Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Fellowships by subscription, e.g. FRSA

MOS:POSTNOM. The article gives FRSA as an honorific of Stephen Hawking but this is a meaningless honour, as it can be purchased by a wide variety of people. This has been discussed previously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2011_archive#Postnominal_initials:_FRSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2014_archive#Small_caps_for_post-nominal_initials

According to ettiquette experts Debrett's:

Fellowships fall into two categories:

(a) Honorific, ie nomination by election

(b) Nomination by subscription

Normally only honorific fellowships are used in social correspondence, such as FRS or FBA.

Fellowships by subscription are generally restricted to correspondence concerning the same field of interest, for example a writer to a Fellow of Zoological Society on the subject of zoology will include FZS after the name.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160328115145/http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/hierarchies/letters-after-name/fellowships-learned-societies

I propose that the FRSA should be removed from the example on this page as well as throughout the rest of Wikipedia. Historylikeyou (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Support removal There should probably be a community-wide RfC on the topic of post-nominals in general. I've always thought post-nominals in lead sentences were ridiculous and clunky looking (e.g. (and emphasis mine) Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman[1]...), and would support the removal of post-nominals from the lead sentences of biographies altogether. They're not so important and significant that they need to be mentioned right away in the lead sentence; not to mention, those abbreviations are meaningless to readers who live outside of certain countries who use them. But post-nominals can stay in the infobox though. Some1 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

There may be certain usages that are common in particular countries. One question to answer is whether these usages can be clearly described and understood as part of Wikipedia policy. My understanding of the list of Winston Churchill's postnominals you gave is that they are all valid, and occur roughly in the correct order - but how is a Wikipedia editor going to tell this? Should the Wikipedia article get into more detail about what the officially recognized (by the UK government or monarchy, I suppose) postnominals are? If postnominals are going to be used, then there should be some way to check if they are being used correctly. If that's not feasible, then it would be sensible to remove them entirely, as you suggest. Historylikeyou (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

They don't "occur roughly in the correct order". They are in the correct order. "how is a Wikipedia editor going to tell this?" Just because you don't understand their use doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other people who do. We do not need to justify every word we write on Wikipedia. That would be patently ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

They're not so important and significant that they need to be mentioned right away in the lead sentence. Yes they are, in the countries that use them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

We do not need to justify every word we write on Wikipedia Well, whatever is written on Wikipedia should at least be WP:VERIFIABLE. Could you point me to the reference # in the Winston Churchill article which supports the TD (Territorial Decoration) post-nominal? Some1 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's citation #14 in Honours of Winston Churchill. Though verifiability for some of the citations in that article is difficult due to a lack of identifiers like ISBNs. It, along with most of the other post-nominals seems to be uncited in the main Churchill article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I don't really understand why the one type of fellowship post-nominal should be allowed and not the other. This isn't social correspondence, it's an encyclopedia. They are well entrenched, and it would be a Herculean effort to remove them from every single biographical article in which they're used. And as per Some1's comment, most people would not be able to make that distinction accurately, creating headaches for other editors. If the article subject is notable, and the article itself stable, then the post-nominals in those articles should stay, and the policy should remain unchanged. Matuko (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the difference between the two is already taken into account when it comes to notability under WP:PROF and other guides. They are legitimate post-nominals that can be added to the name so it is reasonable to include them.Gusfriend (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROF doesn't touch the issue of postnominals explicitly, but does refer to "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or associations" with the Royal Society as an example, and "reserving fellow status as a highly selective honor". According to this, being an FRS (Fellow of the Royal Sociery) would make a subject notable, but being an FRSA wouldn't. I'd suggest the same difference could be reflected in the usage of postnominals.

There is also some discussion at Talk:Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Arts as to the eminence of the FRSA category. Historylikeyou (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Titles and Forms of Address (one of our three main sources for List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom)) states that "Those fellowships, etc., election to which is a distinction should be used on all correspondence" but that the kind of fellowship used to declare an interest in a subject rather than as a mark of distinction should only be used for correspondence on that specific subject. I think the "used on all correspondence" level is the one we should be aiming for in our leads, and therefore that interest-declaring fellowships should not be listed. Confusingly, though, TFA lists "RSA" as one of the distinction-fellowships, which doesn't match our article's description of FRSA. Do they mean something different by RSA, or is this something that has changed over the years? If it has changed, then we should determine which FRSAs indicate a genuine distinction and which ones are the modern interest-declaring kind. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

RSA likely refers to Royal Scottish Academy. Historylikeyou (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes much more sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Support removal of FRSA. Having looked into this, FRSA now is open to almost anyone who is prepared to pay the subscription: their website responds to the fellowship application quesion "How likely is it that I will be accepted?" with "It is very likely that you will be accepted to the Fellowship..." The membership criteria are: "Be over 18. Support our vision and share our values. Share our commitment to social change." I agree that removing existing uses from Wikipedia would be time-consuming, but we shouldn't be promoting the addition of "FRSA" in article opening sentences when it appears to be something that almost anyone may purchase. EddieHugh (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two types of FRSA, the first as you say, but the second by election, with far fewer people. Only the 2nd should be mentioned in articles, & I think it is worth doing so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an obvious way through the RSA's website to distinguish between the two types, nor do they appear to have a list of fellows online. I also don't see anything on their website about elected members. And the only distinction I can see in the application process between people who are nominated and those who nominate themselves are the referee requirements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see where this specific post-nominal needs singling out. Whether we should use post-nominals at all is a different discussion, but insofar as we use them, this is as good as any. --Jayron32 12:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

See above: it's available by subscription. That makes it the same as a club membership. EddieHugh (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• It should be clear that this is a recognised distinction, mentioned in both Debrett's and A & C Black's Titles and Forms of Address as stated above. Whether to follow it or not is a different question. Historylikeyou (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia category of FRSA members was recently deleted. There are several previous discussions. 1 2 3 4 Historylikeyou (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose See further discussion on this topic on the Charles Dickens talk page. Based on that discussion, it appears there is a desire by a couple of editors to remove this honor from articles across Wikipedia. However, I have not seen any reliable sources stating that this is a "meaningless honour" or merely a "fellowship by subscription." On the Dickens talk page I repeatedly asked for reliable sources to back up what the editors pushing this are advocating but none were shared; instead, a ton of original research on all this was stated. Despite the fact that a consensus to remove the FRSA postnominal was not achieved in this discussion (there were equal numbers of editors supporting doing this as opposed), Historylikeyou has been removing these postnominals from articles across Wikipedia and referencing this discussion. Until a consensus is actually achieved to remove these postnominals, they should not be removed.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As added information on this, Historylikeyou was warned on the Administrator's Noticeboard not to remove these postnominals until consensus was achieved to do so. That resulted in Historylikeyou starting this discussion. Despite this discussion not yet achieving a clear consensus, Historylikeyou went ahead and edited this project's main page to remove the FRSA postnominal and started removing them from articles yet again. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Note that I did not remove postnominals en masse but only on pages where they were blatantly incorrect due to being anachronistic or unsourced, and in each case only after discussion on the relevant talk pages. It appeared that Wikipedia:Consensus had been reached to the lack of good counterarguments and lack of further discussion on this talk page.

I really don't get your objection to removing unsourced postnominals from the Charles Dickens page. As I showed with several references to reliable sources (not "original research"), he could not possibly have had this postnominal. The burden of proof is on you to show he had it, not on me to show that he didn't. Historylikeyou (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Information According to reliable sources (I quoted some at the Charles Dickens talk page), the RSA did not get its current name (with "Royal" in the title) until 1908, and its members did not become known as "Fellows" until 1914. Therefore any use of the FRSA postnominal (leaving aside any question of whether is notable or worth mentioning) prior to 1914 is anachronistic, rewriting history. Removing those should be uncontroversial even if some believe that the FRSA postnominal is worth stating for more modern recipients. Historylikeyou (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said on the Dickens talk page, there are sources for the FRSA postnominal and they are provided. And yes, you provided links to information but that information is being used by you for original research. As the original research policy states, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support[b] the material being presented." The links you provided are being used to to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources and do not directly support the statements you are making. As such, those sources are not considered reliable.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Query: Isn't there a WP:ENGVAR component to this? If I was writing about, say someone British, I wouldn't know if a particular fellowship is "by election" or "by subscription" without having to try to research it. Is there a list somewhere of which one's are and aren't? Gecko G (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not British and only know what I've read about all this. Some sources I've read make it sound like you can't just join and have to be elected, which might be what is meant by subscription. I'm also not certain on how hard it is these days to become a FRSA. Does anyone have a good source not from the RSA on how big a deal it is to be a fellow? Some of the press releases I've seen make it sound like a big deal, but honestly I can't say.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The RSA website states, in response to the question "How likely is it that I will be accepted?": "It is very likely that you will be accepted to the Fellowship, you do not need to be a leader in your industry or a CEO of an NGO. Our ethos is inclusive, and we welcome all who are aligned with the RSA's vision and share in our values." In a section that I don't remember being there the last time I looked, they advertise 'Life Fellowship', stating "Our Life Fellowship option lets you become a Fellow for life with a one-time subscription. The standard price is £3900". They even describe it as a "price"! FRSA is therefore unambiguously something that can be bought. Perhaps some people who genuinely have attained something in their field haven't realised this yet, so are delighted to be contacted about it. EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the more I learn about the RSA the more I think they are a BS art organization. Is there any definitive source to indicate if the RSA basically admits anyone who applies? I'm open to changing my mind on keeping the FRSA postnominal. That said, to remove them from across Wikipedia will still require this discussion achieving consensus, which it hasn't yet achieved.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

They more or less state themselves that they accept almost anyone. I suppose they'd reject obviously inappropriate people, but the rejection rate is almost certainly not made public. Also from their website: "Everyone completes the same online form whether they have been nominated or not. All applications are treated in the same way, with the same criteria followed." So, it appears that there is no distinction between 'elected' and 'by subscription'. Also note that (unless the 'life fellowship' is purchased) people have to pay an annual subscription to remain a member. Their "Impact Report 2021–2022" (page 22) states that, in that period, 91.3% of people continued their payments; in their terminology, this is "Fellows retained". EddieHugh (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The more I researched this issue the more convinced I became that the FRSA postnominal shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. But the problem is this discussion didn't reach a consensus. Perhaps we should do a community-wide RfC on this, as suggested earlier by Some1?--SouthernNights (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If consensus means that everyone who opposed it posts to say they changed their mind then it may never happen. Historylikeyou (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal: A fellowship one can simply buy into is encyclopedically meaningless clutter to be adding in our articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal: consistent with consensus in the 2011 discussion. Such post-nominals are inappropriate and unusual for a general encyclopedia, as indicated by the quote from Debrett's. The first sentence should be kept simple and avoid clutter where possible. DrKay (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking JD institution to law school

The standard method of listing a person's legal education is usually placing the title of the university and its corresponding link. For example, if a person was educated at Yale Law School, the infobox would say "Yale University (JD)". I think it would be better we change the link to the corresponding law school rather than to the university itself. So instead of "Yale University (JD)", it would be Yale University (JD). GuardianH (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The latter is surely entirely unnecessary and confusing Easter-egg. But "Yale Law School (JD)" would be fine. Which of the first and the third should likely be determined by prevalence of use. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Deadname and lede/body agreement

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section § Alt._names_and_transgender%2Fdeadnaming

This is over at Talk:Maddy Thorson but there's an issue on deadname use. Obviously, when the deadname is notable, it should be included in the lede (since that can be a possible search term and per redirects, it should be given in the lede to help the reader). But that leaves the question if it should also be included in the body, since the lede is supposed to summarize the points made in the body, and thus if we don't mention the deadname in the body, the use in the lede is a problem. Checking the "usual" articles I use to see how deadname applies, we're not consistent, but I read this in two ways: first, the "information in lede should already be in body" is often broken by elements like infoboxes that include information that is not included in the body; and second, the wording of DEADNAME suggests to minimize mention of it as much as possible. Masem (t) 00:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We minimize mention of a deadname as much as possible, within the confines of writing a proper encyclopedia article. So, yes, it should be in the body somewhere if it's going to be in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish. A mention in the lead and once in the body is appropriate, if it's a name they were notable under. I don't believe two mentions to be a problem, but more than that is perhaps superfluous. — Czello 11:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the birthplace of individuals born within occupied and illegally annexed territory

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a general consensus to not have birthplaces in annexed territory be anchored to either the legitimate controller or the occupier by default. Many participants, picking option C, preferred to defer to how reliable sources refer to the birthplace instead of making the call ourselves. Some others preferred using the historically correct labels that were used at the time of the subject's birth. Yet many others also wanted no special guideline on this matter to be in place. Overall, it seems that the entire premise of the RfC has been rejected, but no apparent consensus on what else to do. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

---

How should we list the birthplace of individuals born in occupied and illegally annexed territory, such as Iraqi-annexed Kuwait?

• A: List the legitimate controller (eg, Kuwait)
• B: List the occupier (eg, Iraq)
• C: List the name most commonly used by reliable sources to describe where the individual was born

04:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• C. It's not our place to decide whether someone was born in Iraq or Kuwait, in Latvia or the USSR, in Poland, the Byelorussian SSR, or the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, or in East Timor or Indonesia, as to do so requires us to engage in WP:OR. Instead, we should simply reflect how the majority of reliable sources describe the individual; if they say they were born in Kuwait, we say Kuwait, if they say they were born in Iraq, we say Iraq, and if they say they were born in Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, we say Iraqi-occupied Kuwait. This also matches WP:MPN, which tells us that Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same, emphasis mine. BilledMammal (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above - The suggestion that Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR & Lithuanian SSR (for examples) didn't exist or should not be used as birth or death places? is the wrong direction for Wikipedia to go into. We shouldn't be trying to 'right what we see as great wrongs', on this project. Shall we next deny that the USSR existed? GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  That appears to align with option B? However, I think your argument rebuts both A and B; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS says that we are not here to explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue.

  If reliable sources say that Efrem Marianus Almeida Santos Jeronimo was born in East Timor, then we put East Timor; if they say Indonesia, we put Indonesia. We shouldn't be trying to 'right what we see as great wrongs', regardless of whether the occupation or the rejection of the occupation is seen as the great wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Attempting to claim that Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were never a part of the USSR, is the wrong route to take. We shouldn't be attempting to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you're "listing the occupier", then that would imply listing the USSR for people born in Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR & Lithuanian SSR. Which is wrong in my opinion, as it should be listed as Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian SSR. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  They were not occupied. They were fully incorporated republics along with the other 12 republics of the Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania are the countries that seem to generate the most edit-warring over birth places, so if they aren't covered in this RFC, then I don't see the point of the RFC at all. My understanding was that as they were occupied by the USSR in the 1940s (and the USSR maintained a presence there until 1990), and were therefore being considered occupied for the purposes of this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  TulsaPoliticsFan linked a relevant article in the discussion section; State continuity of the Baltic states. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would support the deletion of the State continuity of the Baltic states page, as it appears to be a PoV piece, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• C: Happily, we have guidance on the issue: it's WP:COMMONNAME. Ravenswing 08:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• C There are many considerations in which to use and we should avoid any rule that requires original research or synthesis to apply. TFD (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note: for situations where the sources are mixed… there is also the option of using “Debated” in the infobox and lead sentence, and then explaining the debate in the main body of the text. Adapt the template to fit the situation, don’t try to force the situation into the template. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this. Nor do we need a guideline for determining Is the glass half empty or half full? Too many rules can be a bad thing. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this as it depends on the circumstances for the occupation, and how well recognised the occupying force is internationally. For example, I would think Latvian SSR would be sensible, as that was what the country was accepted as (even if it wasn't formally recognised by some countries), whereas saying someone was born in the Luhansk People's Republic or Northern Cyprus would be ridiculous in my opinion (as almost 0 countries recognise these occupiers). The only reason we're having this RFC is because a small number of editors want to try and expunge Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian SSR from Wikipedia, which is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Statements like I would think and ridiculous in my opinion is the issue; we shouldn't be basing article content on editors opinions, we should be basing it on reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that if someone is described as Latvian, that could mean the source is saying they were born in Latvia SSR or Latvia- most sources don't explicitly distinguish the two. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• C is the best choice for my response – we should use the WP:COMMONNAME of the place at the time of birth. For example, a person born in Namibia on 21 March 1990 would have been born in South West Africa the day before. Alexander Ovechkin is listed as having been born in the Soviet Union because that was the extant nation at the time, though his infobox does further specify the Russian SFSR. When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, the nation was still known as "Kuwait," not "Iraqi-occupied Kuwait." This shouldn't be that difficult. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use the historically accurate name - so whether that's Mandatory Palestine or later Israel; Estonian SSR or later Estonia etc. etc. GiantSnowman 18:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• C Reliable sources is the best, neutral way to go in my view. Trillfendi (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except when reliable sources are lazy and/or wrong... GiantSnowman 18:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Example - I am currently reading The Shortest History of Germany by James Hawes, it's very interesting, but (e.g. page 16 of my edition) it refers to 'Germany' during the BC/AD millennium turn - even though, by the book's own admission, Germany was not actually a thing until much later, and it was certainly not called that at that time! GiantSnowman 13:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Use the historically accurate name, any other choice is too contentious for me. Not sure if a hard policy is the best way forward with this anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• C most of the time, although for individuals in the far past it might alternatively make sense to use the commonly-accepted modern name if there is one. Usually I'd expect modern sources about them to use that anyway, though. Also in case it needs to be said we should try to find neutral sources, although this gets tricky when it comes to nationalist disputes (it's not really proper to declare every source from an entire region biased.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this. The fact of the matter is that historical claims of what was "legally" a part of one realm and was "illegally" occupied by another can frankly turn into rubbish quite quickly when we go back in time even as recently as the early modern period. Even in modern times, there are several active conflicts in which there are real border disputes as to who legally owns what land or sea. Creating a hard-and-set guideline for this specific case is unneeded WP:CREEP. Rather than making a sweeping guideline, a case-by-case approach seems superior and allowing editor discretion at local articles will likely produce a better encyclopedia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above or Don't have a guideline for this: After watching this RfC for a few days, I don't think either proposal is a good solution. There does not appear to be consensus specifically with the Baltic states. I lean towards listing the de facto controller (occupier) in most instances, but there may be good reasons for exceptions and therefore I'm hesitant to support a new guideline that will be strictly enforced. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• C Geographic naming convention (as per WP guidelines) directs us to rely on what the "substantial majority of reliable modern sources"are doing/saying. WP:MODERNPLACENAMEWritethisway (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• C Using either A or B implies some kind of political bias one way or another. The most accepted, cited name aids in the purpose of neutral communication of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Curious (talk • contribs)
• Don't have a guideline specifically for this. I don't see the purpose per WP:CREEP. We already have WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and other policies. A guideline cannot subvert a policy in case there's a conflict. Politrukki (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• C - follow the sources. This is already policy, so no need to amend anything. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a difference between occupation or annexation and incorporation into the invading country. The U.S. for example invaded and occupied Iraq, but it did not become part of the U.S. and we would not say that people born there during the occupation were born in the U.S. It's not clear however when a territory is incorporated into the occupying power which country should be listed as the birthplace. The only guide we have is common usage.

There is a lot of difficulty in describing the nationality of people in the UK, described in the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. Hence Nicola Sturgeon is described as a Scottish politician while Gordon Brown is described as a British politician, despite both having been born in Scotland.

TFD (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were for decades a part of the USSR. I will oppose any attempt to deny that fact. We're not here to re-write history. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the "legitimate" vs. "occupier" framing of this RFC is a bit untechnical given the subject matter. Wouldn't de facto and de jure be better framing since we're talking about folks born in territories with a different de facto controller and de jure owner? In historical biographies it can shed light on the individual that they were born and grew up in an occupied territory and might be helpful to readers researching the topic. I'm guessing that this is more controversial for people born recently since the territorial controversy is ongoing. Is it possible to list both? For the Iraq occupied Kuwait example, list someone as born in say de facto Iraqi Kuwait and de jure Kuwait? This is assuming of course that there are WP:RS that label both ways.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I considered that terminology originally, but decided that "legitimate" vs. "occupier" was simpler without losing accuracy, though that might have been a mistake. I also haven't seen examples of sources that label someone in that way - the closest I have come is sources that say "Iraqi-occupied Kuwait" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the fact other sources don't normally list both de facto and de jure ownership of territory as a sign that we automatically shouldn't. We are an encyclopedia after all and most of what we cite isn't an encyclopedia and not written in that style. Also, I agree that "legitimate" vs. "occupier" is simpler and easily understood, but it's not the most WP:NPOV framing (not super concerned with this, I don't think it ruins the RfC, but do think it worth noting in discussion). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point; it also addresses Blueboars point about "debated". The de jure and de facto owners are verifiable and due, as well as being important information for the reader. Unless someone can find an issue with your proposal I might need to switch my position to support it, with C as a second choice. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a distinction between people born in the Baltic states and people born in other Soviet republics, just because the Soviet annexation was not internationally recognized and the others were. Why not bow to the expertise of authors of standard biographical textbooks instead of reinventing the wheel? TFD (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems reasonable and not out of line to mention in the infobox which Soviet republic someone was born in. We might need to decide on how to format (City, Soviet Republic, USSR vs. City, Soviet Republic), but I don't see a problem in including the information of which Soviet republic someone was born in if that information is known. However, it does seem wrong to list someone born in a Baltic Soviet republic as having been born in de facto the USSR, but de jure the Independent state (since the independent state with the de jure claim basically no longer was able to function as a state since states require 1.territory 2.permanent population and 3. the ability to do foreign relations), but at the same time State continuity of the Baltic states seems to indicate its a pretty controversial issue with competing interpretations under international law. Whatever we decide we shouldn't brush aside the nuance of the literature for an easy policy answer. It's easy now to say just follow what biographers say, but what do we do when one biographer says they're born in Latvia and one the Soviet Republic of Latvia? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Look at more biographies. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No closure, yet? :( GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: 'Titles and Styles' sections

Many articles related to British royalty (and possiby others) contain a section on their titles and styles, for example those at Charles III, Anne, Princess Royal, and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Within them titles and styles are usually presented in a single subsection, with a bulleted list of titles and styles and the dates when they were used.

An RfC recently occured at William, Prince of Wales about how to organise these sections. The broad consensus was that titles and styles are different things and should therefore not be combined into a single subsection, as this is confusing.

I am requesting comment on whether 'Titles and Styles' sections should contain separate 'Titles' and 'Styles' subsections, and any other relevant comments on how these sections might be organised. Thank you! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey2

• Separate into two subsections - as it will avoid the confusion & inconsistencies, across the affected bios. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my reasoning on the prior RfC on Prince William's article's talk page. On a related note, I'd suggest having the title subsection before the style subsection since a lot of the confusion seemed to be people going to the page looking for his titles and first encountering the style listing and thus getting confused. People who are only looking for the person's titles, would be unlikely to keep reading on into the next subsection, or at least be less confused if they do. Gecko G (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's probably worth noting that when I edited Prince William's article a short while ago to reflect the RfC discussion I did just that, so the 'Titles' subsection is now first. You can take that as agreement! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  In agreement with listing the Titles subsection first. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There was no consensus at the previous RfC. It's bad enough having these dreadful sections polluting wikipedia as it is, without having to double down on them. DrKay (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  The previous RfC had, at the very least, a broad consensus against the current arrangement. This comment reads as a suggestion to remove the sections entirely, is that right? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I do think the previous RfC was closed a bit prematurely (In particular I wished @Celia Homeford: had had an opportunity to reply to my query), but how and why are they 'Dreadful' and 'polluting'? Gecko G (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut anyone off! My intention here was only to keep things moving forward, but I don't think there's any reason why that RfC couldn't be re-opened or the discussions there continued? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You can 'transfer' all the info from that RFC, over to this RFC. Put'em in a "Discussion" subsection, below. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Amazing, I'll do that ASAP. Thanks, GoodDay! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It may well be clearest for the reader to separate them out on more complex cases, but in simpler cases I think it is fine to deal with them in the same section. I oppose adopting separate sections as a general rule; it should be decided case by case.--Trystan (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Making this change case-by-case could be a very laborious process. I would rather form a consensus here that subsections can be used where necessary. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that this is not needed, and shouldn't be applied, in simple cases where someone only ever has one title that matches their style. But we've seen lots of confusion on the more complex cases that change over time. Gecko G (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This doesn't correct the underlying problems with these sections. Often they contain unnecessary fluff, telling readers that the article subject can be called Ma'am (which appies to every woman in the world) or was called Miss Maidenname before she was married (which applies to every married woman in the world). Such statements are pointless. Nor does the suggested change correct the problem regarding the bullet points. The bullet points are confusing because they're an over-simplistic way of presenting sometimes complex information and don't explain why a change occurred. The problems are the formatting within the section and the inclusion of trivia, not with the section headings. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for exactly this reason. In fact, I believe an RfC on the very existence or at least the content of these sections might be necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I slightly agree with you on the first part about Miss and Ma'am type of situations being perhaps superfluous (maybe rename it to "Noble Titles and Styles" and drop that part?), but I disagree with the second part. The bullet points presents & summarizes the info, then the prose explains it, how is that anymore confusing than say using a ton of footnotes (as some have suggested doing)? PS Glad you were able to follow the discussion over to here. Gecko G (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Royal and noble styles are closely related in nature and common use, so belong together in articles. If you need discussion, do it in the one section - it seems an incorrect assumption this requires sectioning. Dividing them would be making sections into too much detail, and giving too much WEIGHT to each group. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  They are closely related, but also distinct things and liable to confusion. Placing them into separate subsections helps mitigate this confusion by clearly demarcating the two as separate topics, in a way that paragraphs within a 'Styles and Titles' section would not. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think confusion is a big issue, nor that separation would not make its own confusion and having to go scrolling back and forth to see both. If one is going to address confusion, that is better addressed by giving narrative explanation or link to Royal and noble styles - with it all in one section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There did seem to be some confusion in the original RfC at William, Prince of Wales, which does make me think confusion is generally an issue. Separation would allow each topic to be addressed individually and clearly without needing to explain the difference between titles and styles in each article. The subsections will likely be short in each case, so having to scroll probably won't be much of an issue. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. The two concepts are very closely related, and it would be better to sum it up without bullet points, in a prose section, which details the changes over time and gives the different styles alongside the titles when there's a change. I'd also suggest this model apply to William. His situation isn't that complicated, and as Celia notes, readers need to understand why a change in style occurred.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  But when using a reference material (like an encyclopedia, which wikipedia claims to be), and you want to be able to look up what a persons style was at a given date, it's easier to look at the date range you're interested in on the bullet points than to read through a whole prose section and try to follow along and derive it from that. Gecko G (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It's starting to look like which ever way it is done, it confuses some groups of people. So which way would confuse the fewest number of people? And which way would minimize the number of well meaning, but incorrect, "drive-by-edits" by those who are confused? Gecko G (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Should have one section not just because they are closely linked but would help page navigation too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Generally oppose In many of these cases it feels we are trying to make something appear simpler than it is. In cases that are truly simple (e.g. Alan Sugar's honours) bullet points aren't needed, and in cases that are complicated the bullet points aren't accurate. Even seemingly simple lists (like David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon's) could lead to all sorts of potential controversy if we ended up bogged down in the issue of whether he actually inherited the title Viscount Linley on the day he stopped using it. If we must have bullet-pointed lists then, given that the titles are generally for life, I would suggest just using the dates honours were granted or inherited to avoid potentially confusing and contentious end dates. Reserve end dates for people whose titles are taken from them or who become monarch. --Mgp28 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, David Armstrong-Jones's page you linked to as an example is just wrong. In the subsection labeled "Titles and Styles" it only gives his Style's overtime not his titles despite the subsection being labeled "Titles AND Styles" (and it omits his style used professionally). Either A) information on his titles should be added, or B) The subsection should be retitled something like "Noble Styles" AND "Titles" removed from the section header, or C) information on his professional style should be added PLUS the subsection and section should both remove "Titles" from their names, or D) Some satisfactory combination of parts of those options (such as, for example, the above proposal of separating out into different subsections plus adding info on his titles).

  Whichever one of those corrective options is taken, how can it be done without causing confusion - or at least causing the least confusion? Deciding that as a guideline, I believe, is the question at hand. And then having that established guideline to refer to when gently correcting well-meaning, but erroneous, drive-by edits. Gecko G (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think each of your suggestions would make these lists more accurate. I don't have strong opinions on this, I just wonder whether we will end up with lists more complicated than we could have described in prose (returning to David Armstrong-Jones for a final time, the first sentence of the article already tells me more than the list is a smaller space). --Mgp28 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, as mentioned (above? below? in the previous discussion? - I've lost track of where) in simpler cases it perhaps is questionable if it's needed at all, though still useful. In David Armstrong-Jone's straightforward case, his can indeed be summed up adequately in just one compound sentence, but there's also no harm in having both. In his 60 years he has only had one change involving 2* different styles over his life and only 2 titles. (*=3, if you include his "professional" style).

  Compare that with the individual's article who started this- William. In his just 40 years of life he has already had 6 different styles at different times, and added 10 or 11 titles at 3 different points in time, and he is quite likely to undergo at least one more big set of changes in the future. The amount of prose needed to explain all that is lengthy, so without both the prose and a list someone wanting to know their style at a given point in time has to try to read through and workout what his style was when, whereas if both are given, and someone has a source referring to someone by a given style a researcher can quickly cross check the date of the source with the given styles list for the individual to see if it is referring to this 'Title x of place y' person or another person who's style is referencing a different (earlier/later) holder of style "z" derived from "Title x of place y".

  If you look at other members of Royal or Imperial families, it can be even more complex (especially some of the East Asian one's with the addition of reign and posthumous reference styles).

  For a reference material, like an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, Style is more useful to know than some obscure subsidiary title, but yet many editors seem to want to throw away the style information. The format could absolutely, definitely, do a better job of distinguishing between changing styles vs changing titles, and debate on HOW to relay such info is quite welcome and appropriate, as is debate on setting a complexity threshold where it becomes necessary to include or not (i.e. as pointed out elsewhere, a simple change from "Ms." to "Mrs.", or similar obvious cases, isn't worth the bytes needed to mention it), but I don't understand the argument some seem to be making here that Wikipedia should just ignore Styles. It seems such arguments derive from two starting positions: Either A) some folks not understanding the difference between Style and Title, or B) that a bulleted list is somehow more complex or inferior to prose. It only seems more complex because it's currently mislabeled, and people are thinking it's a bulleted list of titles over time when it's actually a bulleted list of styles over time. Likewise, the prose is needed as well for explanation and background reasons, so both should be present. But I'm also starting to feel like perhaps I'm the only one, and am just repeating myself, and I don't want to be that kind of disruptive Wikipedia editor. Am I failing to adequately explain my case and I should just stop? Gecko G (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion2

Copy of RfC discussion at Talk:William,_Prince_of_Wales#RfC_on_Titles_and_Styles A.D.Hope (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

'Titles and Styles' is a section in the articles of many royal figures, including British ones. Most include a bulleted list of titles and styles with a date range showing when the titles and styles were used. There are inconsistencies with these date ranges. For example, recent versions of this article have used:

• 8 September 2022 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

and

• 8 – 9 September: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

I believe the root of the issue is that titles and styles are different things with incompatible dating conventions.

I would appreciate comment on how the 'Titles and Styles' section of this article should be formatted or changed. Thank you.

Note: a similar RfC has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#RFC: Titles & Styles by @GoodDay. I am opening this RfC on the advice given there that this is a more appropriate place to request comment. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the closest similar case, a royal duke subsequently becoming heir apparent, is with George V and this is what his article has:

• 3 June 1865 – 24 May 1892: His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales
• 24 May 1892 – 22 January 1901: His Royal Highness The Duke of York
• 22 January – 9 November 1901: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and York
• 9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
• 6 May 1910 – 20 January 1936: His Majesty The King-Emperor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:7517:234B:5B15:378A (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The "Duke of Cornwall and York" dates should've been changed to "22 January 1901 – 6 May 1910", at the George V page. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Top example, is what I prefer. Charles III's section, should have his "Duke of Cornwall" dates as 1952 to 2022; not 1952 to 1958. Therefore, IMHO, we should show the dates for when they've held such titles. Not just the dates for when those titles were their most senior & publicly used. William is still Duke of Cornwall & Cambridge, even though he's now Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that it's unclear whether these lists are of titles or styles. Your preference would make sense for a list of titles but not a list of styles, since as a rule only one style is used by a person at any one time (Scottish styles for British royals notwithstanding).

The easiest way to resolve this would be to split all 'Titles and Styles' sections into a 'Titles' section and a 'Styles' section, which avoids all ambiguity. The currentl format of this page is a good example. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, Style & Titles are 2 separate (though related) things. Style is the reference, tied to the highest held or courtesy title. I.e. It's how the person is referred to in official short form- such as the court circular or other media. Titles are the (usually accumulated) titles held by that person, ie Duke of "x", "y", & "z", Earl of "a", Baron of "b" & "c", etc. The subsidiary titles are still held by the person, but only referenced when locally important or when a full very formal listing is used. Gecko G (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with A.D.Hope and Gecko G.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• In complicated situations, avoid misleading and over-simplistic tables. Explain the situation in prose. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  The situation wouldn't be complicated if 'Styles' and 'Titles' were separate sections, I feel. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  It is split, and people are still changing it and confused. So, it hasn't helped. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised people are still confused, as at the moment this page is just one of several which all seem to be operating different policies with regard to styles and titles.

  If we can establish a consistent standard then I'm sure the confusion will die down, and part of that standard should be to separate the sections. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Either separate the sections or move the content to separate pages about each individuals styles, titles. There'd be more room to make such changes, on separate pages. All we'd need is a page link from those pages to bios. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  So should the Prince of Wales's other titles (Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge) be [date] – present or [date] – [date he became PoW]? cookie monster 755 03:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I look at it from this angle. He's the Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall & Duke of Cambridge, until he becomes King. Which is why I favour the usage of titles, rather then the usage of styles. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  How do you feel about the format used in this article, where the styles are given in a bulleted list (using [date]—[date he became PoW]) and titles are given in a prose paragraph in a different section? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  The way it is currently in the page (as of Sept 18), works best. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, though I do really think we should change

  • 8 September 2022 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

  to

  • 8 – 9 September 2022: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge

  To make clear that that section is about styles, not titles. William is explicitly called Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Cambridge in the following section, so the information is still there. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't, as he's still Duke of Cornwall & Duke of Cambridge. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but he's not going to be addressed as that any more, and that's what styles are about. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose the titles & styles section being split into two sections 'or' entirely moved to their own page, with a link to the bio. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad we agree on that. What about the styles section showing an end date for 'Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge', since that style isn't used any more? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  If it helps with clarity, might I also suggest adding a footnote to the "Cornwall and Cambridge" line that says William continues to hold those two titles but generally isn't styled as such? (I suspect he will still be referred to as the "Duke of Cornwall" in circumstances that directly relate to the Duchy of Cornwall, as Charles was). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm alright with that, if it's applied consistently across the pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that just lead to people then getting confused about what happened to the Earl of Strathearn bit?

  Could perhaps the whole entire thing be mollified by putting the "Title" subsection before the "Style" subsection? Of course, if so, then that should be done to ALL of the pages and thus this RFC should go back to a centralized location. Gecko G (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not to be disruptive, but could we not just be WP:BOLD? Is splitting a subsection into two and slightly rearranging it going to cause that much of a problem? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  This format is used on a lot of other pages too. If you change it only here, someone down the road will think they are helping to standardize and revert it back. If you instead change it everywhere without discussing it first somewhere central, that would quite likely be viewed as being disruptive. Gecko G (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Disruptive to whom, though? It's a fairly minor change which does not involve changing any facts of the article A.D.Hope (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  replied on your talk page, since this part of the discussion was no longer about this page specifically. Gecko G (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree on this, the current setup with overlapping styles is confusing IlkkaP (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Make sure you understand the difference between titles and styles. William's style is simply His Royal Highness; his primary title (except in Scotland) is Prince of Wales and his secondary titles include Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge and a host of lesser titles. The current split incorrectly mixes the two. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  HRH is just a part of his style, not his full style by itself. The Prince of Wales is both part of his style AND one of his titles. His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales. Compare it to "Mr. Joe Shmoe". After the initial introduction you might refer to him as "Mr.", "Mr. Shmoe", or just "Joe" depending on various factors (are you talking about him in the third person or to him in the second person, what's your relationship with Joe, how formal is the setting, etc., etc.). Likewise, once it's established that we are talking about HRH The Prince of Wales (and from the date we know it's 'Prince William'), you may then drop one or the other in subsequent mentions to save syllables and refer to him as either just "His Royal Highness" or just "The Prince of Wales" (unless you're a family member or a very close friend in a non-public setting you would never use just "William"). At least that's how I understand it, I imagine there's lots of Brits who would know better than American me. Gecko G (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• The current layout with both HRH Duke and HRH Prince overlapping as present styles is very confusing IlkkaP (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with the reasoning of A.D.Hope and Gecko G. above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Remove the table. As others have said, it's unhelpful and confusing. He retains the titles but doesn't use them. That can only be explained by writing 'He retains the titles but doesn't use them'. That is not conveyed by any version of the table. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  The only table is the Table of Contents, I'm presuming you're referring to the bulleted list, in which case I disagree with outright removal unless you can somehow justify removing it from every single other person's page who has changing reference styles over time. I don't see how it's confusing, but perhaps I have a base knowledge bias in this area that keeps me from seeing what a lay reader sees - I thought the only potential problem was people not understanding that it was 2 different, but related, things and they were misreading the "and" (Reference Style and Titles). I thought with it now more clearly marked as distinct subsections that fixed the issue. Was that not the original problem? Is it instead not knowing how subsidiary titles work? If that's it we could probably work in a link for a reader to go learn about it, but it's not the job of William's page to explain that concept. If it's something else confusing then what specifically is tripping you up?

  On a side note, come to think of it, I wonder if an actual Table in the title subsection (like Charles' page used to have) might help clarify. Gecko G (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Why is "His Royal Highness" italicized? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because it's part of the style, I think. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because "His Royal Highness" is the style; "Prince of Wales", "Duke of Cambridge", etc. are the titles. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  They're also part of the style, in this context. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the italicization issue, but yes HRH is part of his reference style, which at this point in time, as I understand it, is properly and precisely "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales." (sometimes the "His Royal Highness" bit will be abbreviated down to "HRH". I've also seen cases where the post-nominals get included, but I'm not sure how proper that is.) Notice that "William" does not appear anywhere in that (which is, I think, what @Powers: is getting at just below). Prince William is the only one referred to thusly at this moment of time. However, we can't call his wikipage that because in the past others have been called exactly that (i.e. his father had the exact same reference style before Sep 8th) so the compromise is conjunctions like "William, Prince of Wales" or "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" and the like, for the wikipage titles, none of which are proper reference styles, but is commonly misused by the public and even the media, so it also works for distinguishing and naming their wikipedia pages. Unfortunately people then glance at wikipedia, see that, don't read the Style section, and that results in further reinforcing people's incorrectly thinking the royals styles are like "Catherine, Princess of Wales" and such, in a reinforcing feed-back-loop, but that's a topic for discussion elsewhere. Gecko G (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't ask why the words were there, I asked why they're in italics rather than plain text. I'm not seeing anything in MOS:ITALIC about italicization of styles, although heaven knows I might be missing something. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was more replying to the discussion between Rosbif73 & A.D. Hope. As I said, I don't know about the italicization, sorry I can't help there. Given that it appears to be standard on other pages my guess is it might be a guideline from one of the relevant wikiprojects. Hopefully someone who knows will answer. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Call me nuts, but if this is supposed to be a list of all the titles he has held and when he held them, then "HRH Prince William of Wales" doesn't belong because that's not a title. And his Earldom and Barony titles are missing; there's no reason to state that he is still Duke of Cambridge while omitting that he is still Earl of Strathearn. No one would refer to him as "HRH The Duke of Cambridge and Cornwall" anymore outside of very specific circumstances. And the presence of "His Royal Highness" clearly marks this as a list of how he is styled, not a list of his titles. As such, the dates should identify the time period during which the Prince was properly addressed by the listed style. Powers ^T 19:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - At least we found the 'core' of the problem. Styles & Titles should never have been combined into one section. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• ??? Malformed RFC? This all seems about a difficulty in using a list style, not a problem of one section nor something separate sections would fix. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I find the format of the "Titles as Prince Charles" table under List of titles and honours of Charles III § Royal and noble titles and styles far more readable than the bullet points in most of the other articles in question.

It's clearer for the Titles section, if there's a complex case where there's multiple titles acquired at different times, but it is neither here nor there for the styles section. Gecko G (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps in the end, deletion from the bios would be best. With a link to corresponding Titles & Styles pages. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether that should be a separate page or not is entirely dependent on if there is enough information to support a separate page. Some do, some don't, but even if it does the underlying issue of whether to have separate subsections or not is still relevant, it's just then outside the scope of the Biography MoS specifically. Gecko G (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we removing the bulletted list as someone has from King Charle's page? Dbainsford (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

We should have either a bulleted list of principal styles, with a short piece of introductory prose saying that's what they are, or simply (and likely better) say the same thing entirely in prose. It's clearly unhelpful to readers to have a bald list in some "standard" format just to keep editors happy about that for some sentimental reason if it doesn't actually make its meaning clear. Having two subsections, one for "titles" and one for "styles" would be a little clearer, but bizarrely redundant to the point of itself possibly causing "why are we doing much the same thing all over again?", and not a good use of 'space' in an article at any speed. People rarely lose titles, and when they exceptionally do, that's worth explicitly noting in text, not quietly just having a end date in a bulleted list. The idea of style as 'poshest current title' isn't that hard to grasp, and I don't think people are often going to be confused into thinking that 'now has a posher title too' (or for monarchs, absorbed them) implies 'fired as a duke'. Most likely case seem to be that editors are confused into thinking that other people might be. But to prevent either, we should simply explicitly say what the section's doing, and link to our article -- or one of our potentially too many articles -- on the subject. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

To me a bullet point of titles with start and end dates with a small paragraph stating from this date he has been known as Prince of Wales, I do like when there is a paragraph which has the full name of the holder. Such as Prince William, Prince of Wales, Duke off... Aide De Camp Knight of the Most excellent order of the Garter, etc. Dbainsford (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No closure yet? :( GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting birthdates

Is there any guidance on how best to handle an article that cites reliable sources with two different/conflicting birthdates? Miriam Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) cites her obituary in the New York Times, but also has a link to her United States Library of Congress authorities page which lists a different date of birth (they both agree on date of death). I made a judgement call and went with the LoC source for the infobox as the obituary (at least the one linked) is a point-in-time historical reference that, if it were to have been updated, would be in a different issue of the newspaper than the original obituary (as a "correction"), where the LoC authorities appears to be a database that can be updated by the maintainers and is likely more "current". Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I would move the conflicting info into a footnote and explicitly address the nature of the conflict there. (You can refer to references even within notes using {{r}}.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What does "preferred" mean for having no comma before "Jr"?

The rule says "Omission of the comma before Jr. or Sr. (or variations such as Jnr) is preferred." If "John F. Kennedy Jr.", not "John F. Kennedy, Jr." is the way to write his name, then we should say that - we should not just call it a "preference". (I noticed a boatload of changes in my watchlist where someone was removing the commas. I came here to check to see what the MOS said and was surprised that the MOS just calls it a preference.) --B (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there used to be wording about how prevalent a comma is used in sources. Seems it now just says it's preferred not to use it. Sometimes I think it's easier to just have a house rule and not worry if other sources sometimes differ. —Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We can not make a unified house rule because there are bio subjects who have explicitly stated that their names should be written with the comma (and others who have explicitly stated that their names be written without one). Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps say so: "Comma before Jr. or Sr. (or variations such as Jnr) is omitted unless the subject prefers it" or something similar? 151.177.56.148 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

But we don't actually have any rule to follow subject preference in this regard. IF we did, virtually every "old bio" would move back to using commas, because commas were the common usage from the 1980s and earlier, so would have been the preferred usage of the now-dead subjects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I've boldly revised the section to remove the wishy-washy wording, and the bracketing-commas instruction creep after it. [2]. May get reverted, but I believe this is the direction we should go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Of interest, I have proposed this exact style change at Wikiquote, where it is currently being soundly rejected. BD2412 T 05:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's of interest, actually. All the projects handle style matters independently, even the different-language Wikipedias. En.Wiktionary, for example, does all kinds of things en.Wikipedia would not and vice versa.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It is of interest to the degree that projects have interrelated templates, so that a template on this project calling an article on that one will not function correctly where the same subject has different punctuation from one place to the other. BD2412 T 04:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

That was probably me you noticed removing commas. I did most of them a few years ago, but recently did a cleanup of new articles since then. See Talk:Arthur Joseph Lewis Jr.#Requested move 6 October 2022. Basically, all grammar/style guides since the 1978 Strunk & White recommend dropping the comma, if I recall correctly, since it never made any logical sense and it reads easier without it. If there are people who have specifically said their name needs a comma, I'd like to hear about that. I've not heard of it so far (though lots of people do write their names that way, as my Dad did; it was the standard back in the mid 20th century). Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The comma style, should be implemented. But, I suppose it's too late now. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Gender identity policy violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy by aligning with gender ideology

The idea that a person's preferred pronouns must be enforced on everyone for fear of offending isn't one that is shared by most people on earth. Wikipedia is taking a political stance by enforcing this policy, thereby taking part in a political and ideological debate that runs counter to its presumed neutrality. This is something that should be discussed. Nicolasconnault (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

right, the "political and ideological debate" of whether trans people deserve to live and exist like anyone else Myfbusters (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

pseudonym versus deadname

i am working on an article on a prize-winning novelist who uses the name "Kim de l'Horizon", and have a question about the guidelines on pseudonyms and deadnames. at the time i created the article, "Kim de l'Horizon" (hereinafter "commonname") was the name being used in the reliable sources i had encountered, so it was the clear wp:commonname. as i have read more about de l'horizon, i have come to realize that de l'horizon is also associated with another name (hereinafter "othername"), but i cannot tell whether commonname is a pseudonym and othername is de l'horizon's current name (hereinafter "pseudocase"), or if commonname is de l'horizon's current name and othername is a deadname (hereinafter "deadcase").

my current interpretation of the situation is that pseudocase is true because it seems that sources in the world of art have publicly connected the two names for years, with one recently prominently stating that de l'horizon won the prize while using commonname as a pseudonym. also, in a biographical blurb of de l'horizon released by their publisher, it states that de l'horizon was born in the year 2666 in gethen, a reference to the left hand of darkness, which makes me believe that de l'horizon may not be treating their kim de l'horizon persona as their legal identity. in addition, (1) i do not believe i have seen de l'horizon attempting to remove any trace of othername, (2) i have not seen a reliable source referring to othername as a deadname, and (3) i have found an instance of what appears to be de l'horizon deliberately connecting the two names publicly (although that was back in 2015). however, because most reliable news sources at the time i created the article had not been using othername in their reporting, i am currently being conservative and editing as if deadcase is true.

in any case, now that i believe that pseudocase is true, i am worried that the article may be misleading as it presents commonname as de l'horizon's current name. however, because i don't want to make any stupid edits that would end up getting revdelled or oversighted, i wanted to get additional opinions on this matter. (i believe othername is not difficult to find if one knows it exists.) if i were to further develop the article, which of the following would be the most appropriate way to do so?

1. treat commonname as a pseudonym, as in the articles for george sand and conchita wurst
2. treat othername as a deadname, but mention that commonname is a pseudonym in the lead sentence, citing a source that mentions this but not othername
3. treat othername as a deadname
4. something else more appropriate that i had not considered

dying (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC) [note: i have since learned that "2666" is likely a reference to the roberto bolaño novel 2666, published by editorial anagrama. dying (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)]

Assuming we're talking something not as strong as pen names where the author and pen name are routine reported, pseudonyms are often selected to protect the anonymity of the author, so under BLP, there would have to be strong reliable source that 1) the names are associate with each other and 2) that the person has generally agreed to allow the association between the names. If either condition is not met, then we should treat the situation comparable to deadnames, only reporting the widely known pseudonym and not make any statement to the actual name. A good case is how Banksy is handled. There are a handful that know who is he is but its clear Bansky does not want the association to be widely known, so the best that is done on Bansky' page is a list of speculative connections that RSes have made without confirming any are truthful. Masem (t) 14:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

sources that have explicitly mentioned both names and identified commonname as a pseudonym include an austrian and a swiss newspaper (both notable enough to have en wikipedia pages), and a swiss literary magazine (whose parent magazine has an en wikipedia page) in which de l'horizon previously published under othername. here is a source that identifies commonname as a pseudonym without explicitly mentioning othername. i have yet to see a source, reliable or not, describing commonname as a pen name. however, wikipedia's article on pen names states that "[t]he author's real identity may be known only to the publisher", so i am not sure if it would be dispositive if commonname was identified as a pen name.

banksy appears to have consistently desired to hide behind the pseudonym, while i do not think this is the case with de l'horizon. a social media account that uses commonname has deliberately connected commonname with othername in 2015 (though i have not verified that the account actually belongs to de l'horizon). also, i don't think including a speculative list makes sense in de l'horizon's case because othername is easy enough to find if one is looking for it, and de l'horizon made a public appearance at the award ceremony for the prize, so no one is really speculating who de l'horizon is.

would option 2 fall under "only reporting the widely known pseudonym and not make any statement to the actual name", or only option 3? i believe some articles on people with deadnames omit referencing the deadname entirely, while the banksy article clearly states that "Banksy" is a pseudonym. dying (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Does this relate to someone who is trans? I ask because the concept of “deadnaming” trans people is an issue that has its own set of policies and guidelines - that don’t apply to others. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  here is a solid source that states that de l'horizon identifies as non-binary. i do not think i have seen a source referring to de l'horizon as trans. does the specific set of policies and guidelines apply only to deadnaming trans people? dying (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, the guidelines apply to nonbinary people as well. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  are the guidelines for deadnaming either trans or non-binary people different from deadnaming in general? i admittedly cannot immediately recall any notable people with deadnames that are neither trans nor non-binary, though i assume the concept of a deadname similarly applies to cis people who have previously identified as trans or non-binary (and may have two or more deadnames), and possibly applies to people who have started a new identity to separate themselves from a previous identity for a reason other than gender identity (such as witnesses relocated due to death threats). dying (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• note: since my last comment here,
  • one editor has created a redirect from othername to the de l'horizon article,
  • one has referenced othername as de l'horizon's birth name, and
  • one has added othername to the lead.

i had been hoping for a more definitive answer here to better understand how to proceed in such a situation, as i believe all of these actions would be violations of en wikipedia's policies and guidelines for deadnames, but am not reverting these edits because i do not know if othername is actually a deadname. (one of the edits states that de l'horizon stopped using othername in 2017, but i could not find this stated in the cited source, and the statement also seems to conflict with a program for a literary event in 2020 in which de l'horizon appears to have used both names.) i am quietly pinging the first two editors, Matthiaspaul and ZemanZorg, and will leave a message on the talk page of the third editor (who edited under an ip address) so that they may be made aware of this conversation.

do others here find the current state of the article acceptable?

by the way, i recently realized that there is quite a bit of discussion over de l'horizon on this issue occurring on another wikipedia (which i will not link, but it should not be difficult to find). obviously, a consensus on another wikipedia is not binding on this one, but the views expressed there may help guide the discussion here. interestingly, the discussion references atze schröder, who clearly does not want his real name mentioned on wikipedia, even though it remains in the en wikipedia article. dying (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Neopronouns RfC (moved)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity

 – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed some discussions about neopronouns, but mostly on a case-by-case basis and mainly focusing on noun-self pronouns, so I am starting this RfC for a more comphrensive discussion. The current policy on neopronouns states:

When the subject of the article identifies with neopronouns, the pronouns should default to singular they.

Based on previous discussions, I identify some options:

• Option A: Allow all neopronouns
• Option B: Don't use noun-self pronouns, use other neopronouns (e, xe, xir, zir etc; see this table of English third-person singular pronouns for more)
• Option C: Retain status quo (use singular they)
• Option D: Refer to subjects only by name
• Option E: Mention the neopronouns once in the article lead, default to singular they otherwise
• Option H: Use the pronouns most common in recent reliable and independent sources

Other possible options are welcome.

MSG17 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot)Soft C, as ideally we could just take our cues from RS coverage. However, in the absence of a clear consensus from RS as to how someone is referred to, defaulting to singular they seems like an appropriate fallback. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E Name the neopronouns once, then use singular they. Readability lowers significantly by using neopronouns for Wikipedia's international, multilingual audience. Using singular they demostrates sufficient respect when the pronouns are also mentioned. Options for going further include developing a pronoun field for the infobox or entering neopronouns in Wikidata. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C with Option E as second choice (I'd prefer mention in lead to be on a case-by-case basis), as singular they can be used for people regardless of gender. This Wikipedia is written in the English language and as such must use recognized English words and grammar. Neopronouns either are not generally recognized as words or consist of nouns being used in an unrecognized fashion. GENDERID is about using the pronouns that align with a person's gender, and for this English has "he/him/his" for male, "she/her/hers" for female, and "they/them/theirs" for non-binary gender(s). Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Note notified WikiProject LGBT Studies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option B or A I don't like the status quo of referring to folks who genuinely use neopronouns with they/them pronouns. It feels disrespectful to ignore their choice of pronoun usage by defaulting to they/them in that circumstance. While I agree that in genuine cases, following the pronouns that RS use would be ideal, I think that for most cases of neopronoun use, taking them from the article subject's social media is acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF. For the small number of people who use neopronouns as a joke, eg Blaire White who states that/bitch on her social media profiles, we should handle this in the same way we handle anyone who uses non-neopronouns as a joke (eg Tucker Carlson's Twitter states she/her) and default to whatever current reliable sources use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  So what are the limits to self-preference, then?

  Are emoji pronouns acceptable?

  Are words like "tree" a gender?

  If not, why does it fall under GENDERID? If so, are there reliable sources supporting this claim?

  How is identifying as a tree, a bug, a star, etc. any different from trivializing gender identity by identifying as an attack helicopter?

  Was that a case of "genuinely using" neopronouns, or a joke, when he had never said anything about being trans or non-binary and his justification was based on the erroneous claim that "we all come from trees...everyone's a tree"? How would we tell? (Obviously for this thought experiment I meant to assume that the later uses of "he" had not happened.)

  What about if they identify their name as something very unconventional like a symbol? (Incidentally part of the reasoning for that particular symbol was that it combined the male and female symbols; imagine the discussions that would erupt if that had happened today!) Crossroads ^-talk- 23:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Emoji pronouns could be acceptable, though I don't think I've seen them used in practice outside of Tumblr. Are there any BLP subjects you're aware of that use them? If not, then that seems somewhat of a straw-man argument.

  Use of noun-self pronouns like tree/trees is perfectly valid. Off-wiki I know of a person who uses bee/bees to refer to beeselves. I wouldn't use noun-self pronouns for myself, as I'm perfectly happy with she/her, though I have experimented with they/them in the past. But I also have absolutely no problems using them if a person choses them. As I said before, I think that correct use of pronouns in genuine cases, no matter what they are, is basic self respect.

  As for Keiynan Lonsdale specifically, based on a skim of then contemporary RS (circa 2018), Lonsdale's use of tree/trees seems to have been genuine. I'm not 100% sure what pronouns Lonsdale uses now, but Instagram lists he/him so I'll use that for now. As for how we can tell genuine use from mocking use, well there's a rule of thumb you could apply. What is the subject's stance on LGBT+ issues, and how are they seen by that community as a whole? In the case of Lonsdale, it seems that Lonsdale is supportive of the community and the community is supportive of Lonsdale. Conversely for someone like Tucker Carlson, who regularly publishes anti-LGBT+ viewpoints, it's pretty easy to see that Carlson's use of pronouns are mocking. As for Lonsdale's lack of prior statements on being trans or non-binary, why does that matter? From what I recall of the sources at the time, Lonsdale had recently come out as not heterosexual, and was experimenting with how to describe himself. In an ideal world, he would have the privacy to do that with friends and family, but alas celebrity culture prevents that. In the modern world, pronouns should be things you can try out at will. And when you're undergoing a journey of self-discovery, it takes that sort of experimentation to figure out how best to describe yourself. Even to this day, I don't know if Lonsdale has publicly made any statements about his sexuality beyond not hetero, or any further statements about pronoun use or exploration with gender identity. Images on him over the last couple of years however do suggest, if not confirm, that Lonsdale is at the very least gender nonconforming, and the butterfly dress from a 2019 GQ looks pretty awesome on him. Even if somewhat unpractical.

  Now what that means for us as Wikipedia editors in edge cases where a BLP subject has made an unexpected statement is probably best summarised in WP:NORUSH. There's no significant harm in waiting a short time period, say weeks or a couple of months, to see how things develop over time. If Lonsdale was still using tree/trees today, then I'd say that 4 years is more than enough time to assume that it's genuine.

  As for the old transphobic attack helicopter thing, the difference there is context. One is a short story, based on a transphobic meme that originated as a copypasta. The other is neopronoun. The former was written to attack and disparage trans and non-binary people, and to belittle the concept of gender identity. The later is mostly, but not always, trans and non-binary individuals finding the words that they feel best fit for themselves.

  The artist-formerly-known-as-the-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince is an odd yet interesting choice to bring up. My understanding is that the symbol was a stage name adopted due to issues with his record label, and that we have guidance for this on both article naming and within article text. Both of those bits of guidance are somewhat far outside the scope of this RfC. I do not believe that Prince ever changed his legal name during that time. Your choice of language though is interesting What about if they identify their name and quite possibly revealing. A person can change their name, for any reason, at any time. They aren't identifying with a new name, they are just changing it. I think you are right though, if Prince or any other celebrity were to do something similar today, it sadly would very likely become weaponised within the current anti-trans culture war. I think that is more endemic of how much airtime we actually give to the very vocal minority of transphobes and other anti-trans agitators within the Anglosphere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding emoji pronouns, while notable BLPs don't do this yet as far as I know, this can happen at any point. "Fae" or "tree" pronouns would have not have been around a few years ago, yet here we are.

  You state, Use of noun-self pronouns like tree/trees is perfectly valid. But are there authoritative sources on the English language that support this?

  The reason that calling a woman "he" (cis or trans, and the reverse for men, etc.) is widely considered wrong is because it is considered a rejection of their real, lived gender. I don't see how this rationale applies to "tree" and the like. One could respond that they want it, so we should call them that, end of story, but where does gender and hence GENDERID come in to that? If, say, someone wanted to be referred to with their full first and last name, and never one or the other alone, would we have to honor this?

  With Lonsdale, it's pretty easy to use this as a springboard to think of realistic scenarios where a person was pro-LGBT+, but never said much about trans issues specifically, nor identified as LGBT+, and then does something like that. You mention how are they seen by that community as a whole, but who represents the community? People on Twitter? It was that latter group that pushed us to use "tree" for Lonsdale, but how many LGBT people who don't spend much or any time on Twitter agree that someone calling themselves something like "tree" is a good thing for the community rather than belittling?

  Back to chosen names, it's easy to imagine a scenario like that where it is not a stage name but what they actually say they want their name to be. Legal names aren't really relevant since we do change trans peoples' names regardless of legal changes, per the same guideline now being applied to neopronouns. Ultimately, there must be some limits. Names can be arbitrarily difficult, long, or otherwise unwieldy, so there must be a line in the sand as to what is reasonable. And with pronouns, it's the same - which side of neopronouns does one draw the line?

  I don't mean to single you out personally with many questions, but my main points are that (1) this would be a huge change of nontrivial justification, and (2) regardless of the decision there must be limits to chosen names and pronouns. These issues will come up in any such RfC in the guideline itself - all the GENDERID RfCs have been long and complex. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  My understanding is that fae/faer pronouns have been in use for at least a decade now. I'm not sure when the first recorded use of tree/trees was.

  Could you please clarify, when you ask about authoritative sources, are you referring to linguistic descriptivism? Or linguistic prescription? Or do you just mean reliable academic sources?

  I think GENDERID is only truly in play here because with the exception of ship pronouns Islamic honorifics nowhere else in the manual of style provides guidance on pronoun use. We could move it out into its own subsection under MOS:BIO if you prefer.

  who represents the community? We could be here for a decade on that question. But for our purposes, we're best sticking with policy and so LGBT+ focused reliable sources; PinkNews, Gay Times, GCN, The Advocate, etc, would seem like the logical starting place for assessing the community's opinion on a person.

  Ultimately, there must be some limits. Unless we're somehow responsible for processing legal name changes, I have to ask why must there be limits? In terms of decency, we don't really need to litigate the Scunthorpe problem, especially as we have articles like Anal Cunt without controversy. In terms of technical limits, the MediaWiki software limits us to a maximum article title length 255 bytes, and if someone wanted to name themselves after Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch then fair play to them. The MediaWiki software already supports emoji in article titles, for example 🙂 has been a valid redirect since 2014, so there's no technical reasons to prevent use of UTF emoji in article titles.

  my main points are that (1) this would be a huge change of nontrivial justification I would argue that it's only non-trivial because people are making it non-trivial. If you run the thought experiment on this RfC finding consensus for B or A, then all you need to do is update the articles for BLPs who use neoprouns. In almost all cases this will mean swapping they/them/themself for whatever neopronoun equivalent they use (eg ze/hir/hirself, fae/faer/faeself, etc). If you're unfamiliar with how to use them, then you can do what any editor is supposed to do when they run into content that is unfamiliar to them, let someone else handle it.

  (2) regardless of the decision there must be limits to chosen names and pronouns. Why? Why must there be limits? Outside of technical limitations of the MediaWiki software this site runs on, why must there be limits? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why must there be limits? Why mustn't there be limits? All language has limits because it is a communal thing used to communicate; hence self-expression using it must necessarily be within certain bounds - at minimum I can't speak to people in a personal conlang and expect to be understood.

  By 'sources on the English language' I mean either set, really. Academic is to be preferred, as always on Wikipedia. I expect that prescriptive sources would say a resounding "no" to neopronouns in the rare cases they are even acknowledged, and that descriptive sources generally don't mention them, but if they do, describe them as 'used' (in the original sense of 'spoken at all', not the colloquial 'my pronouns are' sense of 'want others to use for them') only by a small subset of trans and non-binary people - in other words, akin to an ethnolect, and therefore on our end not suitable for general style any more than AAVE.

  As for GENDERID, if it doesn't have to do with gender, then why does a person have a right to expect people to call them "tree" (again, just an example of many possibilities)? What if they said not just their pronouns, but their very being, was a tree, and hence they should not be categorized or referred to as human? And if anyone reading this is thinking 'that sounds like the attack helicopter transphobic meme' - yes, that's exactly the point I'm making - I'm disputing the very point that being trans has anything at all to do with being or wanting to be a tree or being called a tree. I am very much inclined that the latter is improper appropriation from the former. Gender identity is a deep-seated psychological characteristic with empirically-proven importance in life outcomes and behavior - and identity as a tree (etc.) is not. I am obviously aware that some trans people do not agree with me that it is appropriation, but many do, and I know of no reliably-sampled survey showing wide acceptance of such behavior.

  I am of course aware that the last paragraph refers to nounself 'pronouns', and doesn't apply to attempts to coin a new word for a singular non-binary pronoun to replace the occasional ambiguity of singular they. Best of luck to them, but it's pretty clear that those haven't caught on yet, if ever, and the earlier part of my comment still applies in those cases regarding use in Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  All language has limits because it is a communal thing used to communicate; hence self-expression using it must necessarily be within certain bounds Were that true, language would be a static thing that never evolves. New words would never be created, old words would never fall out of practice. Borrowing words from other languages would be absolutely verboten.

  Descriptive sources do mention neopronouns. As the history section of our neopronoun article states, the OED has entries for ze, hir, and zir. Collins has an entry for ze. Dictionary.com has an entry for ze, and also mentions ze/hir/hirs, e/em/eirs, and xe/xem/xyrs at its entry for [3]. With regards to academic sources, this paper from 2022 on Natural Language Processing seems to have a rather thorough citation list of relevant linguistic sources, though I've yet to be able to read through them all. This includes gendered, gender neutral, neo-, nounself, emojiself, numberself, and nameself pronouns, though little to no research has been carried out on the last three.

  I expect that prescriptive sources would say a resounding "no"...and that descriptive sources generally don't mention them, but if they do, describe them as 'used' Expect is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I have to ask, is your opinion on neopronoun use based on actual sources or just what you think the sources say?

  then why does a person have a right to expect people to call them "tree" For the same reason why a person has a right to expect people to call them by their name. Because it's basic civility and politeness. What if they said not just their pronouns, but their very being, was a tree, and hence they should not be categorized or referred to as human? Leaving aside Kanye West or Jaden Smith streams of consciousness, this seems like a strawman. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Language can change, but does so communally and socially. Something has to be part of it before we can use it and be understood. The 2022 NLP preprint complains that neopronouns are 'ignored'; the authors dislike that, but the way we work, that adds to the evidence that doing so is undue for our purposes.

  Because it's basic civility and politeness. What is civil and polite is in large part a social construct and can differ between cultures. In almost every culture, including my own, it is the height of impoliteness to add to others' cognitive load by expecting them to remember, use, and conjugate nouns like "tree" or even emoji as pronouns rather than the standard pronouns we already have for referring to, but not naming, people. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  JFC people, write shorter. We're looking at 700+ words here in some of these responses. I don't care how important you think your opinion is, no one is going to read it and we don't expect them to. Valereee (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: your comments about evaluating comments as jokes apply to any fact that we consider generally WP:ABOUTSELF acceptable. For instance, whether we take somebody at their word for their stated age/birthday or where they grew up. We are already required to evaluate whether the fact meets these criteria (and others): the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment / Move RfC to WT:MOSBIO. – The "status quo policy" referred to above does not reflect a vetted community consensus, only the isolated outcome of a previous discussion about neopronouns. That text seems to have been added for the first time and subsequently removed in the past 24 hours. My understanding is that the stable version of the MOS simply includes no guidance regarding neopronouns. Option C should be updated accordingly, and we should presumably have another (Option F, I guess?) representing the addition of no new text regarding neopronouns (and thus, per-article consensus). Finally, this RfC concerns the text of MOS:GENDERID (which is transcluded here), so AFAICT the appropriate venue is Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography rather than this here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed that this is the wrong venue for an RfC (though a fine venue for an exploratory discussion, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also agree this is the wrong venue, though I'd add I'm not sure we even need an RfC at all at this time. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, I mistook the transclusion as being the other way around. If we can move it, that would be great. MSG17 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Options E, C (and H, which resolves to C in actual practice), D in that order of preference. Trey Maturin, below, puts it well: "stating the chosen neopronoun and then gently using the singular they is a good compromise that offends nobody rational". Options A and B are way out. Agree this is not a proper venue for this RfC. (It has since been moved to a better venue.) PS: I think I can support E.1 below, specifically. I don't see any issues with the wording, though it might be compressable a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC); revised 02:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C, with inclusion of preferred pronouns to be either a footnote if not a singificant issue, or documented in the body if that has drawn attention. We absolutely should not go as far as using non-standard pronouns in an encyclopedia in regular prose. --Masem (t) 02:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, with a second preference for Option B, in accordance with representing nonbinary people's sincere identities and per Sideswipe9th's solid reasoning above. Thatbox (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C It is not the remit of this encyclopedia to re-write the English language. Wikipedia must necessarily be behind the times when it comes to changes to the English language. When scholarly and other high quality reliable sources consistently use neopronouns, we can match their style. Slywriter (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Question: what do other sources do? What do e.g. newspapers do when the subjects they report on uses "zir", and what do they do when the subject they report on uses "kittenself"? Is there something in e.g. the AP Stylebook on neopronouns? I'd prefer that Wikipedia follows, not leads, how other sources deal with it. Endwise (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  To partially answer my own question, the AP Stylebook apparently says In general, do not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and are unrecognizable as words to general audiences. Endwise (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  It would seem that the vast majority of neopronoun users also accept at least one other set of pronouns (though not always they/them). At the moment, I'm only aware of 4 Wikipedia biography subjects who explicitly prefer a single set of non-standard pronouns, so prescribing a strict guideline in this case is probably WP:CREEP. Of those, it seems most common for sources to either respect their pronouns, or refer to them by surname only.

  • Justin Vivian Bond (v/v's/vself) – Wikipedia uses they. A 2014 HuffPo article uses v's surname only.
  • Maia Kobabe (e/em/eir) – Wikipedia uses surname only e/em pronouns corrected 18:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC). In August 2022, Time published an article and subsequent tweet, which described em using Spivak pronouns. Other coverage from around the same time (and currently, Wikipedia's article) refers to em by eir name only.
  • Genesis P-Orridge ("s/he"/"h/er"/"h/erself") – Wikipedia uses they. A. Various publications during h/er hayday [4][5][6] use h/er pronouns, including the New Yorker. Articles in The Guardian and New York Times used she/her.
  • Sassafras Lowrey (ze/hir) – Wikipedia uses they. Most sources I could find [7][8][9] seem to respect hir pronouns, including Vice.

  –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Genesis P-Orridge seems to be the most famous of the bunch, and has pronouns that are the most "recognisable" to a general audience, so I think that's a good example to look at. Here's an entirely unscientific list of the "mainstream" publications (which really means "things I'm familiar with") I can find with a google search:

  • Uses "s/he"/"h/er": New Yorker, Rolling Stone, BBC The Independent, Vulture, NME, Variety, Vice 1
  • Uses they/them: LA Times, NPR, A. V. Club, Vice 2
  • Uses she/her: The Guardian, NYT, Irish Times,
  • Avoids pronouns all together: None that I saw

  These are mostly arts/culture/music-focused publications, which is probably different than sources are in general, and they probably have a narrower (and younger) audience than Wikipedia. But still, it did surprise me how common it was to go with P-Orridge's neopronouns. I think all we can learn from my 20 minutes of wasted time is that Wikipedia wouldn't at all be out of lockstep with modern, mainstream publications if we decided to use neopronouns on some articles. I think there are two competing interests here. To quote from the AP stylebook (who were actually talking about the singular they, but the same applies), it's that neopronouns may be confusing to some readers and amount to a roadblock that stops them from reading further. At the same time, though, efforts to write without pronouns to avoid confusion may make people feel censored or invisible. I'm not sure where I fall on it. Endwise (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E per Bluerasberry: Name the neo-pronouns once, then use singular they. Speaking as a non-binary person, I consider this to be a reasonable compromise for accessibility. Funcrunch (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E per Bluerasberry/Funcrunch (or C, which seems compatible with E). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, with some modifications to allow mentioning them in a footnote when first using the singular they. Using neopronouns (especially those other than xe/xem) in articles would significantly compromise readability. For example, let's take the first sentences of Justin Vivian Bond (a singer who uses "h/h'm" neopronouns) and rewrite them with Bond's preferred neopronouns:

  Justin Vivian Bond (born May 9, 1963) is an American singer-songwriter and actor. Described as "the best cabaret artist of [h'r] generation" and a "tornado of art and activism", h first achieved prominence under the pseudonym of Kiki DuRane in the stage duo Kiki and Herb, an act born out of a collaboration with long-time co-star Kenny Mellman.

It would be very difficult to follow the article without getting distracted by these words. Moreover, in cases where a person has two or more preferred neopronouns, we would have to arbitrarily choose which one to use in their article.

Just to be clear, I don't oppose the concept of neopronouns per se, it's just that they don't look "natural", for lack of a better word. Neopronouns are contentious even among transgender and non-binary people, who may think that their widespread use would lead to mockery or a backlash against the LGBT+ community, or that the concept itself has been discredited by those who use it in a sarcastic fashion, like the Blaire White example above. And of course, I wouldn't oppose using neopronouns in Wikipedia's voice once/if their use in reliable sources becomes sufficiently popular. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In the sentences quoted above, one could say, for example, "the best cabaret artist of [a] generation" (there's really no ambiguity about which generation is meant, since it can't be anyone else's); likewise, one could say, "Bond first achieved prominence", using the same number of letters as "they". I'd argue that that would be an improvement over the status quo, which is "they" with a footnote — footnotes in the middle of sentences are inevitably awkward.

I'm all for simplification in the pursuit of understanding, but to coin a phrase, we should simplify as far as possible and no further. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Rewording the sentences in order to always avoid pronouns would lead to an outcome very similar to Option D, and this option is in my opinion the less preferable, because it would lead to an endless repetition of the person's name. Having a single footnote after they at least would have the benefit of showing some courtesy to non-binary subjects, while at the same time maintaining readability and accessibility. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Since four editors (including myself) have already expressed a preference for Bluerasberry's option, I have added it to this RFC. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option F: Only use neopronouns if the subject does not also use one of the common sets of pronouns. To avoid potential reader confusion, the usage of neopronouns should be noted with an appropriate hatnote/footnote/in-text note before or at the first usage. This option balances the desire to ensure the greatest readability with the need to respect the subject's pronouns.
  With regards to options C, D and E, while singular they or the subject's name can be used for anyone in a generic context, using them when the subject's pronouns are known is still unacceptable. This would be the same as only using they/them pronouns for a trans man who uses he/him pronouns, and for living subjects would violate WP:BLP. Option B has similar issues when applied to those who use noun-self pronouns. In addition to option F, I would support option A, which uses neopronouns in a superset of the situations option F does.
  Potential confusion from readers unfamiliar with neopronouns can be avoided by using hatnotes/footnotes/in-text notes as appropiate; I notice that in a previous discussion on this talk page Tamzin prototyped a hatnote at User:Tamzin/Pronoun hatnote which could be used. If desired, a footnote could also be used if a more detailed explanation is required (for instance, it could give a brief example of how the neopronouns are used, similar to the way examples are used by Pronoun Island). Another possibility is an in-text mention (e.g. at the start of a biography: "Name is a Jamaican scientist [...]. Name, who uses ze/hir pronouns, was first interested in science when ze was 8."). Any hatnote/footnote/in-text mention could link to the Neopronoun article (or a more specific article such as Spivak pronoun if such an article exists for the neopronouns in use). GreenComputer (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option F, per GreenComputer, RoxySaunders and Endwise: Wikipedia wouldn't at all be out of lockstep with modern, mainstream publications if we decided to use neopronouns on some articles. There's a subtle irony in quoting the AP Stylebook's opinion on singular they here, given that construct is regularly used by Wikipedia. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• I've moved this to WT:MOSBIO since there seems to be no objection. Courtesy pings at @MSG17, Rosguill, Bluerasberry, Crossroads, Sideswipe9th, RoxySaunders, Newimpartial, SMcCandlish, Masem, Thatbox, Slywriter, Endwise, Funcrunch, Rhododendrites, Dsuke1998AEOS, GreenComputer, and Maddy from Celeste. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E.1. I'd like to propose some actual wording here. This incorporates the consensus forming above, and would also acknowledge current best practices regarding they/them and no-pronouns cases:

  Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress" "brother/sister") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

  The above is also true if a person exclusively or primarily goes by they/them pronouns or asks to only be referred to without pronouns (e.g. Sophie (musician)). If a person exclusively goes by neopronouns such as ze/hir, use they/them pronouns unless they have a stated objection to that, in which case refer to them without pronouns; explain this in prose or in a footnote on first instance. In all cases where someone uses pronouns other than she/her or he/him, use gender-neutral terms (e.g. "person", "sibling") unless they have expressed a preference otherwise.

  (Changed "waiter/waitress" just because "server" would be a less obvious call-back.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E - mention the preferred pronouns, and use 'they'. GiantSnowman 19:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H - Use whichever pronoun is most common in recent reliable and independent sources. WP:OR and WP:DUE do not permit us to decide that sources are wrong; these core content policies may not be superseded by other concerns such as readability. BilledMammal (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hope you don't mind, I've re-lettered this since we already have an F and a G. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E sounds good. I also like Tamzin's edit and option C. Neopronouns create an accessibility issues for non-native and older English speakers as well as readers without a higher education due to their irregular conjugations and the proliferation of choices. Due to our global audience, it is important that we follow trends in the English Language rather than spearheading them. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E sounds like a good way to acknowledge the genuine sensibilities of gender nonbinary, etc., without going so far as to endorse, use, and promulgate changes to the language that are still unfamiliar to most readers. We should be open to changing this later if modern neopronouns become more widely standardized and understood. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• C The 'pedia by necessity puts the reader first. Gendered pronouns are understood by all users, and in cases where they wouldn't be accurate we use the singular they, also understood by all readers. I don't think its something to strip out entirely, but the bulk of the article and definitely the lead should use the standard they, and if the use of neopronouns is notable it should probably be mentioned in the personal life section. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option D, similarly how ptwiki deals with neopronouns. MikutoH (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option B or H - I understand why people might be apprehensive about using neopronouns, particularly nounself pronouns. However, I think that the above comments by Endwise and RoxySaunders demonstrate that, for notable people who use neopronouns as their primary pronouns, reliable sources also use them. I would also like to point out that ze, zir and hir are currently recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary; while I didn't see any neopronouns recorded in Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com after a brief perusal, I think this shows that there is some recognition of neopronouns in linguistic reference materials. With an explanatory note, I think neopronouns would be less confusing than many other aspects of the English language for our audiences. MSG17 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, also fine with D and C. We shouldn't use neopronouns in wikivoice as they will make articles unnecessarily confusing to our readers, many of whom are unfamiliar with neopronouns, for little benefit. There is no need to ever refer to someone by only neopronouns; they/them is fine for most people and using the person's name is acceptable if they have expressed a dislike of they/them pronouns in particular. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, with the slight caveat that if it is to be mentioned in the lead, it also needs to be mentioned (once, with reliable sourcing) in the body of the article. I would also not mind options C or D. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, with option C also ok. If the subject expresses an explicit dislike of all standard pronouns (he, she, they), we can fall back to option D, referring to the subject by the name of the subject. But we should not be using unfamiliar neologisms in our actual text. And in cases where no preference against singular they has been expressed, we should use it rather than othering nonbinary people by avoiding pronoun use for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H Ultimately, I can't argue against the core-content-policies argument posed above. Recapitulating what the sources say is, necessarily, not spearheading a new trend. I think that talk of "accessibility" or "putting the reader first" is, well, kind of empty in this context. We wouldn't "put the reader first" in a molecular biology article by oversimplifying it to the point of inaccuracy in the name of "accessibility". Some topics are just complicated, and that includes people too. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well said about the accessibility matter! In my opinion, owing to a combination of WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:GENDERID, the most reliable source to use to decide what pronouns to use about someone is that person. Also, further up in this thread we see a good number of RS using neopronouns fine. Thoughts? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  This assumes the very thing in dispute, which is the idea that pronouns are unique identifiers that individuals being referred to have absolute control over in ways completely separate from gender (covered by he for male, she for female, they for non-binary).

  XOR'easter, I'm not seeing the logical connection from 'people are complicated' to 'we must refer to people however they wish with no limits'. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  We refer to people in the way that RS indicate they should be referred to. That will inevitably reflect people being complicated. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is not always the case. There are BLPs I'm aware of, like Elisa Rae Shupe, where the most recently published RS on her use he/him pronouns, as those were published during her detransition. Because of the circumstances surrounding her detransition and subsequent retransition, the sources that were citing her are no longer doing so. I would strenuously disagree with any proposed change that states we should only use the pronouns present in the most recent RS without allowing for an ABOUTSELF exception. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• E. I’m personally not keen on neologisms in general as they are always startling to the reader and the principle of least astonishment is always of benefit to our readers. The singular they is well established and inoffensive (except to irrational people, and we’re not going to please them either way), so stating the chosen neopronoun and then gently using the singular they is a good compromise that offends nobody rational. It also helps with the very small number of people who have adopted “it” as a pronoun, often for bedevilment but sometimes for genuine reasons, where the resulting article would just be painfully horrible to read: note that they prefer “it” at first mention, use the singular they from then on and everyone will be happy. Or at least equally unhappy and that’s fine too. — Trey Maturin has spoken 21:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E: While BLPs' pronouns should be mentioned, the use of neopronouns in articles instead of the singular they would create confusion, especially to those who do not speak English as a first language. If the person has specifically requested to not be referred to with they, said person should be referred to using their name. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C for the sake of the reader. I would support including neopronouns in a footnote if the subject is identified as using them in reliable sources, but we shouldn't be relying on social media for that. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H: Neopronouns can be be understood & we're seeing more of it in use; for example, Time used 'e/em/eir' pronouns for Maia Kobabe. I think it is important to respect the subject on their preference (especially, if the subject has talked about why they prefer a neopronoun over singular they). A note in the lead (as suggested with Option E) is enough to clarify for readers. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Worth noting that Time faced criticism for using neopronouns, and notably that article I just cited just uses the name Kobabe. Likely many others do as well; another editor stated above that Other coverage from around the same time refers to Kobabe by name only. At the very least if a minority of sources use neopronouns and the rest do not, then choosing such a minority viewpoint as our own is WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have anything more substantial than a bunch of people getting angry on Twitter over Spivak pronouns? Cause this looks like a manufactured outrage, which are notoriously common on Twitter (it's a very angry site), over a pronoun that was only used 4 times in the original article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  On its face, I agree with the lessor assertion in this comment, believe that it is consistent with policy (letter and spirit) and, tentatively (allowing that a convincing rebuttal may come to light) see no reason to carve out an exception at this time. --John Cline (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed on the Maia Kobabe talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E, per "having a style guide", and keeping it more-or-less in line with some feasible range of other such in the sort of publication we prefer as sources, and seek to follow the tone of. Sympathetic to B, but it's too much of a neologism treadmill at present. As soon as a particular set achieve some degree of 'sober mainstream publication' breakthrough, I'd be in favour of revisiting this on a case-by-case basis. We needn't be the most linguistic-conservative tertiary pub going, but we shouldn't be ten miles out in front of the bleeding edge either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option A - other options do not seem to follow the intended spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity; we should use the subject's expressed pronoun preference, with some sort of explanation on first use.  Tewdar  13:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C or Option E, like what Masem said, with the pronoun use being put in the personal life section instead of the lead. SWinxy (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option E allows us to inform readers what RS are saying the person's preference is, but doesn't require us to write in a way that is confusing to readers. Totally support trying to write so as to limit the use to what can't be simply recast, but not to the point we're using the person's name three times in a single sentence because the person doesn't take pronouns or uses noun-self pronouns. (Note to closer trying to determine consensus with six choices: In order of preference the rest: H>B>C>A>D.) Valereee (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H (and effectively A when the sources justify it.) Failing that, effectively E. This isn't a difficult question; we follow what the preponderence of sources do in the article voice. Note that in most cases sources do not use neopronouns, which means we won't; but it's important that our decision in that regard be based on the sources in each case. Trying to override the sources with a blanket rule is inappropriate. I think the divide between E and C seems awkward - is E a statement that we must always mention neopronouns in the lead provided the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:V? Is C a statement that we should never mention neopronouns in the lead regardless of sourcing? I think that most of the time someone's current self-identification is a central enough detail to be worth a two or three-word parenthetical note in the lead. The difference between A and H is likewise poorly-defined - "allowing" something means it would be decided according to our current editorial standards, right? I feel like these options need to be more clear about which are "never / always do this, regardless of sourcing or provided sourcing passes WP:V" and which are "we can do this based on what the sources say" or "we default to this, but sufficient sourcing or context-specific situations can justify alternatives." It's baffling that only H makes any reference to sourcing at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E makes the most sense - use of neopronouns throughout the entire article (H) would harm readability far too much, particularly for non-native readers and less used neopronouns, but making sure it is mentioned in the lead (i.e. the difference between E and C) ensures that it isn't buried by wikipedians who disagree with neopronouns for their own personal reasons! Hentheden (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option MOS:GENDERID: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. This current policy was not changed by a February 2022 discussion between five editors over two days, and there are sources in the List of gender identities article and other related articles that validate the existence of corresponding pronouns. A hatnote can assist readers, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Beccaynr (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option H: I would be reluctant to enforce a rigid rule when use in professional sources is not so clear or consistent. AP is quoted above as recommending avoidance of neopronouns, but plenty of mainstream news articles diverge on treatment of the same figure. Option H is how everything on Wikipedia works by default. — Bilorv (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E, E.1, C. Per all the arguments on readability, subjective assessments of "sincerity", etc. JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• C/H/E depending. To me this is about the use–mention distinction: Wikipedia shouldn't use neopronouns because by definition, readers won't be familiar with them, and because English already has gendered and gender-neutral pronouns that are familiar to readers, have been around for centuries, and are perfectly suitable to any situation. "By definition" because as soon as a neopronoun gains widespread acceptance and usage, it becomes just a regular pronoun (like singular they). Whether Wikipedia should mention someone's neopronouns depends on the subject and how much significance the WP:RS give to their neopronoun: it may merit inclusion in the lead, or in the body, or not at all; it's a WP:DUE analysis. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option E with Option C as second choice. Others have already said all there is to be said, really. This can always be revisited in 10 years or so if neopronouns become more common in mainstream English usage. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per Masem. Some1 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E. Obviously. An encyclopaedia shouldn't be falling over itself to take its subject's wishes into consideration, otherwise we'll soon start to remove well-sourced information simply because a subject doesn't like it. Just because some spoilt, entitled minor celebrity makes up a pronoun and then insists everyone uses it doesn't mean an encyclopaedia should follow their wishes. We can report their ludicrousness, but not follow it thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option C. - As our MoS already addresses this subject; in prose derived of reason and careful deliberation: I've seen nothing to indicate that it ought to be changed.--John Cline (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E seems quite fine, if not possible then C. Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E/E.1 seems the most workable, although the neopronoun reference should be where it logically fits the article. Depending on the article/person, this might be in the lede, in a Personal life section, or in a footnote the first time their pronouns are used. Regardless, the pronoun preference should be cited, even if it's to a primary source. If it can't be cited, then the fall back should be to singular they (per status quo/Option C). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E because it's the least confusing for readers, unless the subject has explicitly stated their discomfort with they, in which case Option D is the best compromise. small jars tc 09:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Option B or H — though they may jar readers at first, “neo”pronouns are hardly a new phenomenon (thon was invented all the way back in 1858), and it seems fair to respect people’s preferences. (“Nounself” pronouns seem to me to function more as nicknames than pronouns in the traditional sense, and i wouldn’t be opposed to just using the singular they in that case.) MarijnFlorence (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (neopronouns)

Please allow some "general discussion", tangentel to the Neopronoun RfC. I am interested in participating in this RfC but frankly am not sufficiently informed to comment. Perhaps I (and others) can become so informed through such general discussion. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting this subsection, John. There's only been one comment so far on my suggestion for wording to implement option E (or "E.1" as I put it), so I'd appreciate any thoughts down here on how to improve that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• I mostly agree with Tamzin's proposed wording, but I have a preference for mentioning the choice of neopronouns on a footnote rather than on the lead prose. Assuming we choose for Option E, there would be a need to explain to the reader that the article uses singular they for simplicity, accessibility, etc. Putting this information directly in the lead would make it fall into WP:SELFREF territory. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think a footnote would be preferable in most cases, but I don't think MoS should foreclose the possibility of clarifying it in the body at the discretion of an article's contributors. SELFREF does allow "this article..."-type constructions in the body of an article, and we have an analogous case with deadnames, where footnoting a deadname is more common but use of parentheticals is also allowed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about writing awkward enough to make readers trip over it. If we don't use pronouns at all, that means every time the person is referred to, it's by name. Sophie (musician) suffers from this, I think. 8% of the article is repetition of "Sophie". Sophie's dad took Sophie to raves where Sophie loved the music. By contrast repetition of "Cher" constitutes 3% of that bio (and that's even without discounting dozens of mentions of "Sonny and Cher" there).

I also think we have to take into account that for some aspiring famous people (or people who are clinging to their former fame), name repetition is good for business. I don't doubt there are people out there who sincerely don't feel comfortable with any pronoun, but should Wikipedia adhere to every stated preference that could be just a publicity stunt for an entertainer? I mean, Sophie also stylized Sophie's name as SOPHIE. That's at minimum a bid for attention. Look at me: I'm different. Check out my music and you can be different, too, just like me. :D Valereee (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure referring to (neo)pronouns as a bid for attention is entirely appropriate Valereee, regardless of your opinion on them... (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think neo rejecting pronouns is by any means always/necessarily/even usually a bid for attention, usually they probably aren't. And I don't actually have an opinion on them neopronouns. I'm happy to use them IRL when requested, as long as they aren't changing daily and someone's being shirty about my not having kept up. What I said was a bid for attention is stylizing one's name in all caps, and saying I said requesting neopronouns was a bid for attention is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. The point is that Wikipedia, whether we like it or not, is used for publicity purposes by people who want to be famous. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Quite difficult for us to be the arbiter of if someone's use of (neo)pronouns is "legitimate" or "for marketing reasons"... quite a nasty side of history to be on to be honest! (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

TNT, I do not care if someone uses neopronouns. I use them when requested, as you'll see I have here, and as you'll see I recently did at Maia Kobabe. I also corrected a misuse I made at a recent RfA as soon as it was called to my attention. I have zero problems with neopronouns. But if Sophie was refusing all pronouns only in Sophie's artistic presentation and not in Sophie's private life, where Sophie apparently used feminine pronouns, then Sophie was doing it for marketing reasons, to market we're dealing with two different entities: SOPHIE the artistic persona, and Sophie the person. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And to reiterate: this isn't about neopronouns being legitimate. This concerns is specifically about refusing all pronouns. And I object to the misrepresentation you're making of what I said. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think it's appropriate in any way to speculate on Sophie's use of pronouns, and whether or not it was as you are suggesting done for marketing reasons. From what I know of Sophie, and from reading the article, Sophie appears to have been a very private individual with respect to their personal life with respect to personal life Sophie appears to have been a very private individual. There are trans and non-binary people who will equally accept use of any pronoun when referring to them, and at the same time ask that no pronouns should be used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC) edited Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I get that this is a very emotional subject. But if an entertainer is presenting themself one way in public and another way in private, then the public persona is for marketing purposes. Period. for whatever reason, we may need to treat the two separately. Neopronouns or rejection of pronouns completely is just what is happening in this case and it has nothing to do with any given pronoun or lack of it. This could be about the person in private life being a homebody who barely stays up after 9pm but their public personal is a wild partier. It could be an actor whose persona involves expertise in firearms and horses when the actor actually has neither. It could be a singer who grew up in the burbs but is presenting herself as having grown up in the back of a pickup truck or on a stoop. If an entertainer is presenting themselves differently in public than in private, it's about marketing. for whatever reason, then we may have to in some ways treat the two as separate entities. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Valereee that's a really inappropriate thing to say, and I would ask that you strike this reply. We simply do not know how Sophie used pronouns in their personal life. We simply do not know how pronouns were used in Sophie's personal life. Speculating on whether or not it is was for marketing purposes is straight up WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)edited Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what's inappropriate, that many entertainers present themselves differently in public life than in private life, and that it's about marketing? I mean, I'm open to arguments that there's another explanation. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've said twice now that you are speculating on the pronouns of a person who was intensely protective of their (possessive determiner) personal life. We simply do not know what pronouns were used in Sophie's personal life. We do not know if in private Sophie used a single set of pronouns, multiple pronouns, all pronouns, or no pronouns. We do not know if it was a stylistic choice to separate the performance from the performer. We do not know if Sophie presented differently in public versus in private.

To bring this to specific words that you have written: When you asked but should Wikipedia adhere to every stated preference that could be just a publicity stunt for an entertainer? you were asking us to speculate on Sophie's private life. That is inappropriate per policy. When you said I mean, Sophie also stylized Sophie's name as SOPHIE. That's at minimum a bid for attention. you are speculating on why Sophie chose that stage name, again inappropriate per policy, and also offensive because it insinuates that the choice was insincere. When you said But if Sophie was refusing all pronouns only in Sophie's artistic presentation and not in Sophie's private life, where Sophie apparently used feminine pronouns, then Sophie was doing it for marketing reasons, to market SOPHIE the artistic persona, you are speculating that there was a difference between Sophie's personal and private lives, again inappropriate per policy. When you said But if an entertainer is presenting themself one way in public and another way in private, then the public persona is for marketing purposes. that is again speculation so inappropriate per policy, and it is not a definitive. There are several other common reasons why a person may present differently in public than in private; it can also be for privacy reasons, self-protective reasons, or for societal pressures, abuse, harassment, or neurodivergent reasons, amongst others. And finally, when you say If an entertainer is presenting themselves differently in public than in private, it's about marketing. in a conversation whose context has largely focused on one person (Sophie), you are assigning a reason by allusion that you have no factual basis to assign, something that is inappropriate per a different policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, people have complex reasons for doing things.

I've been using Sophie because Sophie was brought up above as an example by someone else, which made me go look at that article. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and with respect to their personal life is using the wrong pronoun for Sophie. Sophie didn't use pronouns, according to "a representative" after Sophie's death. Just FYI. I know, it's hard sometimes. :) Valereee (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Valeree the use of "their" in that sentence is as a possessive determiner, not as a possessive pronoun. However I will reword that if that is confusing to you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You might want to go ce Sophie (musician), then. It uses Sophie/Sophie's like 173 times in a 2200-word article, and if we can get rid of some of them it would be good. :D Valereee (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I'm very glad to hear that you don't care (in a positive and inclusive way) if someone uses (neo)pronouns. I still find it inappropriate for us to make judgements based on how another human being decides to identify — and that is, at its core, what we're doing here. A remark (Look at me: I'm different. Check out my music and you can be different, too, just like me. :D) to you may seem harmless and logical. To someone else, it's fairly insulting. We don't know if this person is choosing to use (neo)pronouns for legitimate or marketing reasons, and passing remarks here in absence of reliable sources confirming or denying that suggestion feels a little "on the nose". I am confident that your comments are well-meaning though (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Again that was about the stylization SOPHIE, not about neopronouns. I have now said this at least three times and you keep saying I've said something I didn't say. I am starting to feel like this is intentional misrepresentation. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And Sophie wasn't using neopronouns. Sophie was rejecting all pronouns. There's a major difference. Also apparently we didn't know this until after Sophie had died, when "a representative" said it. Valereee (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification — clearly I misunderstood where your concern was coming from. My apologies, and fwiw even if I hadn't misunderstood, I'd certainly not deliberately misrepresent the words of any editor, let alone one for whom I have a lot of respect. (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, this entire subject can throw people off, and of course communicating via text is fraught. I know I've had multiple edit conflicts when trying to tweak what I've written because I've realized I misstated my intent. Valereee (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And in fact, Sophie's girlfriend referred to Sophie constantly as 'she' and 'her'. The final line of the personal section is that "After Sophie's death, one representative informed Pitchfork that Sophie 'preferred not to use gendered or non-binary pronouns' as an artist." So, yeah, this was probably about marketing. Valereee (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also a language issue that can be involved here. Kim de l'Horizon, for example, notes that they use either dey/dem or no pronoun. Articles in German-language press tend to simply use Kim instead of a pronoun, because that's common practice for non-binary people in that language, but it might leave someone leaning towards repeating the name instead of using a pronoun. There's also the issue of how to translate a neo-pronoun from another language; generally, I would think unless it's clear that the pronoun translates to something else, the standard would be to use singular they in English. For example, dey/dem is a German neo-pronoun built to mimic the English they/them, so using they with Kim makes more sense than dey in English. The same with Spanish elle, Swedish hen, or French iel. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option C (don't use them). The only place where it might be relevant is somewhere in the private life section in the sentence like "XYZ is non-binary and uses the "xe" pronoun to refer to themselves," (pipelink neopronouns) if that is ever a good idea to put the sentence in the article. Otherwise, we will see tons of unnecessary reverts correcting the quirky pronouns to him/her/them, and then tons of unnecessary talk page entries, which means that these neopronouns have not gained enough acceptance. (Also, in the non-English-speaking world, people do not normally know anything about these pronouns at all even if they know English well, which is further evidence we shouldn't use them for now). Dudhhr said it well.

Also, introducing them will be fodder for "anti-woke warriors" railing against the woke cabal supposedly imposing rules on Wikipedia (well, "mind your pronouns" and that stuff). This is going to create some really bad press/ANI quarrels while the benefit for readers and the subjects in question will be at most marginal, if any.

We can always use their name or surname, refer to them by their occupation, or use other synonyms that make it clear we are still referring to the article subject. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment on visibility some of these options (namely A, B and D) if chosen will have significant implications on the MOS and a very large number of pages. Even though looking at the discussion now these options are not likely to be chosen, is this discussion not worthy of a shoutout at MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages for broader consensus? Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option C/E. To improve readability and not to discuss it on every page. Alaexis_¿question? 08:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• As I noted above, this RFC appears to have begun by incorrectly describing the current policy, by relying on a non-binding discussion to suggest the "status quo" is to use "they" when the actual current policy is MOS:GENDERID. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option E to improve readability of articles. But it makes sense to use the neopronouns once to explain the person's preferred pronouns, but using it throughout makes the article less comprehensible to a general reader (particularly non-native English speakers) who may not understand neopronouns. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subsequent use

@Orangemike: added a section into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Subsequent use stating that:

When more than one person of the same surname is being discussed in an article, then both given and surname may be used to avoid ambiguity; i.e., a discussion of the activities of members of a single family may require full name use (not given-name) for clarity's sake.

I do not fully agree - I think the relationships or first name on their own could be sufficient when talking about family members, so would instead suggest something like:

When more than one person of the same surname is being discussed in an article, we should avoid ambiguity, such as by using full names, just the given name, or their relationship.

Constantly saying 'John Smith and Jane Smith' throughout an article is clunky to me - saying 'John and Jane' or 'John and his wife' etc. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 17:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To me, this diminishes the formal tone we usually strive for here. Take the leadership of the Tories in the Welsh Senedd, which has been passed around and/or struggled over between Suzy Davies, Paul Davies and Andrew RT Davies. Do we just say, "Suzy ran against Paul to succeed Andrew, and afterwards Paul said nice things about her in a press release?"

The question arose due to a situation where an editor was saying "Hillary Clinton" (to distinguish her from her husband) in an article about a third party, and another editor keeps saying, Oh, oh, MOS:SURNAME says you can't do that, you have to just say 'Clinton'."--Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is why my suggested wording includes full names as an option, but also allows other options depending on the context. Talking about politicians is different to talking about family - you wouldn't say "John Smith and his children Jane Smith, John Smith Jr and Joseph Smith travelled to Australia in 2020 to..." would you? GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Then go ahead and enter language which you think will address the concern. I've got no delusions of ownership here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion already. GiantSnowman 18:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with it. This is a situation that calls for options not some iron-clad rule.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Scope of WP:HON

PohranicniStraze (talk · contribs) and I have recently been discussing the scope of WP:HON. My recollection from the original discussions that initiated the addition of this language is that it was intended to curb the use of prefixes like "The Most Noble", "The Right Honourable", etc., in the first line of the article. My general practice over the years has been to include certain prefixes, particularly "Hon.", in what I would consider relevant contexts (e.g., a section on family/genealogy) but not in running text in general. He's been reading the policy somewhat more tightly and removing them from everything except infoboxes and sections specifically listing a person's titles.

There are two questions I'd like some community input on:

1. How broadly or narrowly do we read the guideline? I think he makes some good points about my practice being a bit Brito-centric.
2. Is any use of these titles a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the person in question noble, honourable, etc. in character?

My answer is a pretty resounding "No" on the second point—I feel that's like insisting we can't call a person a "knight" unless they wear armor and fight as mounted cavalry. On the other hand, I would say that overuse of these titles invites readers to *mis*interpret them as statements of character in Wikipedia's voice, etc., and so I agree it's necessary to have some limits on our use of them in articles. @Mackensen: you originally added the language in question; what do you think, and where else should we solicit input on this in a neutral fashion? Choess (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I haven't revisited this question in a while. I suppose that's good--the compromise brought some stability in what had been a very contentious area. Broadly, yes, editors were concerned that the inline use of styles amounted to endorsement in Wikipedia's voice. To the extent that the guideline is British-centric that reflects why it was written and where you intend to encounter styles in the English-speaking world. I agree that the answer to the second question is "no", though it depends on context. Mackensen (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, as I recall, a lot of that was proxying for ideological warfare between Tory monarchists and Irish republicans. That's why I'm mostly exercised about question 2; from seeing AfDs on some related topics, I think some editors who are ideologically opposed to monarchy, hereditary titles, etc. would like to muddle the distinction between Wikipedia describing those systems and Wikipedia endorsing those systems, so as to prevent the former. (To be clear, that's not aimed at PohranicniStraze, whose editing has been beyond reproach.)

I do agree that it's mostly inappropriate to be using styles like these in most running text; referring to Robert Surname, younger son of an earl, as "Hon. Robert" throughout his article would be puffery, in my opinion, and at best overly formal. The specific example that triggered this, though, was lists in, say, the "Family" section of a person's biography. My intuitive feeling is that writing ...had three sons: *Hon. Richard Surname (d. 1673)... would be OK, this guideline notwithstanding, insofar as a) those titles are expected to be mentioned in a genealogical context in a way that they are not in running biographical text and b) anyone who can parse "Hon." understands that it isn't a statement of character. However, it's possible that my interest in the subject has me out of step with other editors here. Choess (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Choess, especially at 'referring to Robert Surname, younger son of an earl, as "Hon. Robert" throughout his article would be puffery'. This guideline absolutely was intended to cover honorifics in abbreviated form like "Hon.", not just the lengthy versions, or it would have an explicit exception for abbreviated forms. I really wish people would stop looking for "magical loopholes"; there are none.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:HON is a guideline: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think it should be treated on a case by case basis, with the person adding it explaining why it should be included. TFD (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"May apply" != "do apply". No good case for an exception has been made here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Honorific suffixes

Currently, Honorific prefixes and suffixes is almost exclusively about prefixes - see the first sentence for example. The only mention of suffix is to allow the Turkish Pasha. I suggest that either the text should be expanded to state (for example) "prefixes and suffixes ... should not be included". Expanding the first sentence would be excessively wordy because it includes the explanatory "in front of". But do we really need to explain what "prefix and suffix" are? Should we change it to "In general, honorific prefixes and suffixes in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included", and for the last sentence "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and suffixes is controversial"? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly an accidental loophole and should be closed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done: [10].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

For a transwoman whose gender is a notable fact about them, not sure how to describe them, e.g., "woman", "transwoman", "transgender person" or something else? TIA Lfstevens (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Just "woman" if they are a woman; "trans" is an adjective and should be separated by a space. Myfbusters (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Military rank prefixes

Is there any guidance on whether military rank should prefix the subject name in the first sentence? There doesn't seem to be a consistent rule, particularly for living people. Scanning through previews of medal winners, I'm guessing roughly 1/4 have the rank prefix. Almost everyone in Category:British Army generals of World War II but none in Category:Major generals of the German Army (Wehrmacht). Qzd (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

They used to use them as prefixes in the bios of American generals & admirals. But, I think it's been phased out now. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military_history/Content_guide#Biographies. Choess (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Also if only "roughly 1/4 have the rank prefix" that means it's not normal practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

As it says, it's normal practice for those holding the rank of major (or equivalent) or above. But not generally for those below that rank. This has always been the case in the real world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding examples to WP:CONTEXTBIO

Back when this section's guidance was at WP:OPENPARA, there were examples of how to do nationality. At some point they were removed. I am going to be bold and add new ones. If you object to how I do it, feel free to move the examples here for discussion. Skyerise (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY and citizenship

The Context section needs a bit of clarification. Right now ethnicity and citizenship are mixed together in the same paragraph, as well as partially separate. I think this is basically OK, but want to add an additional shortcut, probably MOS:CITIZEN.

Right now we only have a footnote about Native American identity issues. Native American and Indigenous Canadian status are based in citizenship, not race or even ethnicity, per se. This is often a point of confusion for non-Native editors on the 'pedia, and those of us in the Indigenous Wikiproject have been working to help clarify. I propose adding this bit at the bottom of "Nationality examples", and moving the footnote accordingly:

Proposed addition/change to body text, after Peter Lorre:

Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. Indigenous people's citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.

• Wilma Pearl Mankiller (Template:Lang-chr; November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American (Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I should have thought of that myself. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)