Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Gender identity rules

I see the following: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed 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."

I do not understand the reason that it holds for any phase of the person's live unless they indicated a preference otherwise. I want wikipedia to be a source of reliable information.

I find it ridiculous when you write about some non binary in wikipedia "Nemo began their interest in music at the age of three"

I think the reader who want to know the facts want to know that everybody considered Nemo as a male at that time and from the value in wikipedia people cannot know the facts when they read wikipedia because of the rules that this holds for any phase of the person's life. אורי בלאס (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@אורי בלאס It also doesn't make sense that the rule is not to mention the deadname if the person wasn't famous as such. But if the article itself is mentioning this person's education or family, it means that part of is famous enough to be in the sources.

I mention this because the tracking is obstructing when you don't have the deadname.

The background should be "As [male deadname] she studied in XY, graduated as BC, and published her first books, which were of low notability. Then, after her transition, she became famous". T-man (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. People do not have the right to re-write or censor their own history, even their childhood. In particular the name they were given at birth. Even if they were not notable at the time (hardly anyone is notable in childhood). The facts of their life are what they are and should be reported. Not re-written to match their current (possibly changing) preference a la Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth. Ttulinsky (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia is not just a source of biographical information. What Wikipedia says about a living person can have a profound impact on that person and their life, as our information is reused in countless other sources and provides input to everything from AI chatbots to Google Knowledge Panels. Thus we should err on the side of respecting the identities of living people when possible. When a person was not notable under a previous name, what harm is there in not mentioning their previous name? Wikipedia is not intended to be the repository of all facts. It's only intended to give a summary of notable information about a person. Nosferattus (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot in WP:BLP that helps explain why certain verifiable information can be censored for living people for privacy concerns. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree: There are downsides to the current guidelines but they are preferable to the alternatives. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is really "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." It really shouldn't have anything to do with someone's stated preference, which may change at any time, or be reported in conflicting ways, or even attract several varieties of interpretational WP:OR. Rather, we should use something like "unless the majority of current reliable sources do otherwise for a particular time period in the subject's life". This would get around the perpetual sore spot of examples of like sports figures notable as, say, male competitors in men's divisions years before their transition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Consistency"

I see all over the that bios for celebs who use more than one pronoun are being reduced to one pronoun at the whim of gender police who deem it against Wikipedia's Consistency doctrine. But I don't see anything about using two or three pronouns being inconsistent in that policy. Thoughts? Thanks. Popculturemaven (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What reason would there be for using different pronouns to refer to the same person in an article? The obvious reason against is confusion to the reader, but I am not seeing any countervailing reason that would not be addressed by a sentence or note mentioning the article subject's preference for various terms. – notwally (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: The position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles

There are two questions:

1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• C - Neither Not everything needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. I would omit the word “retired” from the first sentence (so: “X is an American actor”) and mention the retirement in a subsequent sentence later in the first paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• No and Neither: the order of adjectives in English is not something that we ought to be prescribing in the MOS, it's a matter of grammar. Option B is the standard order, whereas option A sounds distinctly odd to this native speaker. As to whether "retired" or "former" should be in the opening sentence, I would say no as a general rule – though there are no doubt exceptional cases where "former"/"retired" is actually a defining characteristic, such as for a person currently notable in one field and formerly notable in a totally different capacity. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Previous discussion on same question here (2022). Schazjmd (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option A is generally wrong: A proper adjective (e.g. 'American') goes closest to the noun, except for qualifier/purpose adjectives. Sample ref: Adjective Word Order at Study.com. Nurg (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• No to question 1 (too specialized), so question 2 is irrelevant. Gawaon (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• No. In general I would avoid "retired" or "former" in the opening sentence. If someone is notable for being an actor then that's what the first sentence should say. If they haven't acted for a while, that can be explained in more detail later. On those occasions when "former" is needed (such as someone being notable for having left a situation, such as former political prisoner) and the word former is leading to possible ambiguity, it should always be possible to remove the ambiguity without making it harder to read, e.g. Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian politician, former anti-apartheid activist and political prisoner, not Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a former Namibian anti-apartheid activist or Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian former anti-apartheid activist. Mgp28 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• No And, like a few others here, I think the use of either adjective in the opening should be avoided unless being retired/former is a key component of understanding the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No and neither. MOS is not a guide to English grammar like others pointed above. The hyper-specific guidance leans into WP:CREEP territory. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Almost never "former American" as former is a unique adjective in that it modifies the following word, implying that they are no longer an American ("The Secret Rules of Adjective Order". Slate). That would only be appropriate in rare cases like Wayne Brabender, who renounced his citizenship.—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• B If appropriate, "retired" may be used instead of "former", this should be noted in the MOS. Per Nurg, A is grammatically incorrect, and per Bagumba, "former American actor" is wrong. LK (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the key is "if appropriate". Retired is sometimes misleading, e.g. athletes who retire from playing in their 30s or 40s, but still work in other fields until their 60s or later. Or former child actors. —Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• No. The MOS doesn't need to try and determine every individual thing. Some things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis; and I don't think the argument has been convincingly made that this is a situation where one framing makes a better default than the other or where uniformity would benefit the wiki. --Aquillion (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• A is the only correct answer - a professional does not retire from their nationality, only their profession. Therefore bios should say 'American former/retired actor' and NOT 'former/retired American actor'. GiantSnowman 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Profesional English is illogical, and attempting to right it would needlessly and substantively degrade our reputation. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, neither and C using retired in this way is best avoided. You can always add "who retired in..." or similar. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why say in 1 word what you can say in 10, eh! GiantSnowman 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No and Neither I feel this isn't something the MOS needs to specify - nor do I see much reasoning for why we should. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

¬ ,¬ ∨ . This seems like a SNOW close. Also, this issue has been raised independently at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Use of "former" to describe occupations. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Arabic names

I think we need to amend the MOS:FULLNAME section relating to Arabic names that cites the example of Muammar Gaddafi. Contrary to names in most other countries, Arabic names do not include middle names, but rather a chain of names. While although Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi would have had this name on his government documents, it is not really their name per se; Muhammad would be his father, and Abu Minyar would be his paternal grandfather. It is good to see that MOS:FULLNAME was aware of this and recommends avoiding the mention of the full Arabic name in the opening sentence, but it still nevertheless seems to encourage its inclusion in the very next sentence in the opening paragraph. I think this is still redundant and it should be amended to recommend its inclusion only in the body, or also in the lede as a footnote. Arabic biographies are being cluttered with these redundant full names so this amendment important in my opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"ASC"

Has anyone ever noticed that many cinematographer biographies include "ASC" after the name in the lead? Some even have it written out in full, like Michael Chapman (cinematographer). On some articles like Robert Elswit, it's even included as "title" in infobox. Was there ever any reason given for why this is? I did a search here, and it was seemingly only mentioned once in an unrelated discussion, with the person expressing confusion as to why it's in so many articles.

I don't really get it myself. Major cinematographers who have worked in the US are not in ASC are very rare, so I wouldn't think it's such a noteworthy "achievement" it is worth noting immediately. Not to mention, it is not an honor, and the criteria for being in ASC is not particularly stringent. It just means you are/were part of a club of cinematographers. Yes, "cinematography by (name) ASC" is a common credit, but so is "produced by (name) PGA", and I don't see uses of Producers Guild postnom in articles.

--Quiz shows 05:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I ran into this the other day for a similar edit. MOS:POSTNOM seems to say to exclude for professional honors from the lead:

The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead ...

—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Gender identity: removing "waiter/waitress/server"

@GnocchiFan and David Eppstein: I'm not in the interest of edit warring on a high-profile guideline, so I won't revert twice, but I would encourage David to self-revert back to the status quo, at least until a proper consensus develops.

Obviously, language is evolving to ungender many nouns, and there are many where traditionally male forms are now acceptable for all people. And of course we shouldn't go out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted.

If a (traditionally) gendered term for an occupation exists, which we (or sources) would normally use for a cis person in that profession, then I think it's generally preferable that articles should insistently use those terms when describing binary trans people, and try to avoid them when describing non-binary people. This prescription circumvents an... unfortunate trend where speakers (unconsciously or maliciously) use ungendered language specifically for trans men and women, while gendering our cis counterparts.

In this specific case I think referring to a trans woman as either a "server" or a "waitress" is fine. It's possible that a better example exists. But given the choice we should consistently refer to trans women film performers as actresses rather than actors. Even though that term is slowly coming to be understood as gender-neutral, it is traditionally male-specific. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I, for one, in my personal dialect, would use "waiter" for all people who serve food at sit-down restaurants, firefighter for all people whose job it is to fight fires, etc., regardless of gender. To me "waiter" is as gender-free as "doctor" and "firefighter". I don't want to be forced into using gendered noun forms for random subjects merely because those subjects prefer to use gendered pronouns, when I would normally use those nouns in a gender-free way. That is, I think we should act like your expressed sentiment above: "And we obviously should not bend out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted." But I think that the example of requiring "waiter" for people who identify male, requiring "waitress" for people who identify as female, and forbidding both terms for people who identify in other ways, as the disputed MOS language does, is exactly counter to that sentiment.

If the intended meaning is that when using gendered forms we should use the gendered form that matches the gender identify of the subject, then of course we should. For instance we should not use "waitress" for someone who does not identify as female, obviously. But if that is the intended meaning then it did not come across. If so, we should replace the disputed passage with something that conveys that intent more clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I like DE's new version. I was ok with the status quo ante. I see this section used very frequently to deal with garden-variety transphobia, and I've never encountered a dispute over good-faith use of "waitress" vs. "server", or an analogue. I'm sure it happens occasionally. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I put the previous wording in while partly rewriting the section after the neopronouns RfC, to emphasize the scope of "gendered terms". I think this change still accomplishes that, so no objection here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd like to say that no malice was intended with my edit. David Eppstein expressed my concerns with the previous wording much better than I could myself, and I much prefer the current version. Thank you everyone for keeping it civil, as I know this is a very contentious topic area. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Titles and posts (i.e.jobs)

Where a post has more than one word we continually see very odd looking capitalisation (note my spelling. Please do not alter it. British spelling and conventions are important in this discussion) I have never seen such posts as Governor general or Lord lieutenant written in that way anywhere outside Wikipedia. They are always written "Governor General" or "Lord Lieutenant." Very occasionally you might see "governor general" or "lord lieutenant" To my mind using only one capital is incorrect anywhere. Does it happen differently in US? Is the "Vice President " written "vice President" or "Vice president ?" If so the rules should be different with articles about British subjects to articles about USA or other countries that do not follow British conventions. For the moment if I see somebody described as "Governor general of Canada," . "Lord lieutenant of Leicestershire " or "high Sheriff of Nottingham" I shall change them. Spinney Hill (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. The second word should not be lowercased if the first word is capitalised in any variety of English unless it's the first word of a sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)