Opinion of Wikipedia’s deadname policy?

[TheReckoning]

In Wikipedia articles about transgender people who have changed their names, it is forbidden to mention the trans person’s old name before they transitioned (unless they were famous before they transitioned, like in the case of Caitlin Jenner). This is in contrast to all other people who changed their names, where the original name of the person is always mentioned (always in the first line of the article). Even if you don’t care very much, do you think this is a good policy? Why or why not?

[progressive85]

I think it's okay if the person had a previously well-known name, such as Caitlyn Jenner who was famous as Bruce, but I think it's just basic courtesy to the individual by not listing their old name, since it's exactly what it is - a deadname, a name that is no longer relevant to the person's public record.

For example, nobody needs to know what Sarah McBride's full male name was.  It could have been Billy Bob Bupkis for all we know.  It doesn't matter.  Her name as a public figure is Sarah McBride and that's who she is.

I'd also say for cisgender people that change their names, Wikipedia should not mention what the old name was.  If they're already dead, there's not much they can do, but if it's a living person, then respect the person's wishes and don't put up old names.

[ingemann]

It’s in fact a much more reasonable policy than I expected, it really have very low relevance on a Wikipedia page what a transgender person was named before they became famous and as such relevant for Wikipedia,

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I don't see an issue with something like [NEW NAME] (Born [OLD NAME] ) or something.

[dead0man]

if a translady, who has been a woman her entire life and writes a series of moderately popular books on radiator repair in her mid 30s, no her "deadname" is irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned.

If the same lady becomes super famous in, then yes, her "deadname" is ok to be listed in the same way Robert Zimmerman or Peter Gene Hernandez is.

[HisGrace]

Here's the article for Kareem Abdul Jabbar, just for one example, which is how name changes should be handled-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar

His birth name is noted in parenthesis on the very first line and during the biographical sections he is referred to as "Alcindor" up until the name change. His present name is used in the later sections of the article that talk about him in the abstract.

There's a whole range of material on wikipedia that I'm sure would offend many people for various reasons, that shouldn't be a reason to keep information out of an encyclopedia. Insisting that one thing is someone's "real" name that should be used at all times is not NPOV, whatever name was in common usage during a period of someone's life should be used. For an extreme Kanye West legally changed his name to Ye but the article is still called "Kanye West" because no one calls him that.

Not to mention their policy goes to absurd lengths, you're not allowed to include quotes or even link to a source that refers to a transperson by a "deadname". They're being governed by emotions and not actual standards these days. Like, everyone knows I hate Trump but the articles to anything relating to him (at least during the time he was president) were awful and not in the least encyclopedic. It read like someone ranting about him with straight up opinions being stated in a neutral voice.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Not to mention their policy goes to absurd lengths, you're not allowed to include quotes or even link to a source that refers to a transperson by a "deadname". They're being governed by emotions and not actual standards these days. Like, everyone knows I hate Trump but the articles to anything relating to him (at least during the time he was president) were awful and not in the least encyclopedic. It read like someone ranting about him with straight up opinions being stated in a neutral voice.

It's not emotions so much as activists who care about this particular issue and nothing else, and go to extreme lengths to flex their power.

[Havana44]

No reason to be disrespectful to people who changed their name .

[TML]

I believe this policy is probably related to another policy called “Biographies of Living Persons” - where material about living people (especially if said material is negative about the subject) must be reliably sourced in order to be included in articles. As its founder once said,

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

[Samof94]

I don't see an issue with something like [NEW NAME] (Born [OLD NAME] ) or something.

That is what Elliot Page's looks like.

[Senator Incitatus]

I believe this policy is probably related to another policy called “Biographies of Living Persons” - where material about living people (especially if said material is negative about the subject) must be reliably sourced in order to be included in articles. As its founder once said,

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

I’m not sure that analogy works here since tabloid journalism is heavily influenced by its subjects (and their publicists) whereas an encyclopedia is supposed to exclude their biased perspective.

The policy of reporting a birth name, only using that name if the subject was widely known under it (and then, only as little as possible consistent with the style guide, e.g., not overusing an old first name), and relaying the circumstances of a name change is fine.