind it, I think we're on the same page about what we should tell the editors to do: "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)" or "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner)." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a completely different take... in an article on the 1976 Olympics, I would argue that mentioning Jenner's current identity would be an "unnecessary digression from the article's main purpose". In an article on the 1976 Olympics, Jenner's current name is an irrelevant factoid that does not need to be mentioned (even in a parenthetical).  We can simply say "The decathlon was won by Bruce Jenner"... and leave it to Jenner's Bio article (linked via redirect) to clarify the gender identity situation... One of the reasons we have redirects is so we don't have to write a parenthetical every time we write a name. Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern about that is whether referring to Jenner as Bruce Jenner could be construed as a denial or negation of Jenner's current expressed identity. I wouldn't be against consulting a transgender organization on this matter.  There has certainly been more attention paid to transgender issues in the past few years than when MOS:IDENTITY was written. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is that Caitlyn Jenner used the name Bruce Jenner at the time and was physically a man (which is, after all, the qualification for taking part in men's sporting events - it is therefore odd to say the event was won by a woman, since it's entirely the physical gender that matters in this context and not the gender identity). We simply do not use a name that was not used at the time. That's revisionism and has no place on an encyclopaedia in any context. People change their names all the time, sometimes as an expression of a new identity. It's irrelevant whether they're transgender or not - we use the name they used at the time. As Blueboar says, it's up to the article on the individual to explain further. The pronoun used may be a more sensitive issue; the name and the physical gender are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think using the name "Bruce" in a historical context is a denial or negation of Jenner's current expressed identity... using any historical name in a historical context is not a negation of a current names and identities... it's simply an acknowledgement of historical usage (For example, using the name "Leningrad" in a historical context is not a denial or negation of the city's current expressed identity as "St. Petersberg").  The article on the 1976 Olympics has nothing to do with Jenner's current identity.  The name "Bruce" is just that... a name.  There is no reason why a  women can't be named "Bruce" at one point in her life, and "Caitlyn" at a later point... so using "Bruce" can not deny or negate identity (and using "Caitlyn" does not affirm identity, because a man can be named "Caitlyn").  Identity has nothing to do with what name we use... When someone changes their name, we should simply use the name that fits the context.  Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that while the facts that Jenner was known as "Bruce" at the time, presented as male at the time, used male pronouns at the time and had male muscle distribution, body chemistry and lung capacity are not in dispute, the fact of whether or not Jenner was a man at the time is disputed.  Is it the leg muscles that make a man a man?  The genitalia?  The clothes and haircut?  Ideally, we'd set up the MoS so that it doesn't have to answer this question.  It'll just say "put the other name in parentheses" or "don't mention the other name but do wikilink to the current article."
 * There are a couple of issues with your suggestion too, Blueboar, but they're more technical. What about trans individuals who don't have articles to link to?  What about cases in which the person must be referred to with a gendered pronoun?  And I don't see why saying "He spent six years in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad)" or "The performers included Muhammad Ali (credited as Cassius Clay)" is a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I generally like
 * unless a rigid adherence to this guideline would lead to statements which are inconsistent or self-contradictory, confusing or misleading, absurd, or technically historically inaccurate.
 * But I can see some problems, as pointed out, certain transphobic or transphobicphobic individuals would misconstrue "historically inaccurate". I don't have a good suggestion....
 * However, in articles about athletic events (or beauty contests ), the person's then-name and (sometimes) then-reported gender is more important to the article than the person's current name and currently-reported gender. [Please feel free to correct compound adjectives in the previous sentence, without changing what I consider important to the article.]  In articles about performing arts, that is true, but to a lesser extent.  So we have the separate questions of "what is important to be included in the article" and "how should it be presented in the article".  I do not agree at all with Darkfrog24's proposed clarification: "In these rare cases, it may be necessary to discreetly make a brief reference to the person's previous gender identity." I don't agree that it's rare, and I don't agree that a brief reference to the person's current name or gender identity is always needed.
 * I should add, that not all contests require gender identification to be relevant. Winning the Academic Decathlon or the Putnam Exam should not require any gender identification, and I only have a mild preference toward using the then-name over the current name.
 * Unfortunately, as you can tell by the notes I've added to my own comments, I don't have a suggestion for writing a guideline which would describe what I have in mind in a way which is unlikely to be misconstrued. I have enough trouble describing what I have in mind in a way which is unlikely to be misconstrued.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * &emsp;There certainly are a lot of opinions on this subject!  And not all of them in agreement with each other.  But that's the purpose of discussions like this; to determine all the issues and considerations involved, and then identify some common ground on which at least most of those involved can agree.
 * &emsp;It seems that most if not all of us agree that, in situations where there is the potential for confusion or misinterpretation on the part of the reader, we could say something like what Darkfrog24 suggests: "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)" or "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner)." (Perhaps which form we use could be a function of whether the article is primarily about that actual person, or if the article is about something else with the person just a minor part of the article).  (Of course I'm not just talking about articles involving Jenner, but any articles that deal with this issue.)
 * &emsp;As I've previously written, I'm not extremely concerned with the exact language that appears in the modified part of the MOS; my main concern is that, however it's phrased, it gives editors the latitude they need to implement what we're discussing doing.  Perhaps the best way to handle the language itself would be to go with something general enough to be agreed on by all favoring the change, but not so general that it invites abuse.  Perhaps something like:
 * ......... unless a rigid adherence to this guideline would lead to statements which could be misconstrued, or cause people to draw incorrect conclusions.  In these cases, it may be necessary to discreetly make a brief reference to the person's previous name and/or gender identity.  For example, "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)" or "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner)." In cases when this is necessary, it should be done with the utmost respect and consideration for the person's preferences.
 * How does everyone feel about this, at least as a starting point?
 * It seems an improvement, but there are times when the current name is confusing and/or any gender identity is unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"And I don't see why saying "He spent six years in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad)" or "The performers included Muhammad Ali (credited as Cassius Clay)" is a problem". Really? You don't? It's a problem because it's revisionist (there was no such city as St Petersburg and no such person as Muhammad Ali at the times referred to) and is entirely unnecessary and undesirable to pepper every historical article with parenthesised notes just because names have changed. That's why we have links within Wikipedia - if people are interested they can click on the link and hey presto, the information is theirs. It's a completely different issue as to whether Jenner was actually a man or a woman at the time. But what is a fact is that there was no person called Caitlyn Jenner at the time; there was a person called Bruce Jenner who competed in men's sporting events as a publicly perceived man (whatever Jenner's personally perceived gender identity may have been at the time). Gender identity doesn't come into that simple fact and we shouldn't claim that it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [insert]
 * pinging:
 * &emsp;I understand what you're writing, Necrothesp, and to a large degree I agree with it.  But there are people who want no mention of any trans's new name or gender identification at all, and there are other people who want nothing but their new name/identifiction mentioned. I think you'll agree with me that the MOS needs changing.  And in order to obtain a consensus for change, it might be necessarily to be a bit flexible and willing to acccept something a little different from what you would ideally prefer. It's not my first preference either; but I'm willing to accept it as an improvement over the totally infiexible language the MOS currently dictates.
 * &emsp;If you don't like Darkfrog24's proposal, can you provide a counter proposal that will be likely to be acceptable to a majority of the editors who have contributed already?  One can cling to one's own first choice, but that's not the way consensuses are attained.
 * &emsp;(Also as a separate matter, not all articles even have wiki links that could be followed by the reader if he wanted more information.)
 * &emsp;Would it be possible for you and Darkfrog24 to come up with something bearable to both of you? If you can, I suspect it would be acceptable to most of the other editors.


 * (responding to all the proposed wordings, not just the most recent one:) We should avoid words like "absurd" (which is loaded/charged) and "inaccurate"/"incorrect": as demonstrated by the RFC, a sizeable number of people think it's correct to—and incorrect not to—attribute accomplishments to the flesh-and-blood people who accomplished them rather than to strings of letters, while other people have the opposite view, so using such wording would make it unclear what the guideline was prescribing. We should be careful about words like "confusing" and "misleading", bearing in mind that it's not just people who see a new name who might be confused: if people only know a man as "Current Name", and they know he won the 1985 Foobar, they'll be confused and mislead to read in an article on the event that "Unfamiliar Old Name" won; they may think their previous knowledge that "Current Name" won is incorrect, or that our article is inaccurate/incorrect (which sounds like an argument for using both names). (If the person is trans, there will additionally be people who find misnaming/misgendering them to be jarring/confusing and misleading and incorrect/inaccurate.) On a wordsmithing note, "This applies ..., unless the subject ...; unless..." with two "unless" clauses is ungainly. I suggest introducing the new wording like:
 * " ...preference otherwise. If this would..." (cause or lead to ...)
 * Here's my attempt at specific concise wording; take from it whatever seems useful:
 * ...preference otherwise. If this would cause readers to draw incorrect conclusions about might cause readers to misunderstand[?] another person or event, it may be necessary to make a brief reference to the person's previous identity; for example, "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner)" or "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)".
 * -sche (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Incorrect" could cause problems here. R brings up an interesting point about freedom.  We could start the new guideline very loose and then narrow it down as needed. "...preference otherwise.  In some cases, it may be best to make a brief reference to the person's previous identity, as in "Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski)" or "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * good point re 'incorrect' causing problems even in that wording -sche (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All of these concerns are resolved by judicious use of redirects... a reader, seeing the name Bruce Jenner in one of our articles on the 1976 Olympics can click on the link, and be taken to the article entitled Caitlyn Jenner... any momentary confusion over the difference in name will be explained in the first sentence or two of the bio article. This is how it works for every other name change, in every other historical context ... and I see no reason to do things differently in this context.  There is no need to include a nod to Jenner's current gender identity in an article on the 1976 Olympics...because her current gender identification is an irrelevant distraction in the context of the 1976 Olympics.  Using a historical name in a historical context does not deny or negate her current identity... her current identity would still predominate at the Caitlyn Jenner bio article... I am simply saying that it is an irrelevant distraction in the context of one of the 1976 Olympics articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. The facts at that time are what are important, not the facts at this time. Names change all the time and that usually has nothing to do with being transgender - there's no pressing need to make a special exception in these circumstances. The medal was won by Bruce Jenner, not Caitlyn Jenner. The film was made by Larry Wachowski, not Lana Wachowski. That's making no judgement about their gender identities. It's simply recording the names they used at the time, just as we would for anyone else who later changed their name (e.g. the title was won by Cassius Clay, not Muhammad Ali). Within their own biographical articles this may be more of an issue; within articles that just mention them it is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Necro, saying "The medal was won by Bruce Jenner; there was no Caitlyn" is a negation of the idea "She was always Caitlyn and merely believed to be Bruce." The film was made by Lana Wachowski; she was just going by "Larry" at the time.
 * Blueboar, I see your point about wikilinking, but what about gendered pronouns and individuals who don't have their own articles?
 * So before any part of the MoS gets changed, we'd probably have a village pump thread about it. Going by what Drmies said when he or she closed the last one, it's important to offer the participants the right range of options, so we should all work out how to phrase things together before it goes up.  Safe to say that that the position that you two hold can be written, "When mentioning individuals whose gender might be questioned in articles of which they are not the principal subject, list only the name that the person was using at the time immediately relevant to the article"?  How would you work pronouns into this?  Where I would say, "The film was directed by Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski).  She thanked the actors for their help" or "Bruce (now Caitlyn) Jenner won a medal.  Years later, she said she had always been planning to move on," what would you say? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirects from old names to current names are only possible in the limited number of cases where the person is notable enough for their own article, and even there they are WP:EASTEREGGs which require readers who are only familiar with someone under their current name to follow the links before understanding what's going on. Redirects are inadequate in cases where pronouns are used, and they're not feasible where the person has no article (e.g. the not-independently/sufficiently-notable spouse of a notable artist, who served as the artist's muse and might therefore be discussed at enough length that pronouns come up). We should try to write a guideline that is able to resolve as many cases as possible. Are there cases where brief, visible (rather than EASTEREGGy) mention of both the name younger readers will know someone by and the name older readers will know them by would be inadequate to alleviate confusion? -sche (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. It would strike me as very odd if the Siege of Leningrad article didn't mention in the lead that the city is also known as Saint Petersburg. Referring to Cassius Clay, Tiziano Vecelli, or Jorge Bergoglio solely by those names is not a clear or informative way to write. A reader can only click on a tiny fraction of the links they see, and would have no particular reason to do so in these cases - they don't know what they don't know. Linking helps connect different bits of knowledge together, but it doesn't replace the need for the text itself to be clear. The name in use for a person or place at the time is vital information, but if there is a second widely-known name, leaving it out trades a small amount of brevity for a large amount of obfuscation.--Trystan (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Necro, saying "The medal was won by Bruce Jenner; there was no Caitlyn" is a negation of the idea "She was always Caitlyn and merely believed to be Bruce." The film was made by Lana Wachowski; she was just going by "Larry" at the time." Sorry, but this is utter and complete rubbish. A name does not reflect a gender identity. It's just a name. At the time Jenner's name was Bruce, not Caitlyn. That fact wouldn't change whether Jenner was male or female. You've got to stop this thinking that a name and a gender identity have any correlation; they do not. Anybody can change their name. If John Smith changes his name to John Jones then things he did as John Smith were not suddenly done by John Jones instead. It's just a name. It makes no difference whatsoever whether that person is transgender or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * &emsp;(This is in response to all contributions made since my last contribution.):
 * As you've probably noticed I do most of my editing overnight (because that's when I have the time to organize my thoughts and opinions and put them into writing). And I do plan to be doing so tonight.  Since my time this afternoon is limited, I'll just comment on one point for now and make my other comments later. And that point is I feel we need to be focusing on a MOS change that will cover all articles where this issue could come up.  A solution that only covers articles which are primarily about something other than the trans is a solution that only covers the issue in certain limited circumstances.  I believe we should be thinking in terms of a MOS change that will cover all of the cases where this issue could be a factor.  (Please note that that solution covering all trans-related situations could end up containing two different guidelines for two different types of cases.)
 * &emsp;I'll be back later (overnight) with the rest of my comments and suggestions.
 * I think it would be better to ask the questions separately. Even if they are asked at the same time, they should be in different threads.  Putting too many questions in the same RfC tends to cause confusion. "How should the MoS instruct users to refer to transgender individuals in articles about themselves?" and "How should the MoS instruct users to refer to transgender individuals in articles not about themselves?" should be two separate RfCs/proposals.  The last RfC showed that people's opinions of this matter can differ significantly depending on these types of circumstances. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;Although we agree on most points of this discussion, I cannot agree with the idea of splitting it into two separate threads.  But first let me review the points on which I believe we do agree:
 * &emsp;The current MOS guideline on how to refer to trans's is too restrictive and needs to be modified.  There are cases where following the current guideline could result in readers misunderstanding or misinterpreting what is being said; and in those cases it may be necessary to briefly refer to the person's past name and/or past gender identity.  This issue can be broken down into two cases: the case where the article is actually about the person, and the case where the article is about something else and the person is just mentioned in passing; and these cases may each require a different guideline.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we agree on these things.
 * &emsp;I respectfully must disagree with the proposal that these two cases should be split and handled as separate threads, for multiple reasons.  I believe that if that were to be done, it would be likely that some editors would stumble onto one of the threads and believe that it represented the whole issue.  Editors could (and probably would) end up making comments in one thread that belong in the other thread.  Also if one case (thread) is resolved first, people may well (incorrectly) assume that the whole issue was resolved, and that could make it more difficult to get the other case resolved.  I believe that these two cases are really just two different manifestations of the same basic issue, and that the best way to insure that they are seen as such and dealt with as such would be to keep them in the same thread.
 * &emsp;Even though we may disagree on that one point, I believe we can consider ourselves to be basically in the same "camp."
 * Richard27182 (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This posting is directed equally at all participants of this discussion:
 * &emsp;I believe the main reason this long discussion does not seem to be going anywhere is the fact that there has been too much focusing on how our individual opinions differ, and not enough looking for common ground.  I realize that some of the opinions expressed are in fundamental opposition to each other.  But many of our opinions differ in ways that are negligible, or at least not all that significant.  I believe the discussion could benefit greatly if we could consolidate our opinions into maybe three or four basic opinions such that most editors could identify with one of them.  (We may be closer than we think to consensus or at least being ready to move ahead to opening an RfC.)
 * &emsp;For the record, here is my basic fundamental opinion:
 * The current MOS guideline on how to refer to trans's is too restrictive and needs to be modified because there are cases where the constraints of the current guideline could result in readers misunderstanding or misinterpreting what has been written; and in those cases it may be necessary to briefly refer to the person's past name and/or past gender identity.  The specifics of exactly what wording should be used are a relatively minor detail and should not be too difficult to work out.
 * I invite each editor to either endorse my basic fundamental opinion, or endorse another editor's basic fundamental opinion, or state their own.  The idea is to get to the point where there are only a few basic opinions being discussed.  And at that point if we can't reach a consensus we'll at least be ready to open an RfC.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The result I would like to see...
 * In a brief mention or "raw" list, it should be something like "Bruce (now Caitlyn) Jenner, although Bruce Jenner might be sufficient in some cases. Providing the current name first seems undue.  I agree that the current (or primary) name (Cat Stevens) may need to be mentioned if Wikilinks are unavailable or likely to become unavailable, and it rarely hurts the reader.
 * In a passing mention, both names should be used, particularly if a pronoun needs to be used. (Pronouns should be avoided if confusing.) The order seems less significant.
 * In an article about the person (this includes subarticles, such as Works of Theodore Sturgeon), a reader should be able to determine both the current name and the name or pseudonym relevant to a particular section, but I'm not sure what needs to be said. But something needs to be said, and the MOS for biographies is inconsistent.
 * The value of "brief mention" should depend on whether the entire mention is brief.
 * As an aside, "fathered" and "bore" (sp?) have biological context which should not be replaced by a gender-neutral term, even if jarring. That part of MOS:IDENTITY needs more work.  But that's a separate issue, which probably does not need to be dealt with in this thread or proposed RfC.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have here in this moving target of a discussion, is the trans advocates want a declaration in wikipedia's voice that anybody who transitions to a new gender always was of the new gender. They label anybody with an opposing opinion as a bigot. Perhaps psychologically since their group has a history of being bullied and dismissed that now they have a wave of public support, they are using that to reverse bully any opinion that does not agree with theirs. And seriously, it didn't present a problem until we have individuals with notable public accomplishments as one gender and one name, but now they represent themselves under a different name and gender. Jenner's 45 year, highly public profile as Bruce Jenner is the obvious example. I'm involved because I wrote much of the article before gender was ever a factor, or anybody even cared, I do know this history better than most because I was one of the guys in the lanes next to Jenner when he represented himself as a man to compete in Men's Decathlon events in the early 1970's.  I see Jenner's history, that I have followed ever since, wiped out into, at times, something completely unrecognizable. She never did anything in the 1970's, through early 2015. All accomplishments, credits and riches were achieved as Bruce Jenner. The name Caitlyn was invented in 2015. And seriously, if the transition had occurred publicly in say, 1975, a lot of the subsequent events would never have happened because of the attitude of society at the time. But facts are facts, they are documented in what wikipedia calls sources. But to serve this group of advocates and to be politically correct, we are to ignore all of that and use wikipedia's voice to declare that this person has always been a female since the doctor saw the penis and "mis-gendered" her as a male. And you wonder why there is opposition and confusion? There is a great deal that can be said in expressing their opinions, but they are just opinions. Take some paragraphs to explain them. But to spread this opinion in direct opposition to the historical facts, in the wikipedia voice, throughout the article and across hundreds of other articles turns against wikipedia's credibility. Look at all these sources reporting an accomplishment by Bruce, but wikipedia says it was done by Caitlyn. We have policies on sourcing. They work across every platform, except this one clause inserted into the MOS from a discussion by a little over a dozen editors and a flood of IP advocates. Now we are stuck with it? This should be changed to stay consistent with other wikipedia policies. Trackinfo (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;Your posting is well written and makes some very good points. If I may, I would like to make the suggestion that you sum it up in a few sentences (specifically how you would like the relevant section of MOS:IDENTITY to read), and post it as your basic fundamental opinion, as Arthur Rubin and I have done.  If you do that then your opinion will be available for other editors to "endorse."  Your posting is fine as a general posting and expression of all your feelings; but it's a bit too long and contains too much extra information to be considered as a basic fundamental opinion that other editors could "endorse."  (I'll admit Arthur Rubin's is a bit longer than I had in mind when I made the suggestion.)
 * &emsp;Just between you and me (I know it's not really just between you and me because this is a totally public forum), I actually agree with practically everything you wrote. In these discussions, it often comes down to choosing whether to support your actual first choice, or something that you can more or less live with and that has a chance of actually prevailing.  (Kind of like my voting Republican when I'm actually a Libertarian.)  Anyway thanks for your participation.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Core questions: a) Given that we have redirects, what is the purpose of mentioning someone's current name within the context of an article about a historical event such as the 1976 Olympics? b) How is her current gender identity relevant in the context of that historically focused article?  Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because for any given article, the reader is only going to click on a tiny fraction of the links provided. If I come across the unfamiliar names Lew Alcindor, Yeshua ben Nazareth, or Norma Jeane Mortenson, I shouldn't have to click on a link to learn that I actually do know who those people are. The identity of the people, places, and things being described is fundamental information the article needs to convey on its face, and that means making explicit connections to the names the reader may know them by. Conveying the name in use at the time is also vital, but it isn't hard to do both.--Trystan (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that we should be required to add a parenthetical any time there has been a name change? That we should do this any time we mention a "former" name (even in passing)... regardless of the reason for the name change?.
 * That would require a more substantial change to both practice and guidance, and I am not sure I would completely agree with it (I don't think it at all onerous to click on a link when I don't recognize a name) ... but at least your idea would give us consistent guidance  - something we could apply to all name changes, regardless of the reason for the name change. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say always; there are few absolute rules in the MOS. But yes, I would say generally it is helpful to make connections to common, current names for the reader in a way that is explicit. The lead for Siege of Leningrad is a good example of what I mean.--Trystan (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK... so in what types of situations would you consider making an exception and not mention the new name along side the former name? Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on MOS:IDENTITY proposal, cont.
(This is not a new section. I just added this label to make further editing of this page more convenient (especially for those of us who must hand scroll through the entire section using a touchscreen.)) Richard27182 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the previous RFC had two main flaws. First, it didn't provide some key alternatives from the beginning; they were added after a large number of people had already commented. This discussion about how to formulate an RFC seems on-track to avoid repeating that mistake.
 * Second, it didn't discuss specific changes to the guideline in the form of the actual wording being proposed. Doing so would make it clear to RFC participants what they are supporting, and clear to the closer what is to be done. Drmies did an admirable job of sorting through a lot of chaos last time, and I don't think it's fair to ask another closer to do the same. As for my view, it would be to add the following text to the main portion of MOS:IDENTITY (i.e., it would be a general guideline that applies to more than just trans individuals.)
 * Where a person, place, or thing is known by more than one name, write in a way that conveys the name in use at the time being discussed while also informing the reader that they may know of the person, place, or thing by a different name.
 * I think the remaining wording is generally fine, but would support taking out the example "(she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., she became a parent)", just leaving "Avoid confusing constructions."--Trystan (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Richard, as for "editors stumbling into one thread and thinking it represented the whole issue," I see these two threads as appearing in the same venue, right next to each other, each containing links pointing to the other.  I believe the confusion your describing is less problematic than the confusion of people thinking that they have to give one answer that covers both issues, that they're not allowed to go present-ID-only in one type of article and present-or-past in the other even though they are, etc.  Specifically, I see this as two threads at the Village Pump, right next to each other but neither the sub-thread of the other.  That way people will see in the ToC and elsewhere that they can are allowed to vote twice, allowed to vote in one but not the other, allowed to give a full-throttle recommendation in one but a moderate one in the other, etc.
 * To give an example, look at this: This RfC on gender-neutral language was poorly worded, and people thought that they had to give one answer that covered both the generic he and gendered professions ("chairman" "mail carrier"). It didn't start to make sense until the two issues were separated clearly.
 * I agree with Trystan that we should not provide a specific wording in the RfCs themselves but rather should be phrased "Should the MoS tell users to do [description]?" We can work out the exact wording after the decision is made. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * [insert]
 * Hi.
 * &emsp;My gut feeling is still that it would be better to keep it simple and first get the basic change into the MOS; and then, if necessary, worry about how to deal with the two different cases.  However this aspect of it is not really that important to me; and I don't mind at all deferring to your opinion.
 * &emsp;There is something about your message that I don't understand.  Around the middle, you write  "........Specifically, I see this as two threads at the Village Pump, right next to each other........".   Then toward the end you write    "........I agree with Trystan that we should not provide a specific wording in the RfCs themselves but rather should be phrased........".   It's not clear to me if you're expecting this to move on to become a Village Pump discussion, or become an RfC (here on the MOS's talk page), or both (presumably not at the same time).  Please clarify this for me.  (If I had my choice I'd prefer the RfC, simply because I'm more familiar with those.)  Thanks.
 * Richard
 * Richard27182 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I was suggesting above that any RFC should include the specific wording being proposed.--Trystan (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoo-kay, well that's going to take some work, then.
 * Richard, yes that's what I expect, two RfCs here or two Village Pump proposals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete--I tried to tear apart the existing section on Gender Identity and do a full rewrite. I found myself just lining through all the promotional exceptionalism.  This stuff is covered elsewhere.  I have concluded the proper way to handle this requires no additional language.  My opinion is obviously against the crew of trans advocates who wrote the current MOS.  But then, they have a product to sell.  They are demanding full acceptance of a person's latest identity.  History doesn't work that way.  We, as wikipedia, cannot rewrite the past.  Across numerous discussions, I have always referred to a time basis for representation as a different name or gender.  This would be consistent with the individual's timing of their presentation.  We were very careful to wait until an announcement.  We should do the same thing as we do in terms of gay identity.  For a small minded class of the public, these things still serve as a perjoritive and can be artificially inserted by outsiders to insult a subject.  Its covered in WP:BLP  Even if an announcement date is not apparent, the first time someone appears in public in the new persona is a good indication.  Wikipedia has lots of examples of people who have changed their names over time.  Gender identity should parallel that system and most importantly does not need a special section of the MOS to forcibly make a class of individuals more equal than others.  Admittedly the case by case execution, like many provisions of the MOS, is applied inconsistently across thousands of editors.  But the main point is, we should not be forced to spread the message of someone's conversion later in life across all of their previous history at the expense of misreporting that history. Trackinfo (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a question, for Trackinfo, for anyone. How many fights/content disputes/call-it-whatevers have there been over how to refer to individuals who are not transgender but have changed their names?  I've seen the fights at Caitlyn Jenner and Chaz Bono and even Caster Semenya (who's not actually a trans woman).  Was there a similar fight at Cat Stevens or Muhammad Ali?  If the Wikipedia community reacts the same way to transgender name changes as to other name changes, then it would make sense to use one rule for all name changes, but if it doesn't then we do need a separate rule.
 * In other words, I suspect that MOS:IDENTITY isn't there because of a liberal agenda to treat transgenders differently; I think it's there to address the problem created by how they were already being treated differently. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;As I've written to you before, I basically agree with all you've written.  But unfortunately I think it very unlikely that we'll get very far in restoring what we would consider to be rationality to this particular subject.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the problem. Our current text was written by a small group of POV pushing advocates.  Somehow that is now imbedded (even though there are semantic differences between guidelines and policy).  This has allowed the POV pushers to dictate actually editing policy and the mess we have had for months on Jenner.  It is not unprecedented.  Ali and Jabbar went through their era of anti-black, unit-muslim prejudice.  Add Cat Stevens to that.  Semenya was certainly being used as a perjorative.  Resistance to the name change was seen as a way to promote bigotry.  Name changes occur all over the place, I've pointed out how many married women have taken their husband's last names.  We deal with that, sometimes poorly.  In all those other cases, we don't let their latest name override their entire history and we don't violate what sources report.  Cassius Clay won the Olympic gold medal, Lew Alcindor was a star at UCLA and Cat Stevens made music (also not Steven Georgiou)..  The first two became even bigger stars under their new names later in their careers, Stevens career disappeared before adopting Yusuf Islam.  All of these are explained in their articles and in many of the articles about their accomplishments.  Their names were not changed historically because that will confuse the public, the opposite of wikipedia's purpose.  We need to have some fortitude here and tell the dozen or so POV pushers of a little seen discussion a couple of years ago that wikipedia has a broader set of policies and no one group should be an exception to them. Trackinfo (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there are two categories of name changes, the kind that are non-issues (married women) and the kinds that are used as smokescreens for prejudice (religious and racial). I think it's pretty clear that transgender name changes fall into the second category. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to reinterpret and put a prejudicial tone on what I write. I was analyzing social reactions to other people's name changes of the past.  I'm sure there are some bigots who object to Caitlyn.  I'm not in that category.  I am suggesting that name changes be treated equally on wikipedia.  A married woman changes her name on or after her marriage.  We follow sources, we don't go back to rewrite her history.  See Mary Decker-Tabb-Slaney, whose history I have meticulously edited to follow the name in use at the time of each record.  Cassius Clay settled on Muhammad Ali after months of using a collection of names after beating Liston in 1964.  We don't go back an put Ali as the gold medal winner in 1960.  Perhaps somewhere in the article is a clarification, we are here to inform.  There should be no prejudice on whatever reason someone has a change in identity, we, wikipedia, should be reporters of fact.  There is a time value for a change in identity.  I was not involved in Cat Stevens but there was apparently an evaluative discussion that he has done nothing productive and is unrecognizable since changing his name to Yusuf Islam.  Gorgeous George not George Wagner (wrestler) we ultimately name our articles by the most appropriate name for each subject. Trackinfo (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Transgender name changes are treated differently from other name changes in the real world and by Wikipedia editors. Why shouldn't the MoS take this into account? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly identifying someone as transgender, or gay has certain ramifications in the real world. For a section of the community, it is used as a pejorative.  We have good rules for self-identification which I watched play out under incessant pressure as Jenner's announcement was anticipated and assumed.  The system works real well.  Once announced, again I watched eager acceptance of the change and then the name change.  All good.  What I object to was the immediate, subsequent rewriting of every appearance of Jenner's name in historical articles, justified by the exceptions to policy granted in the MOS. Trackinfo (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [insert]
 * Hi.
 * &emsp;Just two brief items tonight (I have to get up early tomorrow, and I can't stay up much later.)
 * You mention "a little seen discussion a couple of years ago that wikipedia has a broader set of policies.....". I'm not familiar with that; could you please give me a link to it?
 * Darkfrog24's latest proposal (posted further down in this discussion) includes revisiting MOS:Identity; and (unless I'm totally misinterpreting it) the language proposed for one of the options (if it receives enough support) could undo the gender-related MOS change that more or less is the center of all this disagreement.  How do you feel about that?
 * Richard27182 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I too have a limited schedule right now. I found it recently, now I have to figure out how to retrace my steps. Trackinfo (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

An observation / suggestion (to all editors involved): We've put huge amounts of time and effort into this discussion. We've discussed opinions, proposals, arguments, and counterarguments too numerous to mention. (And to our credit we've managed to do it without even once violating WP:Civility, which itself is an accomplishment worth mentioning.)  However (IMO) the discussion is pretty much going nowhere, at least in terms of approaching a conclusion, or even approaching a point of being ready to transition to another forum (such as an RfC). I hope this will not offend anyone, but maybe we're getting close to the point where we should consider outside help in the form of a discussion moderator (ie, DRN) who could guide us in steering the discussion toward some kind of consensus at least as to what the next step should be. Otherwise (IMO) we could end up discussing this forever without getting anywhere. I would be interested to know if anyone agrees with me, and even more so, if anyone has any better ideas. Richard27182 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you feel we've all said what we can say, here, R, then the thing to do is either 1) invite more people for a broader pre-proposal discussion or 2) start drafting wording for a proposal. For option 1), we should at least consider inviting Wikipedians who self-identify as transgender.  If there are no objections, I will do that tomorrow.  Repeat: If anyone here thinks that inviting transgender Wikipedians to participate in this pre-proposal discussion is in any way improper, say so and I will refrain from doing so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Caution... If you only invite transgender Wikipedians, then you open the door for accusations of canvasing and vote stacking. What I would suggest is that you contact everyone who has participated in recent RFCs, no matter what their expressed viewpoint was.  Make sure that the wording on the notification is neutral. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I wanted to clear it with the thread first and get a consensus that it would be the right thing to do. It's canvassing and votestacking if one person acts alone but not if the community decides to do it.
 * On that note, everyone good with a blanket invitation to the participants in the previous discussion to come work out wordings with us? I was planning on doing that once the proposals were posted, but we could also do it now.    Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been a part of probably a dozen different discussions about this, perhaps the only way to track all of them down is to search backward through my own history over the last 6+ months. Are we going to find people from all of those?  This has been going longer than I have been involved, I came in because I wrote so much about Jenner.  There are probably a lot of other undiscovered conversations about this.  Who will discover and contact all of those people?  My second concern is in the lopsided number of advocates this subject has already attracted.  There is a substantial number of commenters in most of these discussions who have a definite sales position in promoting universal social acceptance of transgender people.  Its a noble idea, but not at the expense of wikipedia's own goals.  Wikipedia does not report what we want things to be.  So my point is we cannot let people who do not understand wikipedia's big picture snowball our ideas.  I have suggested, on a small scale, that is what got us into this mess.  My third concern is what voices might be lost in the conversation.  Will we contact all the people who made contributions that were summarily censored or hidden with prejudicial prefaces because their opinion was not consistent with current ownership of these discussions.  We have had a flood of IP contributions form every possible direction.  Will those people who have been slapped in the face be willing to discuss things rationally?  Will they be allowed to do so? Trackinfo (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think BB was talking about the participants in the most recent discussion, the one closed by Drmies. I am certainly still planning to notify those participants if we get these proposals posted.  Do you know of another recent or non-recent RfC or other discussion that you believe is especially representative of a balanced take on this matter?  It's not like there's a numerical limit on the number of people we're allowed to notify. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;I may be wrong here, but I see a real problem with directly inviting the participants in the most recent discussion, the one closed by Drmies, to participate in this new proposal.  Even though we would be contacting all of them (as opposed to picking and choosing), it would still amount to contacting a group of editors who, as a group, are known to have a clear preference for one of the options.  That may not meet the actual definition of "canvassing," but I believe it could still have the effect of "stacking the vote" since we know we would necessarily be inviting more editors supporting one side than editors supporting the other.  Could we at least contact some administrators for a clarification on this before actually doing it?
 * &emsp;I'm fine doing the proposal on the Village Pump as opposed to an RfC on the talk page (here), as long as that doesn't diminish or limit our ability to promote it.  I believe that with an issue as sensitive and emotional as this, we should aim to get as much participation as possible.  (I know that with RfC's there are multiple effective methods of announcing and widely publicizing them.  I'm not sure one way or the other if that's equally true of proposals made on the Village Pump.)
 * &emsp;The current version of the proposal may officially be a "rough draft," but I feel it's pretty good in its current form.  My only suggestions would be to specify that "gendered nouns" includes proper names.  And also to give the individual options in PROPOSAL 1 lables (such as (A.), (B.);  or  Option 1, Option 2, etc.)
 * &emsp;Please let me know what you think of all this.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that we have been arguing about WP:Gender identity for several years now, it's going to be hard to find editors who haven't already expressed an opinion about it. I suspect that most of the editors who would be likely to respond to any new RFC are going to be those who have already been involved in previous RFCs.
 * It is only "canvasing" if you notify one side of the debate. As long as neutral notification goes out to everyone who has expressed an opinion (no matter which side in the debate they favor) I would not call it "canvasing". That said, another option would be to request a Wikipedia-wide notification (ie one that goes out to every editor... those who have already expressed an opinion, and those who have not yet done so). Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi .   (pinging )
 * &emsp;As I wrote, it may not meet the actual definition of "canvassing." (And it might even be Wikipedia-legal.) But it certainly would result in notifying a group of editors who (as a group) are known to support one side of the issue over the other.  What concerns me the most about the proposed suggestion is the fact that we would not be notifying all editors who contributed an opinion on the subject; we'd be notifying a specific subset of editors who had prevailed at one particular RfC (or equivalent).  It would not bother me so much if we were talking about notifying all editors who had ever expressed an opinion on or shown interest in the issue.  (Although that would probably be logistically impossible.)
 * &emsp;I had never before heard of a "Wikipedia-wide notification." Is that a difficult thing to get done?  I would have no problem at all with such a notifiction.  In fact given the importance of this issue, I think a Wikipedia-wide notification would be a terrific idea!  Would it feasible in this case?  In addition to avoiding my objection to selective notification (selective in the sense that it's a specific group with a known history (as a group) of favoring one side over another), we'd also be avoiding my concerns about sufficiently publicizing the proposal.  I will be very interested in hearing your and other editors' opinions about this.
 * &emsp;It's getting very late (in terms of my schedule) and I'll soon be in bed. But I'll be replying sometime in the wee hours of Wednesday morning.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Posting these proposals at the Village Pump would likely get us more participants from a wider cross-section of Wikipedia than running them as RfCs here would.
 * I have zero problem with you or anyone contacting an admin to confirm that contacting the participants in the previous discussion is kosher per WP:CANVASSING. Another thing that might be useful would be whether there are any other groups of Wikipedians who might make a good addition to the discussion.
 * As for labels, that's what PREVIOUS and CURRENT and BOTH are. I find it more useful to use concise descriptive words than to use "option B," etc.  Prevents confusion over how someone voted.   For the first proposal, the obvious names would be "CURRENT TEXT" and "PROPOSED TEXT," but do you think that might prejudice participants against the proposed text?  The rules still favor the original text (meaning that any form of "no consensus" means that MOS:IDENTITY stays as it is) even if the participants aren't told that it's the original.
 * As for contacting transgender Wikipedians, I do not think we've formed a consensus here that the insight and perspective that they would offer would be valuable enough to outweigh the votestacking effect that they might bring. Seems a shame that we can't actually ask trans Wikipedians what they think about how to refer to trans men and trans women, but some of them will probably show up to the Village Pump anyway.
 * Wikipedia-wide notification is tricky. Once we post the proposal, an auto-notifier will go up.  We can also tag it with any "transgender issues" tag that may exist.  Any regulars on the MoS talk page will know about it by now.  We can also contact random editors per the feedback request service.  We can post neutrally worded notifications about the proposals on the talk page of any page that we think is relevant: Caitlyn Jenner seems an obvious choice, but Name change and Gender and Pronouns and Sex assignment are also probably fair game, though Cat Stevens might be a stretch.  We can create a sub thread either here or at VP discussing how best to publicize the proposals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which Wikiprojects are concerned with topics the RFC would address? They should be briefly and neutrally notified. WP:WikiProject Manual of Style and WP:WikiProject LGBT studies; any others? Is there a Wikiproject concerned with naming? -sche (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedians who self-identify as transgender would probably be concerned, as would anyone particularly annoyed by MOS:IDENTITY in its current form, like Trackinfo and Necrothesp. But we should definitely ping WP:BLP and as many biography-related Wikiprojects as are relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Contacting trans organizations
pointed out that not all trans individuals believe, as said, that a trans man always was male, even when being raised as a girl, and other people's beliefs may have shifted over the past few years. Should we contact any trans organizations and ask transgender individuals to provide some information? To contribute to this discussion? Just reach out to trans individuals who are already established Wikipedia editors? They might have some insight on the best way for Wikipedia to address this issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For my comment, Darkfrog24 means what I stated in the section above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See Category:Transgender Wikipedians.—Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wording for MOS:Identity proposals
I think we should make two separate proposals, one for discussing transgender individuals in articles about themselves and one for when they are mentioned in other articles.

PROPOSAL 1:

This proposal revisits MOS:Identity. How should trans men and trans women be referred to in articles about themselves?





EDIT: Guys, should some third option be offered here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

PROPOSAL 2:

When a transgender individual is mentioned in an article of which he or she is not the principal subject and that article discusses something that took place before the individual publicly announced his or her transition, which identity should Wikipedia use?


 * PREVIOUS: Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994. Bruce Jenner won the medal in 1976.
 * CURRENT: Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994. Caitlyn Jenner won the medal in 1976.
 * BOTH: Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994. Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) won the medal in 1976.
 * OTHER: (please explain)

Okay, so how did I do? I've phrased all this based on the comments I've seen people make in this thread and in the one closed by Drmies. Per Trystan's concerns, I used exact text in the first proposal and general instructions in the second one so we can all see what that looks like. Do you feel that these options address your positions well? What should be changed? The biggest problem is that I don't see how to work pronouns into the "both" option in proposal two. Please note that this is a ROUGH DRAFT and we should all get a chance to look at it and suggest changes before anyone actually starts an RfC or VP proposal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;(As I mentioned in my message to Trackinfo, I have an early day tomorrow, so I'll have to be kind of brief, and also I might not do as good a job of proofreading as I usually do.)
 * &emsp;Thank you for clarifying for me what you are proposing in terms of implementation.  My personal choice would be RfC's rather than Village Pump proposals; but that is purely because I'm more familiar with the former than the latter.
 * &emsp;I personally do not see inviting Wikipedians who self-identify as transgender to join the discussion as a good idea.  At the very least I think it would skew the viewpoints expressed away from one side and toward the other, and that could carry over into the RfC's (or VP discussion).  At worst, some editors might even see it as bordering on "canvassing."  I think all major viewpoints are already represented by the current participants.  I think the time to try to get more people involved (neutrally of course) would be at the time of the RfC's (or Village Pump proposals).
 * &emsp;Concerning the rough drafts for the two proposals, I'm very pleased to see that in both proposals one of the options is to use the person's gender identity at the time of the event being described (in effect reversing that part of MOS:IDENTITY that is so controversial).  The options refer to "pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns"; assuming this includes names, I think it would be best to explicitly state that.  I'm not sure why you did one proposal using all descriptive language and the other using specific examples; but I don't have any problem with that.  Please don't think I'm being picky, but I believe there is a typo in proposal #2 ("and that article discusses an something that took place........".)
 * &emsp;In conclusion, I would say that including the second option in Proposal #1 has completely changed things concerning this discussion.  I now think that, after just a little bit more discussion, we will be ready to proceed with initiating the RfC's (or VP proposals).
 * &emsp;One last recommendation would be, when you're ready to actually initiate the RfC (or VP thing), you wait a good 48 hours for editors to voice any opinions they have; I say 48 hours in order to give everyone plenty of time to see the proposals in their final form and comment on them.  (Some editors may routinely be off their computers for days at a time.)
 * &emsp;I think that's about all I have to say for tonight.  I look forward to hearing from you.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think these proposals should be at the village pump because that's where the last one was.
 * Well my take is that changing MOS:IDENTITY to anything but the person's latest expressed identity would make it more controversial, not less, but the point of this draft is to express our options clearly so that the community can decide on what to do. So if people who want to use a given system are pleased with the way that system is presented, they're more likely to accept the outcome of the VPP as valid, even if it doesn't go their way.  It's when RfCs are biased and skewed and misleading that there is grounds to reject them.  So if you and Track and Necrothesp all like the "use the old ID" option, good.
 * I did one proposal using all descriptive language and the other using exact wording for two reasons: 1) Trystan and I have a difference of opinion on which of these things is clearer and better, and showing the board one of each makes it easier for everyone to figure out what they want. 2) We already have a stable, longstanding text for one of these issues but not the other.
 * Rough draft. You're supposed to be picky about it.  Thanks for pointing out the typo.  It's fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Second draft, proposals 1 and 2 (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
Okay, here's our next take:

PROPOSAL 1:

This proposal revisits MOS:Identity. It is a response to this recent proposal. How should trans men and trans women be referred to in articles about themselves?





PROPOSAL 2:

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity. It is a response to this recent proposal. Which names and pronouns should be used for a trans man or trans woman in articles of which he or she is not the principal subject and that discuss events that took place before he or she publicly announced his or her transition? (In the following examples, the first article is about a film and the second article is about an athletic competition.)


 * PREVIOUS: Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994. Bruce Jenner won the medal in 1976.
 * CURRENT: Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994. Caitlyn Jenner won the medal in 1976.
 * BOTH: Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994. Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) won the medal in 1976.
 * OTHER: (please explain)

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL 2: Here is what this would look like if we had actual text for the MoS on offer.

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity. It is a response to this recent proposal. Which names and pronouns should be used for a trans man or trans woman in articles of which he or she is not the principal subject and that discuss events that took place before he or she publicly announced his or her transition? (In the following examples, the first article is about an athletic competition and the second article is about a film.)


 * PREVIOUS: "Refer to trans men and trans women using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CONDITIONAL: "Refer to the trans man or trans woman using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question only if the person's previous gender identity is relevant to that event. Otherwise, use the current name and pronouns."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CURRENT: "Refer to trans men and trans women using the name and pronouns that correspond with their most recent publicly announced self-identification."
 * Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH: "Refer to trans men and trans women by both names, concisely."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994.
 * OTHER: Please explain.

So that's the next round. Changes and comments? Again, let's give everyone enough time to take a gander. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's switch instances of "trans men and trans women"/"trans man or trans woman"/"he or she is"/etc to "trans people"/"they are"/etc like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=684466897&oldid=684464671 this], for concision, consistency (the text already refers to "them" in some places), and so that there's no confusion about if the MOS is continuing to cover non-binary people or if exclusion of them is being introduced. I would also suggest adding a "conditionally both" option to proposal 2 ("Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994."). (Articles on non-transgender people seem to follow such a rule in some cases, but confusingly/inconsistently not in others: Michelle Obama's article says "Obama attended Whitney Young High School" not using the name she had at the time, while Yusuf Islam / Cat Stevens' article says "Georgiou was sent to St. Joseph Roman Catholic Primary School" using the name he had at the time.) -sche (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't happen to like the singular they but you bring up some good points about nonbinary individuals.
 * I was rereading some old discussions of this matter and I'm wondering whether "if the individual is much more famous by one name than by the other" should be a factor.

Second draft proposal 2 with exact text(revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
ALTERNATE PROPOSAL 2, VERSION 2:

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity. It is a response to this recent proposal. Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? (In the following examples, the first article is about an athletic competition and the second article is about a film.)


 * PREVIOUS: "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CONDITIONAL: "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question only if the person's gender identity is relevant to that event. Otherwise, use the current name and pronouns."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CURRENT: "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that correspond with their most recent publicly announced self-identification."
 * Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH: "Refer to transgender individuals by both names, concisely. Use either name first, as needed."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH CONDITIONAL: "Refer to transgender individuals by both names, concisely, only if the person's previous gender identity is relevant to the subject of the article. Use either name first, as needed."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * OTHER: Please explain.

So how's that? Now how do we deal with pronouns in the "both" options? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can think of several options for handling pronouns if both names are used: (1) use the pronouns that match the individual's current gender expression, (2) use the pronouns that match the gender the individual was presenting at the time (a) in all cases or (b) only if relevant. (I guess we're assuming that if only one name is used, the pronouns which "match" that name will be used? But if one subscribes to Blueboar's unusual theory that names are not gendered, that assumption isn't a given; one could say "Bruce won her first gold medal". So perhaps even for the "only use one name" options we need to spell out which pronouns to use.) However, if we add a few options for how to handle pronouns, then I agree with your comments further up that we have to split these RFCs into two separate (adjacent) threads. I have seen RFCs fall apart and fail to accomplish anything useful because people were confused by and criticized how many different things the RFCs were trying to do. Presenting two separate proposals with a total of 8-9 options is already dangerously close to "this RFC is trying to do way too many different things, TL;DR" territory — I tend to support separating the RFCs even if we don't add any more options — but if we add more options e.g. about pronouns, then the RFCs definitely need to be separate. -sche (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For both issue 1 and issue 2, some people might want to:
 * Use, in reference to a person's pre-transition life, whichever pronouns and name are most common in the RSes published after the person's transition referring to that stage, while referring to their post-transition life using their current name and pronouns.
 * The preceding but with "published after" changed to "published before or after".
 * Use, in reference to any stage of a person's life, whichever pronouns and name are most common in the RSes published after the person's transition referring to that stage.
 * The preceding but with "published after" changed to "published before or after".
 * If we introduce that many additional options, then (as I wrote in my previous comment and as Darkfrog opined even earlier) we have to split the RFCs into separate threads or else they are likely to fall apart and fail to accomplish anything, with participants going "this RFC is trying to do way too many different things, TL;DR" as they have on other RFCs that tried to handle multiple complex issues at once. -sche (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Third draft proposal 2 (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
ALTERNATE PROPOSAL 2, VERSION 3:

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity. It is a response to this recent proposal. Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? (In the following examples, the first article is about an athletic competition and the second article is about a film.)


 * PREVIOUS: "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CONDITIONAL: "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that they were using at the time of the event in question only if the person's previous gender identity is relevant to the subject of the passage. Otherwise, use the current name and pronouns."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CURRENT: "Refer to transgender individuals using the name and pronouns that correspond with their most recent publicly announced self-identification."
 * Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH: "Refer to transgender individuals by both names, concisely. Use either name first, as needed."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH CONDITIONAL: "Refer to transgender individuals by both names, concisely, only if the person's previous gender identity is relevant to the subject of the passage . Use either name first, as needed."
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * OTHER: Please explain.

Regarding gendered pronouns:


 * A) Use the pronoun that matches the name used. "Bruce Jenner won the medal. He was happy."
 * B) Use only the previous pronoun. "Caitlyn Jenner won the medal. He was happy."
 * C) Use only the current pronoun. "Bruce Jenner won the medal. She was happy."

This could work if it were immediately followed by a poster giving the answer of Both conditional (A) to show people how to do it, but even then it's a crud shoot. The option of dealing with name/identity first and working out the details of pronouns later is starting to look appealing. We could just make that a third proposal, to be posted after the second one has run its course. That would have the added benefit of giving us a clear place to start. For example, I doubt that Wikipedia actually has anyone at all who wants to say "Caitlyn Jenner ... he" for 1976, but for neutrality's sake it's best to add that option for balance. Getting a consensus on proposal 2 first would allow us to leave something like that out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I like that idea of running any RFC on pronouns after the RFC(s) on names (or not at all), rather than trying to combine them. We could make clear in the text of the RFC(s) on names that that's what we were doing — that pronouns were going to could be handled by an RFC to be started soon after the name-RFC closed. -sche (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fourth draft proposal 2 (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
PROPOSAL 2:

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity, exact text to be worked out later. It is a response to this recent proposal.

Which names should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.


 * PREVIOUS: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CURRENT: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994.
 * ONLY IF RELEVANT: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * OTHER: (please explain)

RfC regarding pronoun usage to follow, if needed.

This seems to have fewer moving parts. Do you think someone reading this for the first time will understand that we mean Jenner's role as a man was relevant to the Olympics but Wachowski's was not relevant to script writing? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of leaving pronouns in non-biographical articles out of it; I really don't think that's a recurring problem requiring MOS guidance.
 * I wouldn't mind seeing an option along the lines of:
 * BOTH, APPLYING TO NAME CHANGES GENERALLY: The tree was planted by Prince Albert (later George VI). The award was won by Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar).
 * I am mindful that, despite RFCs not being votes, they can sometimes be tallied like one. If the above is added, there would essentially be three competing versions of "both". --Trystan (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should add name changes other than transgender individuals' to this RfC. The core issue concerns transgenders.  The way other name changes could be presented as precedent in any discussion section, but I think adding non-trans individuals to this would just muddy the waters further.
 * They're not supposed to be votes, but I don't think I've ever encountered a large-scale RfC that wasn't one. Though I'd say they're votes+suggestions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Darkfrog: I like the updated version with, as you put it, fewer moving parts. As for relevance, let's spell just go ahead and spell it out, to leave no room for unclarity: ONLY IF RELEVANT: "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976." (Gender is relevant: Jenner competed in a men's event.) / "Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994." (Gender is not relevant.) -sche (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Trystan: That's a good point and a serious concern; even having two "both" options means that if 11 users favour "use current name", 10 favour "use both names (always)", 10 favour "use both names (if relevant)", and 9 favour "use previous name", a closer who treated the RFC as a first-past-the-post vote would say "use current name" even though "use both" has twice as much support. I have seen such things happen. Perhaps we should explicitly encourage or even require editors to rank the options, like "support 1 as first choice, support 2 as second choice, could put up with 3 as third choice, oppose 4". -sche (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when it's that close, the finding is "no consensus," but there's no harm in making it clearer. What we should do is set up sub-threads for "support PREVIOUS" "support CURRENT" etc. and make it clear that people are allowed to support more than one option. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Darkfrog "The way other name changes could be presented as precedent in any discussion section..." But we can't tell if an exception to the general guideline is needed for transgender people, because there is no agreement on what the general guideline should be. Conflicting, implicit assumptions about the how to handle name changes generally is one reason there was little agreement or clarity in the previous RFC. If we address the issue in the MOS, the rule should take into consideration the sort of anachronism inherent in "Cary Grant was born in Bristol", not just Jenner at the Olympics. Hard cases make bad law, and broadening the cases considered will result in a better MOS.
 * How to refer to transgender people is certainly the hot issue of the day, but you are specifically asking how MOS:IDENTITY should be revised. A valid response to that question is "Any MOS guideline should address the broader issue, not just one part of it."--Trystan (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another valid response is, "If only one part of a rule is causing a problem, there is no need to change the whole thing." No one's having edit wars or talk page fights about Cary Grant. They are having them about Jenner, Manning, and Semenya. I don't see how phrasing these proposals as if they weren't specifically about transgender individuals would make it easier to determine whether MOS:IDENTITY should be kept or changed, and I think it is likely to confuse the issue.  Address the issue head-on.
 * Still, there's no reason why "Stop making an exception for transgender individuals; use the same rules that we use for everyone else" couldn't be an option in proposal one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It can't be, because there are no rules for everyone else.--Trystan (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, actually. It's at WP:MOSBIO under "changed names." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that "changed names" contradicts both the general rule for name discrepancies at MOS:IDENTITY and the specific rule for maiden names at MOSBIO. The guidelines include several such contradictions; and not all are related to the Gender identity section. So no, the problem is not specific to transgender people. Writing about someone transgendered has the added complexity of having to match the name and the pronouns, but all the other issues at hand apply to all people who have changed names: whether to use their preferred names, the names more common in sources, or the name used at the time of mention; and whether to use the context from the article where the mention appears or from the main biography. Diego (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fifth draft proposal 2 (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
PROPOSAL 2, VERSION IT'S LATE AND I'M TIRED:

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity, exact text to be worked out later. It is a response to this recent proposal.

Which names should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.

RfC regarding pronoun usage to follow, if needed.
 * PREVIOUS: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CURRENT: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH GENERALLY: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH ONLY IF RELEVANT: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.)
 * OTHER: (please explain)

---Support PREVIOUS--- ---Support CURRENT--- ---Support BOTH GENERALLY--- ---Support BOTH ONLY IF RELEVANT--- Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I, Historyonly, support this option [user:historyonly]
 * I, Progressivewikieditor support this option. [user:progressivewikieditor]
 * Meh, I could live with this I guess [user:historyonly]


 * Really, no, this misses a decent proposition for a new RfC on about every account: overly rigid, and MISSES THE POINT that what we do in an other article when referring to a person with a name change related to their gender identity ***is context specific*** Extrapolating the Jenner example into a "one size fits all" rigid rule at WP:IDENTITY has been tried in the previous RfC, it didn't work. What did work in the previous RfC is a decisison on what to implement regarding Jenner in the 1976 Olympics article, so if you want to do a WP:CCC RfC on that specific article content, do so at Talk:1976 Summer Olympics. Chances that that will affect MOS guidance are fairly low. What we need here is an RfC for an update to the MOS guidance. It should cover the many uses of Wendy and/or Walter Carlos in maybe a dozen of articles, and many other examples, but frankly I'd avoid the Jenner example which was recently decided – except that *any* alternative RfC proposal should allow for the current Jenner-related wording at 1976 Summer Olympics. It may be called an "exception" or whatever in the proposal, but that that is the current wording as decided by RfC should not be outruled by any alternative proposal listed in the RfC that tries to decide on MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think the current wording/set of options is too rigid, what concrete wording would you propose? I would support using someone other than Jenner or Manning (the two individuals I know of whose articles were subject to the longest, most contentious RFCs/RMs) in the examples. Who is a good candidate? It would be helpful if they had done something like a gendered sporting event, so that they worked as an example in the "if relevant" section, but I suppose we could also switch to entirely made-up examples. I do not agree that if a new discussion decides 'X', the result of the old discussion is somehow entrenched; consensus can change (especially when the previous 'consensus' was not all that clear). -sche (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. "...what concrete wording would you propose?" I proposed a wording above, long before my colleagues thought it a good idea to reboot the same discussion in a new thread.
 * Re. "WP:CCC" – Please read my comment, it addresses WP:CCC.
 * Re. "I do not agree that if a new discussion decides 'X', the result of the old discussion is somehow entrenched" – Neither do I, but that isn't the point. The point is that the RfC here should be about a MOS update, not about overthrowing the result of a recent RfC with high participation rate, that was clear on only one point: Jenner in the 1976 Olympics article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging:

&emsp;I must say this discussion is getting a bit difficult to follow, not so much because of all the various opinions, but mainly because it's getting hard to find where new postings are being placed. (And I'll admit I'm at least as much to blame for that as anyone else.)  Anyway I'm putting all my comments for today here in this one posting; I'll try to identify which parts are direct responses to messages to me, and what is just general observations.

&emsp;Concerning contacting transgender Wikipedians, I'll agree that that could provide certain insights and perspectives; but I think that it just comes too close to (and possibly crosses) the line concerning the issue of "canvassing." I would strongly recommend against it because once it's done, if it eventually is determined to be "canvassing," its effect cannot be undone. For the same reason, I would suggest we be very careful about hand picking places to promote the proposal. What may seem like a logical choice might actually be in some way biased. When an RfC is created, the creator can choose which broad categories it is to be listed under by which topic area codes he includes with the template. (Biographies; Economy, trade, and companies; History and geography; Language and linguistics; Maths, science, and technology; etc.)  I don't know if a Village Pump proposal offers a similar option; but if it does, I would suggest we stitck with the categories offered. (And I would suggest including all the ones that can be directly or indirectly justified (so as to maximize its promotion and get the attention of as many potential participants as possible)). &emsp;Also I sometimes see this thing referred to as an "RfC"; I know this would appear on the Village Pump page, but would it technically be an RfC, or something else? &emsp;And one last thing: I'm still waiting to hear your opinion concerning specifically stating in Proposal 1 that "gendered nouns" includes names (such as "Bruce Jenner," Caitlyn Jenner," etc.). I realize I've written a great deal tonight; but at least that brings me up to date as of my posting this.  (Maybe I'll take a day off tomorrow.) Richard27182 (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, responding to : You asked if I thought that using the obvious names ("CURRENT TEXT" and "PROPOSED TEXT") might prejudice some participants against the proposed text.  I think that is definitely a possibility.  (And it's also a possibility that it could prejudice other participants the other way.)  I think it would be best if the labels did not refer to "current" or "proposed," but rather consisted of one or two word terms that describe the option without referring to its status.
 * , could you please explain to me exactly how a Wikipedia-wide notification works.  If there is some way to just notify everybody all at once, that eliminates all the issues concerning who should be notified, who should not be notified, canvassing, vote stacking, etc., etc.  (If you're already answered this question and I missed seeing it, I apologize).
 * Concerning my opinion on the proposed versions for the text itself: First and foremost I think it would be a big mistake to offer more than four options (including "Other") for Proposal 2.  To do so would (IMO) tend to fragment the "vote" and make consensus much more difficult to determine.  (It might also make the proposal seem overly complicated to participants.)  Also as  has pointed out, "despite RFCs not being votes, they can sometimes be tallied like one."  And if we divide one option into two similar options, it could split its supporters and give a totally different option an artificial plurality it would not otherwise have.  My personal choice would be Darkfrog24's original form, with the exception that Proposal 2  would include both descriptive text and examples.


 * When you say you already proposed wording, do you mean the changes you made to the MoS? 1) Then copypaste them here on proposal form. 2) If you meant something else, it's not obvious; please post it here.
 * Regarding gendered nouns, it looks like that's best handled separately, like pronouns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposal is above under . Don't see the need to double word for word content (for the same reasons I didn't see the need to double the same discussion in new wordings), however if you think that useful, go ahead and copy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So that would be pretty much the same as the CONDITIONAL option offered in alternate proposal 2 version 3. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I'm going to ask you to either say how you'd express your position in the format presented here or write the next draft. (It's fun!) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the "format" in which I expressed my proposal. Besides, I was the first to express it in a format. There are over half a dozen rewrites in another format, and doesn't seem to pan out. Maybe that other format is part of the problem of getting this on the rails as an RfC. Please express whatever you want to propose in the format of the first proposal. Might be the most workable format after all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was anything wrong with your format. But all of the options have to be presented to the participants in the same way.  If you don't think the format I used is best then by all means make a whole draft yourself.  At the absolute least, seeing the other options translated through your perspective might reveal more about them or about the way you think.  But as for my making a draft in your format, no.  You can show me your process if you want but I'm not going to guess at it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems straightforward to copy and paste Francis' text into the format we've been using; the main difference I see between the two formats is that his post contains only his proposed text, whereas the format we've been using gives multiple options because this discussion and the previous RFC have made it clear that multiple options need to be presented from the start or else they will be added late and not seen by all voters (as happened in the last RFC with several options, including one by Francis), limiting the usefulness of the RFC. For proposal 2, copying and pasting the text from above (adding a label added for identification/distinction from the other options) yields:
 * CONTEXT-DEPENDENT: Use the name and gender identity that fits best in the context of the article where the reference is made (principle of least surprise for the reader). When it is unclear which one suits better, default to the identity as defined for the main biography. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.
 * Likewise for proposal 1 we could just copy-paste Francis' wording and make it an option alongside the existing options. -sche (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with FS's proposal 1 main bio text is that it's not clear in what way it's meant to be different from current practice. A newcomer to this discussion is not likely to understand it as it is currently phrased. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not different from the current practice... which makes me wonder why the exact current practice hadn't been listed as an option before. -sche (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was. I copied it right from the MOS in the first draft on this page.  All I did was take out the parenthetical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sixth draft, proposals 1 and 2 (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
This proposal revisits MOS:Identity. How should transgender people be referred to in articles about themselves?
 * CURRENT TEXT:
 * ADD "NAMES":
 * CHANGE GUIDELINE ON PRE-TRANSITION LIFE:

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity, the exact text of (most options of) which will be worked out later. Which names should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject and that discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film. RfC regarding pronoun usage to follow, if needed.
 * PREVIOUS NAME ONLY: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Larry Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * CURRENT NAME ONLY: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994.
 * ALWAYS BOTH: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994.
 * BOTH IF RELEVANT: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.)
 * CONTEXT-DEPENDENT:
 * OTHER: (please explain)

The "ADD 'NAMES'" option is what had been listed as option 1 above. I am still looking for someone to substitute in place of Jenner, someone who was not so recently the subject of extended discussion. I have seen RFCs before where people were asked to rank options an a sort of instant runoff was used; I think we should strongly consider setting up this RFC to use such a system to address the fact that there are now two "use both" options and two "it depends" options (one option is both), which will fragment and artificially depress the apparent support for those options. -sche (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The only difference between 1a and 1b is the examples. I believe "should MOS:IDENTITY contain examples" is a matter that could be handled on this talk page alone, preferably after more material matters have been settled. This is what I get for reading changes in the history; reacting to a version that's been replaced.
 * I think that option 1 in proposal 1 should be the exact current text of MOS:IDENTITY. This is a status quo vs. change proposal, so the status quo option should be the status quo text.
 * In proposal 2, the fact that CONTEXT-DEPENDENT is worded so very differently from the other options makes me wonder how it's supposed to be the same and different from the other options. How about "Use only the gender identity that is more relevant to the subject of the passage.  When it is not clear which identity is more relevant, use the current identity. 'Bruce Jenner competed...' 'Lana wrote...'", is this what you were going for or close enough?  Because if so I think we have a wording.
 * ...I'm otherwise okay with the way proposal one is phrased, but it has occurred to me that we could also just ask, "Should MOS:IDENTITY be kept or changed?" If the answer comes back "No," then we're done. If the answer comes back "Yes," then we could work from there using the specific objections and suggestions that participants raise in the thread.  For example, what if the community doesn't actually want old-pronoun-before-transition-new-pronoun-after?  What if they want, say use-only-the-ID-by-which-the-subject-is-best-known?  What if they want something else that we haven't thought of?  Again, I'm okay with our current proposal 1, but I thought I'd bring it up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Okay, read the edited text. I do not think that proposal 1 should address more than one issue.  This version says "Should we add the word 'names'?" and "Should we change the core of the guideline?"  Adding "names" is a small issue that we can probably handle here on the MOS talk page after the big issue is done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Sorry I edited the text so much while you were replying to it!) OK, I will remove (strike) the option that adds "names"; I had just copied it from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. -sche (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. proposed rewording for CONTEXT-DEPENDENT: no. Please stop trying to butcher the wording I proposed into something it is not. E.g. my wording caters for the case where both the PREVIOUS and the CURRENT name might need to be mentioned next to each other, don't present the wording as if that were made impossible by that proposal. It is imho still the most sensible proposal while it isn't imposing a "one size fits all" that will never work, i.e. it allows to form consensuses on particular cases, without such consensus being necessarily outside the rules (which was one of the problems highlighted by the closer of the VPP RfC). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(which illustrates that "CONTEXT-DEPENDENT" does little more than explain current practice) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Easy there, FS. I'm not butchering your proposal; I'm rewording it so that it matches the rest of the options.  It shouldn't stick out for aesthetic reasons, only by its own flaws or virtues.  The point of the proposal is to allow participants to compare and contrast the options we offer them.  If I didn't guess your meaning correctly, then tell me exactly what I got wrong or reword it yourself. (Your current explanation leaves me thinking it's the same as "BOTH IF RELEVANT.")
 * I don't happen to like these examples. I understand the value of taking something directly from an article, but it takes a minute to sit there and figure out what each sentence is talking about. "Wait, isn't the Taj Mahal a place?  Is this about a person named 'Taj Mahal'?  Hm, maybe it's the name of a song." "Among these?  Among whats?"  We should use something clearer, where the reader doesn't have to click into an article to find out what's going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, please reword the other options. The way they are worded they're only straw man options, far from current practice.
 * Regarding examples: I've never seen hypothetical examples work very well to write helpful guidance. Of course it urges to think a bit. !voting without thinking is the last thing this should be aiming at. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This is the way you want the proposal to be worded, so it's on you to do the work of translating the other options into your wording. 2) Your wording leaves your meaning unclear to me, so I'm not sure I'd be able to do your methods or the proposal itself justice anyway.  If you reword the others, I'll be able to see more about how you think the options are the same and different. 3) Some of the options I provided come straight from things that people were asking for in the discussion closed by Drmies. 4) I have seen clear and straightforward examples make themselves useful. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop moving these paragraphs around (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
Hi. I'm sorry but I'm still not clear on the issue of names. Is it the case that in all our proposals:
 * where we're calling for using the pre-transition pronouns we'd be calling for using the pre-transition names;
 * and where we're calling for using the post-transition pronouns we'd be calling for using the post-transition names?

(In order to help me understand better, if possible please begin your reply with a "yes" or a "no," and elaborate as necessary.) Thank you for clarifying this for me. Richard27182 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: All I'm trying to say here is that I don't think we want anything in the Manual of Style that would require (or even allow) an editor to write something like: Bruce Jenner's performance in the 1976 Olympic decathlon earned her the gold medal. Or, Caitlyn Jenner's performance in the 1976 Olympic decathlon earned him the gold medal. Richard27182 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes for proposal 1 ("Should we modify the current MOS:IDENTITY?"). No for proposal 2 ("Should we add this bit to MOS:IDENTITY?").  The idea is that adding another layer of possibilities gives the proposal too many moving parts.  We can deal with pronouns after we see what the community wants per identity.
 * Here's a question, though: Will any one say "Caitlyn Jenner ... he"? Per WP:BEANS, we shouldn't make rules against things that no one's going to do anyway.  If I'm wrong and people do try to do it, we can always add a clarification then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For proposal #2, I honestly don't see what the problem would be with having it state something like:
 * Hi.
 * What reason could we possibly have where we would want a pronoun and the person it referred to to not agree in gender (or transition status)? Rather than "giv[ing] the proposal too many moving parts," I believe it would clarify the proposal.  You write "If I'm wrong and people do try to do it [use mismatched names and pronouns], we can always add a clarification then."  But I think people would start getting sick of seeing so many RfC's, VPP's, etc. on more or less than same subject within a relatively short span of time.  Just adding those two words ("including names") would make the VPP clearer and eliminate the possible need of having to add a clarification later.  Please let me know what you think about this.  I would also like to hear what others think.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard27182 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess it's reasonable to assume that almost everyone would say "Lana wrote her script..." and "Larry wrote his script..." — I can only think of one editor who has opined that names and pronouns should be handled separately and possibly contradictorily — so I guess we could add pronouns to the RFC without increasing the number of moving parts after all, if we assume that for the "BOTH" options the pronouns will match whichever name is used first (if pronouns are needed at all). Using the existing wording-format, that would mean:

This proposal involves an addition to MOS:Identity, the exact text of (most options of) which will be worked out later. Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject and which discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.
 * PREVIOUS NAME ONLY: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Larry Wachowski wrote the script for his film in 1994.
 * CURRENT NAME ONLY: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; she won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
 * ALWAYS BOTH: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script for her film in 1994.  (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
 * BOTH IF RELEVANT: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.) (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
 * CONTEXT-DEPENDENT:
 * OTHER: (please explain)


 * However, I am increasingly persuaded that it would be good to offer actual text to be added to the MOS and then offer the examples above, rather than just offering the examples. I will work on some wording (and on finding a replacement for Jenner). See the following section. -sche (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think adding the pronouns to this makes it too complicated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Seventh draft, proposals 1 and 2 (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
This proposal revisits MOS:IDENTITY. How should transgender people be referred to in articles about themselves?
 * 1:
 * 2:


 * Note: this adds "name" to 'option 1' ("name" is not present in the current text of the MOS) to match what's in 'option 2', and because a major point of this discussion is determining what name to refer to people by. Also note: tweaked in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=684947101&oldid=684924545 diff].

Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subjects and which discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.
 * PREVIOUS ONLY:
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Larry Wachowski wrote the script for his film in 1994.
 * CURRENT ONLY:
 * Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; she won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
 * ALWAYS BOTH:
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script for her film in 1994.  (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
 * BOTH IF RELEVANT:
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.) (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
 * CONTEXT-DEPENDENT:
 * OTHER: (please explain)

-sche (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging:
 * I like the way the one proposed version (I've lost track of all the version/revision numbers) reads:
 * " [emphasis added] "
 * It's nice to see the word "names" finally in there as something to be considered.
 * &emsp;However I still strongly disagree about having so many options to choose from.  Six options (five if you don't count "other") is just too many, and for numerous reasons:
 * It will make it more confusing for the participants.
 * Some potential participants may be turned off by so many options and not want to have to bother reading through them all and figuring out what each one means.
 * It can make consensus harder to determine.
 * It will cause some similar minded participants to end up selecting different options (ie, fragmenting their "!votes"); while other similar minded participants will end up in an artificial plurality.  (I know it's not supposed to be about counting "!votes," but that's how these things are often decided.)
 * I believe all we really need is three options (plus "other").


 * PREVIOUS NAME ONLY
 * CURRENT NAME ONLY
 * ALWAYS BOTH


 * (and of course)
 * &emsp;Also, I'm getting dizzy from all this moving around of postings.  Can we agree on where new postings (ie, messages to an editor in particular, or to all editors involved) should be placed?
 * Richard27182 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Re. "Can we agree on where new postings (...) should be placed?" – see Talk page guidelines. Staying on topic within the created sections would be a good start, e.g. don't comment on the 7th proposal in the thread on the 8th proposal, etc.
 * Re. "messages to an editor in particular, or to all editors involved" – please stop doing that. Don't pick the editors you want to be talking to. If someone stays out of the discussion for some days, and you still want to hear their opinion, then you can ping.
 * Re. three options (PREVIOUS NAME ONLY; CURRENT NAME ONLY; ALWAYS BOTH) – imho these are the three we least need, because these are the ones that all have WP:SNOW chances of becoming stable MOS guidance. It's always going to be context-sensitive: the only two real alternatives is making that the context of the topic linked to, or the context where the link appears. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello.
 * &emsp;Thank you for your suggestion of checking out the Wikipedia talk page guidelines. But I doubt it anticipated  something as disorganized as this discussion.  I generally post right under the editor I'm responding to in order to make it as easy as possible for them to locate my response.  Maybe we should have two general sections: one for discussions, and another exclusively for the proposed language of the proposals.
 * &emsp;Please do not tell me which editors to communicate with and those I should not communicate with!  When I "ping" an editor it's because I'm replying to a message from them, or it's something related to them.  In any case as long as I'm not "canvassing," who I communicate with is my business.
 * &emsp;Concerning which options would be best to include in the VPP, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. And I'm sure you'll work toward advancing your opinion, just as I will work toward advancing mine.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "I've lost track of all the version/revision numbers": the version numbers are in the section headings; for example, when you look at or edit this section, you're looking at and editing a section called "Seventh draft".
 * Re where new postings [...] should be placed?": as Francis has noted, new postings go in the section which they are about. (You had posted some comments about the wording of the proposal into a section about whether or not to notify WP:BLPN; I moved them.)
 * Re "I still strongly disagree about having so many options": oh, I agree that having so many options is sub-optimal, and I agree that it will fragment !votes, all but ensuring that no matter what the outcome of the discussion is judged to be, there will be those who think it isn't an accurate judgement of the discussion. However, I don't see a way around it, even if we encourage/require users to rank all of the options. Each option has its supporters. -sche (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello . I am going to bed now, and will answer your message sometime soon (probably in thee next 24 hours).
 * Richard27182 (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello . I'm sorry I couldn't reply last night but I needed to get to bed; I hope you'll understand.
 * &emsp;It's difficult for me to determine where "new" postings should go because this discussion is very different from those I've participated in in the past.  For one thing I'm not used to all those sub-labels.  It seems like every other posting adds a new sub-label.   Also it's confusing when paragraphs keep getting moved around.  A majority of my postings have been replies to Darkfrog24, and I'd been trying to post my replies right underneath.  It's also difficult when I want to post something to make a point about the discussion, and since my previous posting, two or three new subcategories have been started.  If I place my new posting at the end of the discussion, it ends up under some category that didn't even exist when I did my previous posting.  So anyway, you tell me; when I'm posting an observation or suggestion, or replying to something someone wrote to me (ie, addressed it to me and pinged me), where should I place the posting?
 * &emsp;Concerning the other topic of your message, if you agree that having so many options is sub&#8209;optimal, then what would you consider to be optimal?
 * Richard27182 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Re. content of the proposal:
 * Please avoid "now" as in "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)" (bolding added): bad style, advised against per MOS, not something that should appear in a MOS-related RfC.
 * Comparison: 2006 Medibank International has:
 * not:
 * Meaning, I'm sure divorcing Mr. Hardenne was a painful experience for this tennis player, but at the time (2006) she was known under that name, and Wikipedia doesn't make a big deal about it. Somehow drawing attention to the later name change would, imho, acerbate the distress of someone having divorced and reading a page related to them, not diminish it. That's just how I feel about it.


 * Note that the context of a page listing sports achievements does not require to point out later name changes for the people involved, so the BOTH IF RELEVANT proposal is worded wrongly. The context of the article on the 1976 Olympics does not mandate to go into details of such later changes. So either the wording of the principle, or the given example (Caitlyn) makes a mess of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's much easier to tell from context that Justine Henin-Hardenne and Justine Hardenne are the same person. If you don't already know they're the same person, you'd think Caitlyn Jenner was Bruce Jenner's sister or something.  That's actually happened to a few transgender individuals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the restructured proposals, for the most part they're both fine, but "CONTEXT-DEPENDENT" is still unclear. It really should be written in the same style as the others, whatever that style ends up being.  At the very least it needs its own example line so that it matches the other options and can be compared to them more easily.
 * If the concern is the removal of the line about "Generally it's unnecessary..." or "Principle of least surprise..." I'd support putting those in the actual text after the community tells us what the core of the rule should be. But having words like that in one option but not the others makes it look more thoughtful than the others, and putting them in all of them is unnecessary bloat.
 * Safe to say that we're all reasonably content with the way this version of proposal 1 is phrased? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I've just noticed one thing that's definitely a problem and another thing which is probably a problem. Option 2 of proposal 1 says to use "pronouns, adjectives, and gendered nouns that correspond to the previous gender identity when discussing events that took place before the individual's gender transition". The definite problem with that is that a trans man's pre-public-transition "gender identity" (=internal identification of himself) was probably "man", so we'd still say "in 1990, he competed in women's tennis", since "he" "correspond[s] to the previous gender identity" — what the option surely intends is "gender presentation" (he presented himself as a woman). I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=684947101&oldid=684924545 changed the wording accordingly]. The other issue is: option 2 says to use the individual's current "pronouns, possessive adjectives, name, and gendered nouns" for post-transition events, but only says to use the individual's previous "pronouns, adjectives, and gendered nouns" for pre-transition events, i.e. there's no guidance as to which name to use for pre-transition events. This would be a serious problem if an individual changed surnames (Fallon Fox was formerly Boyd Burton). I assume the intention of the people who favour option 2 is to use the previous name as well as the previous pronouns, so we should just add "name" after "adjectives". -sche (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. I consider those changes mostly improvements. How about now, everyone? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope the flags aren't going into MOS as examples. That's the very use of flags that I find irritating and anti-reader: who knows what countries they represent? Tony   (talk)  01:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Eighth draft, proposal 2 (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
Which names and pronouns should be used for transgender individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subjects and which discuss events that took place before they publicly announced their transition? In the following examples, the first article is about the men's Olympics and the second article is about a film.


 * PREVIOUS ONLY:
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Larry Wachowski wrote the script for his film in 1994.
 * CURRENT ONLY:
 * Example: Caitlyn Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; she won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
 * ALWAYS BOTH:
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski) wrote the script for her film in 1994.  (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
 * BOTH IF RELEVANT:
 * Example: Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. (Readers may wonder why a woman participated in a men-only event, and including Jenner's previous name resolves this.) Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994. (Readers will not wonder why a woman wrote a script.) (Use the pronouns which correspond to the name which is used first.)
 * ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT:
 * Example: Bruce Jenner competed in the men's Olympics in 1976; he won a gold medal. Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994.
 * OTHER: (please explain)

This does not apply to biographical articles about transgender individuals; that is covered ((link to proposal 1 thread |here)).

Francis's line about "it is not necessary to go into detail" is good and should probably go into the MoS no matter which option is chosen. I think it's a little tighter and more balanced now (and I changed "identity" to "presentation" per -sche's comment and "now" ot "later" per FrancisS's) but I'd still like to present the fourth option in exactly the same terms as the others. I also noticed that it doesn't hold up for transgender individuals who don't have a main biography, so I added a "would." Is this livable for everyone? and should probably check in. They're our main don't-use-the-new-identity contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Even though I'm the one who suggested it, I suggest dropping "BOTH IF RELEVANT" to reduce the number of moving parts. I had intended it to (a) allow us to avoid having to use the old name in places where it wasn't relevant, but the benefits of "some people will recognize only the old name, some people only the new name" probably mean we're better off with just the "BOTH" option, and (b) recognize the current identity everywhere, never using just the previous identity. Dropping it would cut things down to a more workable set of four distinct options. -sche (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest also dropping the "ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT" option.  I think both options mentioning relevancy are potentially problematic because they call for the person writing (or contributing to) the article to make a judgement call.  And this is sure to result in conflicts and disputes in future edits to such articles.  That, plus my argument that the more options we offer, the more fragmented the "!vote" will be, and the more difficult it will be to evaluate consensus.
 * I believe the optimum set of choices would be:
 * PREVIOUS ONLY
 * CURRENT ONLY
 * ALWAYS BOTH
 * OTHER: (please explain)
 * This would concisely cover all viewpoints; and it would do so without cluttering the VPP with a plethora of choices, and without inviting countless disputes down the line when people are editing this type of article.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is "in question" necessary? Tony   (talk)  09:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it earns its keep but it's not a big deal either way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Only more relevant" option leaves it to opinion. We obviously have a difference of opinion.  The POV pushers will permanently say the new name is always relevant.  We will have an argument about that on a case by case basis.  I say it eliminates the argument if we stay with the historically accurate names.  Bruce Jenner and male pronouns until, in this case 2015, Caitlyn Jenner and female pronouns after.  Then you don't have awkward and improper statements like she married a woman and fathered two children.  That would be a WP:BLP violation of the other parties involved.  Its easier when we have an exact date.  Larry/Lana Wachowski is a bit more difficult because there was not an announcement date, just an appearance.  Still it is clear, if a script was credited as being written by Larry, then the Lana date had not occurred yet.  Is this clear?  The problem occurs when our POV faction wants to ignore sources, erase history and insert a gender/identity that really didn't exist at that point in time.  Here is a simple challenge:  Find one source written before June 2015 that actually refers to her as Caitlyn Jenner.  That's a source.  We can then backdate our reference to her to the date of that publication.  Find one written in 1976 and you can say she competed in the male events in the Olympics.  Very simple and straight forward reporting of facts as presented in sources.  That is what wikipedia does. Trackinfo (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with what Trackinfo said in one important way... the use a new name (no matter what the reason for the name change may be) needs to be based on what sources written AFTER the name change occurs do - for the simple reason that sources written before the name change is announced become outdated once the change is announced (just as sources written before a scientific discovery become outdated once the discovery is announced).
 * Sources written after the name change have the option to either change their usage (to the new name) or retain the use of the old name. This is important when writing about historical events... If the sources written after the announcement use the new name, we (Wikipedia) should reflect that change in source usage... However... If the sources written after the change retain the historical name, then we should reflect that retention in our usage.  And If the sources written after the change use the old name in a historical context, but the new name in modern context... we should reflect that mixed usage. This is how we deal with every other situation in which a name changes... I see no reason to adopt a different rule for gender identity related name changes. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the problem. Sources written after the fact can be totally subjugated.  For example:  I would trust the International Olympic Committee to be the best source of information regarding the Olympics.  In 2015, they specifically were asked, petitioned even, to change Jenner's name.  They said emphatically "No."  Now you find a 2015 source (II'm making this up) with a clear agenda to promote, lets call it the "Pro-Transgender Times" and they write an article about Caitlyn Jenner, a transgender woman, valiantly competing against all those men, and she won.  You've got a source.  You can put it in line in the article and truthfully, the source says what you want it to say.  But it has no basis in reality.  Millions of television viewers saw a person named Bruce Jenner, representing as a man in 1976.  Its a form or advertising or worse yet propaganda to change those facts.  Wikipedia does not serve as an advertising agency.  Write all you want about how she felt growing up in the wrong body, but she used that male body and represented as a man to become famous for 40 years.  We have countless articles interpreting history with a clear eye from the rear view mirror.  Use the appropriate sections of the Jenner article to explain all that.  We have football articles explaining and justifying why a loss happened, but wikipedia can't change the score.  The world saw the man.  When the world looks to wikipedia to report the facts, they should find our reporting consistent with what happened. Trackinfo (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds like something better addressed in the discussion section of the live proposal than in the discussion of the wording of said proposal. Our goal right now is to make sure that this proposal provides an option consistent with the common viewpoints.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds like something better addressed in the discussion section of the live proposal than in the discussion of the wording of said proposal. Our goal right now is to make sure that this proposal provides an option consistent with the common viewpoints.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly support including the "ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT" option. Yes, editors may disagree as to whether one name or the other is "relevant"... but when that occurs, the solution is to discuss the issue of relevance on the article's talk page and reach a WP:Consensus. That's how all content disputes are resolved.    Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Remember, everyone, we're going for "what can we live with?" and "does this present all or at least most of the likely options to the community clearly"? Remember, the participants can still say whatever they want in their own comments. (I'd love to say "it doesn't have to be perfect," but I've been around the VPP block a few times.) If we get someone like Drmies to close it again, then we can trust that those comments will be weighed appropriately.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I made one addition that I think will help things go smoothly: This does not apply to biographical articles about transgender individuals; that is covered ((link to proposal 1 thread |here)). There would be a corresponding This does not apply to articles that merely mention transgender individuals in passing; that is covered ((link to proposal 2 thread |here)). in proposal 1. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging:
 * &emsp;Blueboar and I appear to agree that the "ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT" option may (I personally would say definitely will) lead to editors "disagree[ing] as to whether one name or the other is 'relevant'." Where we disagree is whether it is better to amend the Manual of Style in such a way as to try to prevent this, or in such a way as to all but guarantee that it will happen.  And if we do do that (ie, let the issue be resolved by RfC or equivalent in each article where the issue arises) we will probably end up with different standards being applied to different articles.  If we set a specific standard in the MOS, then it would apply equally to all articles that are in this category.
 * &emsp;Blueboar and I also agree/disagree on the issue of sources written before the fact as opposed to after the fact.  I agree with Blueboar that "sources written before the name change is announced become outdated once the change is announced."  So sources written after the fact should be considered to be the more valid ones (and for the most part the only valid ones).  But what happens when the same edit to the same Wikipedia article has two or more after-the-fact sources, and the different sources use different styles concerning name usage?  This kind of predicament can be avoided if the MOS specifies the appropriate style to use in a particular situation.
 * &emsp;I believe that having the MOS deal with this issue in any way that calls for editors to judge relevancy themselves and/or adopt the style of their sources is a recipe for disaster, and will result in dozens of unnecessary RfC's, as well as different articles using different naming styles.  These problems can be avoided by having the MOS specify the naming style to use.  And that would tend to eliminate both VPP options that mention relevancy.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do we do when two or more sources disagree?... we would look for more sources and continue the discussion until we reach a consensus. If all else fails we would follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. This is how Wikipedia settles all other content disputes, and it works.  There is no reason why it won't work for resolving gender identity related disputes.   In other words, we don't need MOS to set a one-size-fits-all "rule" to deal with the issue... we already HAVE several policies and guidelines that tell us how to handle content disputes.  Reaching a consensus can be messy and time consuming, but it works. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep looking for more sources (which will probably be as varied as our individual opinions??) More discussion ad infinitum?? The MOS is supposed to give us guidelines, not instructions for conducting a free-for-all. Sorry to have to disagree with you, but I still think having the MOS tell editors to basically use their own judgement when it comes to what format is the relevant one to use in an issue such as this one is wrong. And I remain opposed to it. Richard27182 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging:
 * I respectfully disagree.
 * I respectfully disagree. No, not more discussions ad infinitum... more discussions in an attempt to reach consensus (with the understanding that there is always the possibility of ending the discussions with WP:NOCONSENSUS).  We don't need MOS "rules" to settle every dispute, because we already HAVE lots of policies and guidelines to help us resolve them.  Amending the MOS is NOT the answer to every dispute. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as a general comment, this discussion seems to be focusing more and more on the merits of individual options, rather than making sure all supported options are included for a fair and complete RFC. You aren't supposed to agree with all the options presented, but rather to make sure the options you support are fairly worded. That people are moving to a substantive discussion of the options may suggest that it time to launch the RFC, where that discussion can properly take place.--Trystan (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tx. The option I support is not in the current list (it was hacked in to two separate options, neither of which I can support). So, as a list of options for an RfC this is going nowhere. I propose to start an RfC with options than can be supported by at least one of the current contributors to the discussion, and allow for additional options to be added as we go along with the RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did my best to guess, Francis Schonken but I'm no mind reader.
 * Trystan is absolutely right. Some of this discussion is about which option would be best for Wikipedia, not which one would be best for the proposal.  That's actually a good sign!  It means we're ready to move forward. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ninth draft (proposal 2) (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Francis, I still can't tell how this option is different from the way I phrased it. If that's the case, then I've failed to understand something important about it, and if I don't understand it after weeks of discussions, then the proposal participants probably won't understand it either.
 * However, it's also possible that I did understand it. It's starting to look like the real issue is that you just don't like that someone else rephrased your work.  I get it; it can be annoying.  But if that's not the case, if there really is some difference between this and "ONLY THE MORE RELEVANT," then please state that difference clearly.  Under this option, would the article read "Bruce" or "Caitlyn"?  "Lana" or "Larry"?  You said that you felt your suggestion had been chopped into two options.  Which was the other one?
 * Is it that this one has a link to a Wikipedia essay? I removed that link because the text itself must be neutral.  A link to an essay make it look like that option is more closely supported by policy and practice than the others, and it's not. (The one most supported by policy is "ALWAYS CURRENT.") Linking to essays is best done in the discussion section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, respect my phrasing if you don't understand it. I reserve explaining why I like it to the RfC proper. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like that, Francis. Explain why you think an option is best in the RfC proper, but explain why you think it should be phrased that way here.
 * I'm pretty sure that I do understand your phrasing and that I did it no disrespect when I made some minor changes that rendered it clearer and more neutral. I'm assuming good faith, giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking you if I made a mistake somewhere. Go ahead and point it out. I am showing you exactly how you can change my mind: Which name would the article use? What did I miss about it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. "Explain why you think an option is best in the RfC proper" – I did that already, see above. For the rest I also liked Trystan's comment "...this discussion seems to be focusing more and more on the merits of individual options...", indeed that's not what needs to be discussed now.
 * Re. "point it out" – I did that already, see above.
 * Re. "Which name would the article use?" – see table below, I specifically included an example where "BOTH" is indicated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please fill up examples table when adding options --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Francis, what you've proven here is that you're willing to put the work in. But no, you haven't pointed out the difference.  I'm afraid I can't make much of these examples without more context.  I appreciate you trying. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC? (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
I am still unclear on a particular point: the proposal we are in the process of coming up with is referred to by some as an "RfC." Is this in fact going to be an official RfC, or will it be technically something else? Richard27182 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It would technically be a Village Pump Policy thread, but it would work the same as an RfC. Putting it at VPP would make it easier to see and find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What about names in List format? (revisiting MOS:IDENTITY)
Question... No matter what guidance we end up with... I think we should discuss List articles. Lists are somewhat different than sentence based articles. These are situations where our options are somewhat limited, in that often all that is presented is a name. For example, if we were writing List of Olympic decathlon winners would we use "Bruce Jenner"... "Caitlyn Jenner"... "Bruce (now Caitlyn) Jenner"... "Caitlyn (then Bruce) Jenner"... or what?

Before you give a final answer... suppose the list topic was List of Trans-gender Olympians... would you choose the same name? I know I wouldn't. The context would be different. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For a list of Olympic winners, I'd put "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)" for the case of Bruce Jenner but I don't know that I would do so for every trans athlete. Jenner was famous under the name "Bruce" for many reasons before transitioning.  How many Olympic winners are household names?  That would make it less difficult for me to support "John Smith (listed as Jane Smith)."
 * For a list of specifically transgender winners, I'd put the post-transition name first because the context makes it clear that these people have two names and why. I'd say "Caitlyn Jenner (listed as Bruce Jenner)," etc.
 * You're right that this is different. The main purposes of the two articles are somewhat different.  In the first one, the fact that Jenner is trans is not important but in the second one it is.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly... different articles require that we treat the issue differently. In many (perhaps even most) articles, presenting both names is a workable solution... but not in every article.  In a few, the "new" name is irrelevant and can simply be ignored (example: in our List of World War II battles we use the name Leningrad... ignoring the name "St. Petersberg" completely).  In a few others, the situation is reversed, and the "former" name is irrelevant and can be ignored. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution here... Context is key. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I were writing a List of Trans-gender Olympians (and I have written a lot of lists on wikipedia), I would use a logical flow. We would have a column for their Olympic appearance (year sport event, possibly multiples), the name they were known as during the Olympics and the name they have transitioned to.  Is there a different logic we should use because someone is transgender than if we were creating a List of Olympians who have changed names?  Why? Trackinfo (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Contacting BLP regulars for help revising MOS:IDENTITY
We've reached consensus here that contacting transgender Wikipedians might compromise the neutrality of the discussion and the proposals that it is about to produce, but is everyone cool with posting an invitation at the BLP noticeboard? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:IDENTITY isn't limited to living people, but all the articles I can think of where gender identity has been the subject of extended discussion have been on living people, so I think such a notice would be OK, though less relevant than notices to the two Wikiprojects which are directly about this topic area (mentioned above). -sche (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that posting an invitation at the BLP noticeboard is a fine idea.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY proposals have been posted at VPP
We're up!


 * Proposal 1
 * Proposal 2

I want to thank everyone who worked so hard on making this set of proposals clear and palatable for the community. This is a very big issue and I think we handled it with the consideration that it deserves. I think we've produced drafts that we can all live with and that the other editors will understand. Francis, I don't know whether you're not able to explain what the difference is between your phrasing and the other drafts or whether you just don't want to, but I've done my best to do your suggestions justice while still keeping the thread clear and neutral. That being said, I have not yet publicized these proposals, and if any two people think that either or both were posted prematurely, I'll take them down. At that point I'd recommend that we have an uninvolved admin come and choose a phrasing for us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can post a direct link to the discussion here, rather than leaving it ambiguous. Trackinfo (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. I got caught up in looking for people to ping.
 * While we're at it, how does everyone like the thread titles? We didn't spend much time on those. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the threads. The thread/section titles are good IMO — neutral and descriptive. -sche (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)