Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 12
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Guideline addition proposal regarding subject preference limitations
Prior discussion:
genesis of the proposal, examples, case study, FAQ
|
---|
I'd start thinking about how to put this into words. I suggest something along these lines, to be inserted after the section about disambiguation:
I like the "working by examples" approach that has always been the way this guideline was conceived. Francis Schonken (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to the gender-change examples. However, such change can be applied to a Wikipedia page name long before the majority of reliable sources have followed: to me that seems a sort of inevitable corrolary of WP:IDENTITY, second bullet - where gender self-identification is treated as an "exception" to the RS-requirement. I don't think there is a discussion that a same gender-change exception is in place in NCP. From that follows that such gender self-identification examples are not good examples of alternate names with comparable support in RSes where the balance is tipped by the self-identifictation. Despite being still the subject of a Wikipedia-variety of never-ending discussion I know no other example where the tipping of the balance can be shown thus distinctly as in the H(R)C example. Can anybody help out for another example? Much appreciated! In the mean while, here's my ammended proposition of a wording for the NCP guideline page:
So please think of some more examples that might help us to write good guidance here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Melanie (& others stating that comparable strength RS support is needed) this July 2004 page move had, at the time, at best a very limited RS support, and was almost exclusively leaning on self-published sources. This page move was apparently never contested (note that every letter and comma of the content of that page has been contested multiple times), so there's precedent even outside a "confirmed by RSs" / "tie breaker" approach. Most evidently in the case of this example there was an underlying disambiguation issue that was solved elegantly in this way. So instead of refering to RSs I'd refer to the "general rules regarding page naming, including disambiguation". In sum:
I still prefer the H(R)C example, I don't want to steer fellow wikipedians to a page where you can get banned just for participating in the talk page discussions! Sorry for not being able to think of a more suitable example - however I don't agree with the approach of those who are not inclined to look for better examples out of fear they might demonstrate precedent. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
If the second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section is changed to
I'd write the new section thus:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Forgive me, but I'm a professional editor/ghostwriter, and I can't help but want to alter that last sentence - so that it says the same thing but in a simpler and more straightforward way. It's generally better to make a positive statement, instead of "unless this..." and "only that" and neologisms like "(co)-decided". Also, since we don't know of any examples of compelling BLP issues - except for gender change which has already been dealt with - could we leave that out? Or else put it in parenthesis at the end? Applying those style principles, how about something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
5th proposalCombining recent suggestions for improvement: (second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)
(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
(new content for second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)
(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Or this variant (for the last guideline recommendation):
followed by the same examples. Variant for the "However,..." sentence of the first paragraph:
The several / multiple distinction suggested above eludes me. Maybe more experienced copywriters can jump in? If H(R)C is an impediment to go live with this I'd lose the example. Otherwise A. Mahler >< H R C make a nice pair showing the difference between living and dead people. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we go live with this?(new content for second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)
(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
ApproachI still see room for improvement. My last proposal was still much of a patchwork, not pointing towards where the guidance might be helpful. I'd start from a clear example where the subject's preference didn't matter, something along these lines:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Case study: what effect would the proposed guideline addition have regarding Hillary (Rodham) Clinton?My general idea is that the ultimate outcome of the debate regarding Hillary Clinton / Hillary Rodham Clinton wouldn't be influenced by the proposed guideline addition as it is based on current practice, but that there are a lot of procedural advantages:
Currently a lot of energy is diverted to an emergency break solution (moratorium). Moratoria are usually not considered as the best solution (least bad solution at best). As such they aren't even a solution, they just put a temporary lid on reasonable and unreasonable discussion. A lot of energy to get it installed, and even if installed successfully: no result. The guideline addition proposes reasonable operation tools, so no need for an emergency break, thus removing red tape. According to the proposed guideline addition subject preference could only be invoked if there is a tie regarding the alternative names (second exception couldn't be applied while not passing 4th criterion). This means that reopening discussions would only be sensible if one of the following applies:
All other discussion would be moot, thus keeping discussions focussed and shorter. Lack of guidance was one of the arguments the closing admins proposed in the elaborate 7th RM (archived at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 19). I can only hope that argument will never have to be used again, thus facilitating clear discussion (and more avoiding of red tape, see energy diverted to recently proposed move review). The current decision is met with a lot of tension. Maybe not everyone is as susceptible to reason as I am (no offence intended), but I gather that if a reasonable argument can be made that there is not much to discuss outside the options mentioned above, many more editors would readily accept whatever choice is eventually made. Without addition to current guidance Hillary (Rodham) Clinton would be considered as a contentious example for many more months (if not years). Otherwise it might become an example of how Wikipedia handled issues succinctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
FAQ
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. 6: I'm not sure what is the procedure for de-listing from WP:AN/RFC. Maybe suggest to the user who listed it there to retract? I'd have no problem with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Re. 1: updated the answer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Re. 2: there are no wrong questions, and this was about the way the question was presented by Chris T above ("...I don't see a problem that the proposed change actually solves"). The other question, presented by SMcC ("What are the main rationales for and against this change?") is a very wise question too. Anyone care to formulate an answer to it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Re. 3: added two sub-questions for minute specification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Comment You might want to add something like this, since we are seeing a lot of slippery-slope arguments that this would let the subject dictate their own coverage: "Does this proposal mean that subject preference would override titling guidelines? No, subject preference could only be invoked for a title that meets all titling guidelines."
|
Current proposal (9th proposal):
(new content for second bullet of the second paragraph of the middle names / abbreviations section:)
- Initials are usually capitalized, each abbreviation followed by a period and each period followed by a space. Exceptions include k.d. lang (stage name and subject preference, see below) and CC Sabathia (subject to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)).
(new section to be inserted after the section on disambiguation:)
- ==Subject preference limitations==
- In the overwhelming majority of cases we need not be aware of a subject's preference to give a workable article title:
- Alma Mahler - makes no difference whether or not she herself preferred to add the name of her third husband by the time she finished her autobiography, the world remembers her by the last name of her first husband. All in line with naming conventions the article title follows that usage.
- The remainder of this section concerns those exceptional cases when in excess of that body of rules and guidelines the subject's preference can play a role.
- The first of these exceptions regards those cases where application of naming conventions does not lead to a unique result, for example two name variants are used nearly as often in reliable sources, technical limitations of search engines to determine "most common", standard disambiguation leads to quirky results...
- In these cases the subject's preference can play as a tie-breaker:
- k.d. lang — difficult to determine which capitalisation, interpunction, spacing is used most often in reliable sources as search engines are quite insensitive to such differences. The subject's preference (at least not contradicted by reliable sources) comes natural then.
- Sometimes subjects want to be known by a different name as the one by which the public at large knows them. Standard application of naming conventions demands to wait until the new name catches on in reliable sources and only move the article to the new name if and when the name preferred by the subject has a higher occurence than any former name, or to keep to whatever other standard naming convention (e.g. royals) and/or disambiguation technique:
- The Artist Formerly Known As Prince never caught on in that sense, so the article is at Prince (musician).
- Muhammed Ali and Victoria Beckham did catch on in that sense.
- The second exception regards cases where it may be possible to run ahead of other naming conventions and change to the name preferred by the subject. Such name change overriding traditional naming conventions guidelines appears only to be possible if all of the following conditions are met:
- The subject falls under WP:BLP (e.g. Emperor Shōwa falls short of this condition)
- The subject's preference is known without ambiguity (e.g. Gregory Hemingway and Ke$ha fall short of this condition). This has to be seen as a WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:V policy requirement.
- No significant loss in recognisability, as a WP:AT requirement. So adding a spouse's name after marriage could do, where replacement of the maiden name by the spouse's last name usually wouldn't unless after an ample amount of press coverage.
- The change of condition that inspired the preference for the alternate name is usually thought of as irreversible. Some clarification regarding reversible / irreversible (the definition is conventional for use in this guideline):
- Gender change: usually thought of as irreversible, thus Wendy Carlos
- Marriage and divorce: usually thought of as irreversible, thus Justine Henin → later Justine Henin-Hardenne → later again Justine Henin. In this case it is especially important to be certain of the subject's preference with regard to his or her public persona, otherwise it is not advised to run ahead of naming convention standards (e.g. Tina Turner).
- Attaining a very high profile office that comes with a life-long name change, irreversible. For example, a newly elected Roman Catholic pope can be moved to the page reflecting his preference within minutes after first announcement. In this particular case, press coverage outdoes all printed reliable sources up till that moment.
- New stage name, change in religious confession: usually thought of as reversible, so at least a change in the majority of reliable sources (or whatever other applicable naming convention) has to be proven first, thus Cat Stevens and not Yusuf Islam
- Name given at birth... irreversible. It shouldn't be too difficult for a subject to see all later nicknames (e.g. Jimmy Wales, not Jimbo Wales) or stagenames (e.g. [11]) removed from the article title when thus preferred.
- Changes for reasons of political profiling, publicity stunts,... reversible, no preliminary impact on the page name.
- Having the bulk of one's career in an environment that favours a particular version of the subject's name → irreversible; Moving to another region and/or changing nationality is, at least for living people, reversible, even in the case of involuntary exile.
- The name preferred by the subject should not be unduly self-serving.
- The above should be seen as a translation of the WP:ABOUTSELF policy on article content into a workable set of rules applicable to article titles.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, everything you write here reads as very sensible. What is it that you propose to do? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I propose to introduce it in the guideline, unless further improvement is needed first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, everything you write here reads as very sensible. What is it that you propose to do? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Added ABOUTSELF analogy as a conclusion of the section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (9th proposal)
- The proposal is that the section above be added directly into policy? Don't want to sound mean here, but improvement definitely is needed. As it is the section above strikes me as basically unreadable. Could we work on something that would be a little more clear and concise? NickCT (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re. The proposal is that the section above be added directly into policy? - yes, see above (for clarity: added in the NCP guideline, not on any policy page in the strict sense). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rereading, I think you could probably just boil all of this down to the following -
- "Generally a subject's personal naming preference should not be considered in determining article titles. In instances where following other naming conventions and policies leads to two or more possible titles, which all seem to capture a near identical level of consensus, a subject's preference can play as a tie breaker."
- I see two problems with your "second exception" bit. 1) At the moment its unreadable, and 2) even if it was readable, it seems to be redundant to things that WP:COMMONNAME says about name changes. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re. 1, help is appreciated
- Re. 2, no all the examples would be at other names if only WP:COMMONNAME applied (except of course the examples indicated as "subject preference does not apply"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The proposal is that the section above be added directly into policy? Don't want to sound mean here, but improvement definitely is needed. As it is the section above strikes me as basically unreadable. Could we work on something that would be a little more clear and concise? NickCT (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I find #3 unclear. Under this language, it sounds like, upon the marriage and change of name of a subject, we would append the spouse's married name to the subject's maiden name, no matter how the subject has identified. Do we use such a criteria only to evaluate situations where a person changes their name after having become sufficiently notable to have an article written about them? Furthermore, does this apply retroactively, or only prospectively? Are we going to go back and rename Rose Selfridge, for example, or rename "Sarah Jane Brown" to "Sarah Macaulay Brown"? It seems to me that this would be a case of WP:SYNTH. bd2412 T 16:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- What is unclear about "In this case it is especially important to be certain of the subject's preference with regard to his or her public persona, otherwise it is not advised to run ahead of naming convention standards."?
- Or about "Such name change overriding traditional naming conventions guidelines appears only to be possible if all of the following conditions are met"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re. Rose Selfridge: first exception doesn't apply; second exception doesn't apply per the first criterion.
- Re. Sarah Macaulay Brown: first exception doesn't apply; second exception doesn't apply per the second criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- BD2412, WP:SYNTH, in so far as adding a known middle name, or maiden name, is no more offensive, maybe less so, than adding parenthetical disambiguation, if all source-used names are unavailable. First_name Second_name Maiden_name Family_name is far from unnatural in a collection of biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to use this opportunity to point out a problem with using a person's FULL NAME for disambiguation, as one may run into the problem of choosing which parts of the FULL NAME, which may consist of more names that the rigid US standard of "FirstName MiddleName LastName". Taking myself as an example, my full name is "GivenName1 GivenName2* GivenName3 MotherMaidenName/MiddleName FamilyName". GivenName2*, or "Victor", is both what people call me and what is marked as my official ForeName in documents by an asterisk or underlining. MiddleName is functionally a GivenName4, but people not familiar with Western names might mistake it for a regular given name. Which would you use for disambiguation, GivenName1, GivenName3, or Matronym? On what grounds? The custom of having both maternal and paternal family names with one as a middle name is becoming more and more widespread, and is well on its way to becoming the norm in the country I'm currently living in. The only unusual thing about me is that GivenName2 and not GivenName1 is my ForeName. Many aristocrats have more than half a dozen given names, and sometimes over two dozens(!). On the other hand, many people in European countries have just one forename, so one shouldn't expect a "middle name" to always be available for disambiguation. walk victor falk talk 17:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- ... which (still) misses the point. None of this is sanctioned by the current proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The language I am referring to states "adding a spouse's name after marriage could do, where replacement of the maiden name by the spouse's last name usually wouldn't unless after an ample amount of press coverage". This seems to suggest that if notable "Jane Neukronk" marries "Bob Jonkerson" and takes his last name, then the existing article would be retitled to a synthesized "Jane Neukronk Jonkerson" no matter whether this combination actually existed either legally or in actual use. Am I misreading the attempted distinction between adding and replacing? Would we just keep "Jane Neukronk" until there was enough press coverage to justify "Jane Jonkerson"? I think it has been pointed out before that by far the most common practice (in the U.S. at least) is for people to be known only by a first and last name, and for married women to be known by their first name and the last name of their husband (rather than the last name of their father or other male ancestors). Of course, cultures exist where female children carry the last name of the mother instead of the father, but that is not a practice that has caught on in the U.S. bd2412 T 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Still don't understand what is unclear about the sentence "Such name change overriding traditional naming conventions guidelines appears only to be possible if all of the following conditions are met". There are 4 conditions. Actual examples for which clearly those 4 conditions are met might clarify what you're trying to say. Note: Justine Henin was moved to Justine Henin-Hardenne after marriage reflecting her choice (per the name with which she entered the next tournament and which she used in press releases etc). In her native country she would have been Justine Hardenne - Henin at the time for all legal and common private use. Subject preference was the only reason for the inversion of surnames. (note: compare Dominique Monami - same country, same sport - who followed a different trajectory for name choices)
- Yes we could make the guideline proposal more foolproof for quoting out of context (as I suggested before), but to replace "if all of the following conditions are met" by "if all of the following 4 conditions are met simultanuously" sounds like overcooking to me, on the verge of doubting the readers ability to grasp a concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- axe the gender change section Again, I point you to the Bradley Manning case, where we had the clearest statement of community involvement on this issue. The page was moved because sources had started calling Manning by a different name. I'm quite confident, if the majority of sources hadn't moved, then the page wouldn't be moved either. BLP considerations and subject preference received no consensus. Thus, when the community !voted en-masse, they !voted to follow commonname, not subject preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- After reading into the Ch/Br Manning case I can't agree with your analysis. The pivotal point appears the move request closed on 8 october 2013:
- Unexplained by the closers of the RM why greater weight can be given to recent sources in this case, and not, say, in Yusuf Islam RMs? They clearly have to appeal to the spirit of the commonname principle. Why would that spirit be different? The current guideline addition proposal has a logical approach to that.
- Re. BLP something quite curious happened in the RM closure report. On the one hand the closers couldn't found their decision on WP:BLP directly, but in the facts they did so indirectly by accepting evidence construed from two BLP-related essays (WP:DIGNITY and WP:HARM). This could be seen thus: closers struggeling with the fact that the BLP policy is too broad (too general) for founding article naming conclusions on it: failing guideline recomendations they shifted to essays as the hook for their BLP-related conclusion. The closers of the last major H(R)C RM at least had the courage to say there was a missing link - the current guideline proposal fills the gap.
- Don't know whether I made this clear yet: how conclusions are reached after a very turbulent procedure (I think there even was a post factum ArbCom case witch I didn't read in to yet) is not my primary concern. What I care about is to propose guidance that is as fiable as possible: capable op producing the exact same results as any high or low profile procedure, without superfluous hassle, and no more dumbed down than the exactness of the predicted result requires. Sorry for those who like to indulge in flamboyant dramatics, as well as for those who think coherent recommendations are bad... --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read what they wrote very carefully, which is this: "on the basis of COMMONNAME, there is consensus to move the article from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning.". In this case, commonname happened to align with subject preference, but in the move request that preceded it, subject preference was the same, but commonname was not, and no consensus was reached for a move. As to
Unexplained by the closers of the RM why greater weight can be given to recent sources in this case, and not, say, in Yusuf Islam RMs?
, in the case of Manning it's obvious why recent sources are the only ones relevant, since Manning only revealed his new name in August of 2013 I think, previous to that it was unknown, so obviously any source pre-announcement would have the old name of Bradley - thus it's irrelevant to look at them. As for Yusuf Islam, I agree we should only look at sources POST his announcement of his new name, but that was a while ago. I'm still not sure why that article hasn't moved, I'm not sure if people are really looking at sourcing carefully enough on that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read what they wrote very carefully, which is this: "on the basis of COMMONNAME, there is consensus to move the article from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning.". In this case, commonname happened to align with subject preference, but in the move request that preceded it, subject preference was the same, but commonname was not, and no consensus was reached for a move. As to
- After reading into the Ch/Br Manning case I can't agree with your analysis. The pivotal point appears the move request closed on 8 october 2013:
- Looking into it. Indeed it would at most make a difference for transgenders who are no longer BLP (if axing of the WP:IDENTITY exception is meant):
- Willmer "Little Ax" Broadnax - doesn't conform to current NCP per the nickname in quotes. Is at subject preference for the remainder of the article title I suppose, and would remain there failing any more appropriate (stage?)name. SPL redundant.
- Colin Campbell (artist) - SPL equally redundant I suppose.
- Albert Cashier - here I'm rather inclined to say SPL not redundant.
- Michael Dillon - SPL could be useful here I suppose.
- Robert Eads - similar.
- Reed Erickson - similar
- Edward De Lacy Evans - similar to Cashier
- Eugenia Falleni - SPL useful against moving to a male name (2nd criterion of 2nd exception not met)
- Jack Bee Garland - editor discretion needed on top of SPL for SPL to be of any use here.
- Alexander John Goodrum - similar to Dillon
- That's about half of the Transgender men category checked.
- When my comment indicates usefulness, stability against future page move attempts is meant. Not that any of these article names appear to have been challengend (per RM or the like) - I mean that if someone would challenge in the future little argument could be found in current guidance. I mean the current pagenames are no stagenames or other forms of artist names, acceptable outside a gender change framework (e.g. for George Sand there would be no usefulness in this sense, that's a clear author pseudonym), and I'm not sure whether they would all be clear common name examples.
- All in all the advantages might be quite limited, so I'm a bit in dubio whether or not to include the WP:IDENTITY exception in excess of BLP cases --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think BLP is overblown here as well, it would be ridiculous to have one article title while the subject is alive, then change to a different name once they were dead. BLP is simply an added layer of caution that exhorts us to be especially careful with BLPs, it is not license to do whatever we wish with BDPs. In any case, I think the majority of trans* people are at their new, preferred name, but when we had a very high profile case of a very high profile person in the media who switched, wikipedia did not have consensus to switch to the preferred name right away, rather the bulk of editors preferred to wait for sourcing to catch up. Another counter example is Wolfgang Schmidt, who is a serial murderer and thus unlikely to garner support from the BLP crowd. Thus, while one might say that for low-profile BLPs, such moves have happened without fanfare in the past, for a high-profile BLP (say, if some famous male movie star announced that he'd like to be called Julie), a move would NOT be pre-ordained and subject preference would weigh very little against how the sources treated the issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BDP (policy, subsection of WP:BLP) describes the transition after someone's death: for a few months till a few years after death the subject still falls under WP:BLP (the wording used in the guideline addition proposal). After that, either the name preferred by the subject caught on, or it didn't, in which case the COMMONNAME (or whatever other applicable NC) takes precedence again.
- That, generally, a revision of a biographical article is needed upon death follows, for instance, from WP:MOSBIO#Tense. I don't object to scrutinizing the article title around the same time, and updating it if necessary.
- Re. Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer). True, could be moved to Beate Schmidt according to the second exception. Notwithstanding, I'd like to draw attention to the exact wording of proposal "Such name change...appears only to be possible if..." (emphasis added), nowhere obligtory - there is no pre-ordained as you call it in the current wording of the guideline proposal. In other words, moving to a name preferred by the subject is, besides the limitations already built into the wording of the proposal, further limited by editorial discretion and WP:CONSENSUS. I'd be fine with any move or keep consensus in the Schmidt case.
- The big advantage of introducing the SPL proposal in the guideline remains that it offers a frame of thought that always applies to the simpler cases, and that helps in a focussed discussion for the difficult ones. I'd definitely prefer the SPL proposal being an accepted guideline before a discussion on the W/B Schmidt article title would be opened. Sorry for those who prefer the field day approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think BLP is overblown here as well, it would be ridiculous to have one article title while the subject is alive, then change to a different name once they were dead. BLP is simply an added layer of caution that exhorts us to be especially careful with BLPs, it is not license to do whatever we wish with BDPs. In any case, I think the majority of trans* people are at their new, preferred name, but when we had a very high profile case of a very high profile person in the media who switched, wikipedia did not have consensus to switch to the preferred name right away, rather the bulk of editors preferred to wait for sourcing to catch up. Another counter example is Wolfgang Schmidt, who is a serial murderer and thus unlikely to garner support from the BLP crowd. Thus, while one might say that for low-profile BLPs, such moves have happened without fanfare in the past, for a high-profile BLP (say, if some famous male movie star announced that he'd like to be called Julie), a move would NOT be pre-ordained and subject preference would weigh very little against how the sources treated the issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Rethinking Obiwankenobi's suggestions, and my initial responses to them, I opted for a further modification of the proposal:
- WP:IDENTITY exception removed from first criterion: no real advantage for keeping it in;
- added 5th criterion (not unduly self-serving) which would cover, I suppose, the W/B Schmidt example in it's current state. Yes, I still prefer the guideline would cover all known examples.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, I believe that the number of exceptions and tweaks and so on suggests that enshrining this in
policya guideline just isn't going to work. Instead, I suggest some very simple wording, along the lines of "While subject preference is not a formal part of titling policy, if you can make a strong argument that following subject preference in contravention to titles suggested through other means will measurably improve the encyclopedia, then this argument can be forwarded per IAR." I suppose it's strange to create a rule to IAR, but the point is, ultimately it comes down to a case by case basis, and there may be argument for respecting subject preferences but if we attempt to delineate cases where this is or isn't allowed we get into a nightmare of bureaucracy and examples and counter-examples. I'd much rather rely on IAR, which can be a very good argument if cogently forumulated - e.g. "I know that name X is in 60% of sources and name Y is in 40% of sources, but the subject in question has asked that name X never be used, and large groups of people find it offensive to use name X, therefore we should use name Y as wikipedia will be better." - we don't need to legislate to allow situations like this, at least not the complex legislation i see above. I appreciate the effort you've put in but this is becoming too unwieldly to service well as apolicyguideline.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)- PS, I don't mind the tinkering - neither do I think there is any omen of stability or instability enclosed in it. Could give you examples and counterexamples, just ask. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, I believe that the number of exceptions and tweaks and so on suggests that enshrining this in
Policy? This is not about policy (see #FAQ N° 1) - wrong discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- In my mind it's the same thing, it's a guideline but will carry weight. I think IAR is ultimately a much better solution here, since every example you provide has a counter example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- If a policy could be somewhat of a shrine, then I think of guidelines more as a kitchen counter where one keeps the useful tools at hand. Enshrining something in a kitchen counter still looks like somewhat of an oxymoron to me.
- Might I direct you to Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#Role of examples? It gives some insight in the policy vs guideline distinction.
- I don't think about WP:NCP as a high level guideline (WP:MOS on the other hand is rather top level).
- There have been attempts to derive guidance from WP:IAR. The idea is far from original. I can't remember a single successful attempt: deriving guidance from the IAR policy appears to rather weaken its formidable strength. Whether that is the reason or not, the most tenacious of those who tried to emulate IAR in subsidiary guidelines ended up enshrining their ideas in essays (most of these IAR-based essays are forgotten by now I suppose). Indeed, essays can in some ways be shrines too, personal shrines that is, for ideas that might have use in the long run but didn't fly as a community consensus.
- Anyway, I don't intend to enshrine anything that might be a practical tool for the topic at hand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, while I appreciate the effort you've put in, as currently written it is 765 words and way too long, and full of exceptions, etc. It is a classic example of overthinking a guideline, and many of the examples as I noted have counter examples. There simply isn't consensus at wikipedia as of now as to how, and when, subject preference should be taken into account, so I think relying on IAR to bring in such preference is much more flexible and ultimately useful.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re. 765 words: I suppose that's about the same length as the current section on disambiguation. I fail to see a problem there.
- About half of the proposed new section is introduction. I think that is justified by the delicate nature of the topic. Maybe the Alma Mahler example is a bit too elaborate and could be substituded by something more succinct. But on the whole a good contextualisation before putting the first step in the minefield seems like a good idea to me. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
- All suggestions to improve the language would be much appreciated too.
- I don't see any remaining counterexamples, could you specify? tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a guideline as currently written, it's much more of an essay, so that's perhaps the best destination for it, as it captures some of the past complexity and the way consensus has seemed to lean, without attempting to hold the weight of a guideline behind it. I've already given example of the Bradley Manning case as a great example where subject preference was rejected en-masse by the wikipedia community.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Finally started reading into the Manning ArbCom case. I found this (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#The BLP policy and individuals' names):
- 12.1) The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations. (Passed 8 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
- Like the program proposed there.
- and (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#The BLP policy and article titles):
- 11) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. (Passed 10 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
- ...which speaks for itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think there is no debate that BLP applies to titles (which is why we don't have titles like John Smith (horrible person)). But what never gained consensus was whether BLP applied to this particular issue, e.g. whether the article title should follow commonname or subject preference. The problem with the guideline proposed above it is too full of exceptions and generalizations to be of much use, and would be used/abused on either side of titling disputes, whereas IAR forces people to make cogent arguments of how the wikipedia is improved rather than saying "Well, according to guideline X we can take subject preference into account according to subsection 3.a. It's clear there isn't consensus that subject preference should trump other considerations, at least no such consensus here for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Finally started reading into the Manning ArbCom case. I found this (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#The BLP policy and individuals' names):
- It's not a guideline as currently written, it's much more of an essay, so that's perhaps the best destination for it, as it captures some of the past complexity and the way consensus has seemed to lean, without attempting to hold the weight of a guideline behind it. I've already given example of the Bradley Manning case as a great example where subject preference was rejected en-masse by the wikipedia community.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, while I appreciate the effort you've put in, as currently written it is 765 words and way too long, and full of exceptions, etc. It is a classic example of overthinking a guideline, and many of the examples as I noted have counter examples. There simply isn't consensus at wikipedia as of now as to how, and when, subject preference should be taken into account, so I think relying on IAR to bring in such preference is much more flexible and ultimately useful.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- In my mind it's the same thing, it's a guideline but will carry weight. I think IAR is ultimately a much better solution here, since every example you provide has a counter example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Subject preference proposal: the slim (policy level) version
Taking the challenge of combining WP:BLP and WP:AT at policy level as suggested in principle 12.1 of the Manning case (quoted above).
The approach is much indebted to WP:ABOUTSELF (WP:V), which shouldn't surprise: basically it's the same thing, but applied to article titles.
When the subject of a biography on living people prefers to be named differently from what would usually follow from Wikipedia's article titling policy, his or her biographic article can be renamed accordingly, so long as:
- There is no ambiguity with regard to the name the subject prefers for his or her public persona
- The name preferred by the subject is not unduly self-serving
- The name preferred by the subject is generally recognisable, which usually entails sufficient media coverage
- The name preferred by the subject results from an event that is deemed irreversible (at least, can't be reverted by the subject without the active participation of others) or, alternatively, is the name the subject received at birth.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There are entities other than living persons who can sue for libel and be sued, so this does not just cover living people from a strictly legal POV which is the primary reason for the BLP policy. So if this is not a legal issue why are you proposing it? -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose for the reasons I have given before. WP:COMMONNAME covers it better.
- If there is no ambiguity then reliable sources will agree on the name.
- If editors are to judge what is unduly self-serving, they will presumably do this through a survey of what is used in reliable sources, so why not just use common name? (NB WP:COMMONNAME) contains a sentence which covers cases where a person or an entity change their name: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
- If it comes down to "sufficient media coverage" then what is the point?
- I have no idea what the last point means. In many common law jurisdictions one can change one's legal name easily and frequently, and they may be commonly known by the name they are currently using (eg a woman who marries four times and then reverts to he maiden name after divorcing her fourth husband). -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - while WP:AT does need to address the issue of name changes... it should do so neutrally and within the context of source usage - not subject preference. I would suggest something like:
- Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a name change. When this occurs, Wikipedia usually changes the title of its article to match. Exceptions occur when it is clear that a significant majority of reliable sources (written after the name change took place) have rejected the new name and continue to refer to the subject under the old name.
- The caveat about examining sources written after the name change takes place is important... this is what lets us know whether sources have accepted or rejected the new name, and whether the new name is recognizable or not. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, since the proposal takes no account of strength of preference, nor of inconsistent use by the subject. If "John Bob Smith" says, "well, you can call me John Robert, or you can call me John Bob, but I guess I prefer John Robert", then we should not cater to this shrugging whim; nor should we consider his preference at all if he says he prefers "John Robert Smith", but on occasion introduces himself (or allows himself to be introduced where he could prevent it) as "John Bob Smith". I would agree to the provisions above if there were an additional provision stating that
- The subject has specifically requested that they not be referred to be names other than the preferred name (or at least has specifically made statements asking not to be called by the name in the current article title), and
- The subject has been consistent in actually using the preferred name while never using the other form.
- Anything short of this makes Wikipedia look like we are more concerned with the whimsy (and possibly manipulation) of the article subjects, rather than the well-ordered considerations of our own titling policy. bd2412 T 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Another lean approach
- ==Article titling and biographies of living persons==
- When the subject of a biographical article self-publishes a new name, both the article titling and biographies of living persons policies apply. Particularily relevant:
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source
- Wikipedia:Article titles § Use commonly recognizable names, advising to give more weight to reliable sources published after the name change when deciding whether the article title should change.
- The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelyhood the new name is going to stick: while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name. Examples:
- Several years after publication of the new name, Cat Stevens is not moved to Yusuf Islam: impossible to say whether the new name will become as popular as the former stage name.
- Minutes after announcement of the new name the biography of Jorge Bergoglio is renamed to Pope Francis: unavoidable that on the short term the former cardinal will be known by his papal name.
- When the subject of a biographical article wants to return to an earlier name (e.g. purging the article title from honorifcs no longer identified with, abandoning a pen name,...), also older sources may carry additional weight when the proposal is to go back to the name given at birth.
- example Fazer (rapper) → Richard Rawson after the artist gave up his stage name.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about calling the section title ==Self-published name changes==, adding WP:SPNC as a shortcut? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- The basis for the guideline is common name. I see no reason to depart from that or unnecessarily bloat the guideline with examples of the same. DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The basis for the proposed update is to interpret WP:BLPSELFPUB (part of the BLP policy) as expanding to article titles (subject to WP:AT policy) following a simple logic. In some very contentious page moves, with a lot of eyes on them, nor disputants, nor arbitrators, nor closing admin panels appeared to be able to come up with that simple link:
- arbitrators:
- panel of closing admins:
This piece of guidance was at least requested... but that's not a real argument: it can help in containing discussions of this sort, possibly even prevent the need to escalate to higher levels of dispute resolution in the future. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose this is already covered by Common Name. Just because Idi Amin claimed he was King of Scotland if he was still alive that does not mean that his title should be incorporated into an article title of biography on the man. While one can quibble about whether a title is part of a name, I think it makes the point that articles naming policy should follow usage in modern reliable sources, and try to determine what a "subject currently self-identifies", editors can leave that to current usage in reliable sources. This is a naming convention and it should explain its parent policy (which is AT) and not be worded in such a way as to introduce inconsistency with the policy. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure what planet you're coming from, you're excused from reading the whole prior discussion of course, but not the actual proposal itself when you want to say something about it. There's no inconsistency with AT. Your "if Amin were alive" example is just scarecruft: "King of Scotland" would fail Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source ("1. it is not unduly self-serving") as enclosed in the guideline proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Another current RM relating to this:
- (Discuss) – Lakshmi Rai → Raai Laxmi – The actress has changed her name from Laxmi Rai to Raai Laxmi a few days back. A reference for the name change is included in the article itself. 42.104.62.115 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- COMMENT - re: Laksmi Rai -> Raai Laxmi... the issue of self-identification/self-publication is moot ... multiple reliable sources written after the name change was announced have started referring to the subject by the new name, and there is no indication that reliable sources are rejecting it (ie I can not find any sources that are continuing to refer to her by the old name). COMMONNAME (applied to sources written after the change) would indicate that the article title should change (with the old name turned into a redirect). As far as I can tell, the example is an indication that the current guideline and policy works well... and thus there is no need to change it. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Last time I looked Hillary Rodham Clinton was still under a somewhat unstable moratorium (Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#A simple solution → Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#A 9 month moratorium is unreasonable). Laxmi worked out fine (which wasn't apparent from the request when the RM was filed). Good for her, but doesn't prove there aren't more contentious cases. Someday the HRC moratorium will be over, I think the proposed guidance is useful. In sum I propose to:
- *Add* the following section after the section on disambiguation
Self-published name changes
When the subject of a biographical article self-publishes a new name, both the article titling and biographies of living persons policies apply. Particularily relevant:
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source
- Wikipedia:Article titles § Use commonly recognizable names, advising to give more weight to reliable sources published after the name change when deciding whether the article title should change.
The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelyhood the new name is going to stick: while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name. Examples:
- Several years after publication of the new name, Cat Stevens is not moved to Yusuf Islam: impossible to say whether the new name will become as popular as the former stage name.
- Minutes after announcement of the new name the biography of Jorge Bergoglio is renamed to Pope Francis: unavoidable that on the short term the former cardinal will be known by his papal name.
When the subject of a biographical article wants to return to an earlier name (e.g. purging the article title from honorifcs no longer identified with, abandoning a pen name,...), also older sources may carry additional weight when the proposal is to go back to the name given at birth.
- Example: Fazer (rapper) → Richard Rawson after the artist gave up his stage name.
For minor spelling variations (capitalisation, diacritics, punctuation and spacing after initials,...): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists it is usually followed:
- Example: Milena Kitić → Milena Kitic
- I have a slight problem with your proposed language... COMMONNAME is supposed to be based on what sources actually use, not speculation on what they might use, or even what they are likely to use. The determination should not focus on the speculative likelihood that the new name will stick... it should focus on the indication that the new name actually has stuck. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- No idea what is unclear about "The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources ..." (bolding added), which covers the misunderstanding this wouldn't be based on AT ("extra weight..." is the exact formulation of that part of the COMMONNAME policy) or wouldn't be based on what sources actually use.
- "... while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ..." is clear to avoid speculation.
- Please read the thing as a whole. Of course it is possible to quote out of context. The best I could do was to put the core of it in a single sentence:
... The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelyhood the new name is going to stick: while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name. ...
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, please assume good faith... I did read the whole thing... and what I came away with after reading it was that you were proposing to tell editors to: "speculate as to whether the name change is likely to stick or not". That may not have been your intent... but it is what I came away with. Perhaps it is the word "likely" that has me concerned. I don't think we should base titles on what is "likely".
- Let me spell out how I think name changes should be handled, it may help to clarify why I dislike your proposal.
- Subject announces name change
- Wikipedia creates a redirect page for the new name (so those who might be searching under the new name can find the article).
- Wikipedia also notes the name change prominently in the article text (ideally in the opening sentence)
- WAIT.... and observe what sources do.
- Determine whether sources (written after change was announced) have a) accepted new name or b) rejected new name.
- Adjust title (if necessary).
- To my mind the key step is the fourth step: WAIT and observe. We don't change the title until we have observed that a significant number of sources are actually using the new name. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, nor that 4th step, nor the second, nor the fifth happen as standard *unproblematic* practice for the second example. So, no, this unnecessarily elaborate six-step alternative still doesn't explain why sometimes all the weight is given to a single self-published source, and in other cases, after years of "more recent" sources indicating the new name the article is still at the old name.
- I also think the wording is clear enough ...how much speculation? answer per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL: none... There's no way to read this otherwise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have a slight problem with your proposed language... COMMONNAME is supposed to be based on what sources actually use, not speculation on what they might use, or even what they are likely to use. The determination should not focus on the speculative likelihood that the new name will stick... it should focus on the indication that the new name actually has stuck. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's another example: Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones#ARCHIVED: Requested move (2012), yet a new RM: Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones#Requested Move 2014 (argues "artist's preference" in part) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Seeing the convoluted ramifications of that RM discussion, twice relisted and still not concluded, I think additional guidance that might help keeping such discussions focussed would be most welcome.
- Again, as noted above several times, the main purpose of this additional guidance is not to give an outcome of RM's that would be *different* from the outcome based on the current guidance: the main objective is to contain discussions so that the outcome, that would be the same outcome as without additional guidance, can be reached *swifter*. I.e. less time-consuming for editors, admin panels to close RMs, arbitrators, Wikipedia founders, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- So I'm going to proceed and add the section to the guideline, and remove a series of "underdiscussion" templates all about this same guideline improvement (don't think this discussion about the guidance improvement is very active any more). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)