Talk:Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics

Jenner discussions

We have discussions about the policy going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification and about the other usages of Jenner's identity at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. There is a lot of discussion to read at both locations. Trackinfo (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027152830/http://www.athletics.com.au/history/international/int38.htm to http://www.athletics.com.au/history/international/int38.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent revert

@Fyunck(click): - the site-wide consensus for mentions of pre-transition names in WP articles is specified at MOS:GENDERID, specifically in the provisions concerning deadnames. The section reads, In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc...)... If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; I have adjusted this article according to the MOS. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

But not if a person was notable before they transitioned. See Elliot Page talk and FAQ. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You are not reading the section correctly. The MOS now allows no deadnames in articles, at all if the person was not (like Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page) notable under their former name. For people who were, the current name is always used as the primary name and the deadname can be provided once in brackets or a footnote, which is what I did. Please stop reverting against WP:3RRBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And it can't be sourced any other way per the Olympic databases. This isn't some arbitrary list... this is the Olympic list. Please stop edit warring. If you want an RfC for change here then start one and we'll see where it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): It seems you're not applying the consensus correctly. The source verifies the person, but the MOS consensus dictates the name we use for the person. Their article is Caitlyn Jenner and that is how we refer to them in other articles. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That has never been the case for people that are well known with the prior identity. It can't even be sourced under Caitlyn and in fact Caitlyn would not have been allowed to compete in the event as Caitlyn. This may be an unusual case that needs an rfc here because of sourcing and event rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You say that has never been done, but it is how articles are written now. We already had a community-wide RfC on this precise issue, and people objected on the grounds of but mah sources used the deadname, but that argument did not carry the day. The close determined that The name chosen by a transgender or non-binary person which matches their declared gender identity as currently known, should be used as the primary name (e.g. in the main text, table, list, infobox) in preference to the credited or legal name throughout WP. There was then a long and strenuous discussion on how to implement this RfC (and another RfC that ran at the same time, concerning deadnames in quotations), which produced the current text of MOS:DEADNAME. The community has deliberated on this recently and at length, so per WP:CONLEVEL, no consensus reached on an article Talk page to the contrary would make any difference. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): It is explicitly the case, according to the section of MOS:GENDERID quoted above by @Newimpartial. This is an work/activity by a living trans person before transition, and as such we should use their current name. Why do you think this is not the case?

Sourcing is only applicable to verify and identify the person we need to name in the article. It has done that by identifying Bruce Jenner, who now goes by Caitlyn Jenner, and per Wikipedia policy, we use their current name (even in events that took place before transition). ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And this particular case had a massive discussion where Bruce Jenner was upheld by administration. You're going to need another one for this change. Caitlyn Jenner could not have won the Olympic event and would actually have to give back the medal if it applied retroactively. Things don't seem to make sense anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Drmies to see if they'd be willing to weigh in. We're just wondering what to use for the name of Caitlyn Jenner in this article. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

meta discussion

"Things don't seem to make sense anymore" That's a profoundly irrelevant comment. Let's keep debate on the topic to consensus and P&G please. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Actually I don't think it is when it comes to sports requirements and rules. To me Bruce Jenner won the mens decathlon in 1976. Whether it's Encyclopedia Britannica or the olympics themselves. There are some things you can't retroactively change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Your personal preconceptions are not, in any way, relevant. All that matters is who won, and what name we should use for the person who won, according to established consensus and Wikipedia P&G. Stick to what matters and not what you think personally. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC) We have a disagreement on what does and doesnt make sense. What matters is always sourcing and opinion here on a talk page. I give my opinion based on facts and common sense. As long as it doesn't overturn Wikipedia Policy, everything is on the table. And I see no policy issues here at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC) That describes literally every dispute that has every happened in the history of humanity. Your personal opinions are not on the table, only your opinions about how Wikipedia should treat this issue. If your justification is based on personal opinions rather than Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensuses, it is not relevant nor valid. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL says that site-wide consensus, reached with wide participation, takes precedence over local consensus where they conflict. MOS:DEADNAME, and the current treatment of notable deadnames, have a very high degree of site-wide consensus. That's policy, yo. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sports are not exempt from the MOS, @Fyunck(click):. And you are quoting a 2015 RfC result with about 50 participants as though it carried policy weight against a 2021 RfC result concerning the same issue with more than 100 participants. Per both WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, the earlier and smaller result must be set aside. Sorry; not sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTBURO seems mighty relevant, and the MOS is a set of guidelines, not a law statute. If the professional athlete in question was notable at this time under whatever name they had before transitioning (as appears likely, if they were competing at the olympics), then that is the name that should be used. Especially if that is what reliable sources use in this context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • In addition, applying contemporary norms to something that happened nearly half a century ago smells a lot more like WP:RECENTISM than comfortable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • These arguments were all weighed in the massive RfC last year. WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR simply don't trump WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL. Not even if you think they should, just this one time. Newimpartial (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @RandomCanadian: It sounds like your issue is with the guideline outlined at MOS:GENDERID, considering you didn't rebut the main point: following that guideline would have us use Jenner's current name. And I'm certain WP:RECENTISM was taken into account during the consensus that lead to MOS:GENDERID, it's just not a persuasive enough reason to use their dead name. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
      • So you're saying that a strict interpretation of some guideline allows us to ignore what is written in reliable sources? Nonsense. WP:V is fundamental, some obscure MOS guideline, which you're interpreting here as this it were a quasi-judicial ruling (hence why I was referring to NOTBURO) is not. Applying modern norms to events back half a century ago is also quite obvious WP:RECENTISM, whether it was taken into account in some long-off RfC or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Read the codforsaken RfC, RC. Well over a hundred editors discussed this, including the issues of "muh sources use the deednahm" and "but that's ray-tro ahk-tive - it's not heestorical akrit". That isn't what the community believes, and six months isn't really that long ago. Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Why would I read a long, "hundred editors" RfC if you're going to keep citing it as though it were the rule of law (when clearly, everything on WP indicates that no guideline, no matter how well attended an RfC was at its source, can be treated as such) no matter what I do? If this is the reaction I'm getting , including edit warring by people who should know bother, ironic spellings, and people telling me the MOS is superior to WP:5P5, I'm off to fry bigger fish. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
            • Take it up with WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL. That's a policy, and that's where your problem is truly located. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
            • @RandomCanadian: I value your input and hope you'll continue this discussion with me. I think it will be productive it we just stay cool. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
        • We're not ignoring what is written in reliable sources. On the contrary, the reliable source is vital for telling us that it was Bruce Jenner (who we obviously know is now Caitlyn Jenner) who won the men's decathlon in 76. From there, however, Wikipedia policy dictates that we always use the current name of a trans person, even in works/activity that they were notable for under their former name. The source doesn't have any applicability to the MOS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
          • What "policy" would that be at Wikipedia? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
            • WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

            Sorry, @Fyunck(click), I meant guideline. MOS:GENDERID is the guideline which was specifically written for this type of scenario, due to disputes brought up about sources using the dead name. But Newimpartial is right that both WP:Consensus and WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL also apply. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

            • • Huge difference between a guideline and a policy at wikipedia. Huge. In particular instances MOS guidelines get overridden often. I see it many times at tennis articles. And the prior consensus was huge... for all I know bigger than the recent challenge. They are guidelines because there are instances when you have to step back and look at specific things that a general thing like MOS doesn't take into account. Things like what the person in question thinks. Would it alter the rules of a sport or activity. When you take those other items into account this is an easy call. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

                Come on, I know the difference–it was an honest mistake. I'm trying to have a productive discussion with you about this but you're not really staying on topic, nor conceding any of my valid points (as I am for you). So perhaps we should agree to disagree once more. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

                • Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Too often in these cases the word "policy" gets thrown around with no merit. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. Specific cases require specific answers. I understand your pov, I just can't in all good conscience agree with it. Wikipedia is not supposed to make the rules... we are not supposed to be the source. We use other sources to make our articles. Whether it's sports governing bodies, the athletes themselves, etc... Ad in that rules would have to be broken for Caitlyn to compete, and this seems like a slam dunk easy answer to me. So I find this whole conversation a bit strange. Certainly perplexing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

                  • @Fyunck(click): No worries. I didn't mean to lend more merit to my argument by calling a guideline a policy, it was accidental. I'll go back and strike it.
                    

                    You make very valid points about using sources to make our articles. I'd agree with you any other time, as long as the disputed edit wasn't simply a MOS edit (that didn't change the meaning/definition of the word) supported by a MOS guideline.
                    

                    I agree with you that Wikipedia is not supposed to make the rules. However, the fact of the matter is that we do sometimes make the rules (after we establish a consensus). And I–partially because I know I am not the most experienced editor on the project–think it's best to follow the rules that we do set, as long as we set them for a reason (if there's no reason, obviously WP:IAR). In this case though, I see a set guideline at WP:GENDERID that applicably answers our question, and I don't see any good reasons not to follow it (especially not the source argument, which GENDERID specifically negatives).
                    

                    It is definitely a puzzling conversation. I'm glad to be gaining your insights though, they do make good sense. Maybe you can point out the flaw in my reasoning. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

                    • I can't, because I can see where you're coming from. I just always come at it from an angle different than the wikipedia guideline, and it's what I do for tennis articles also. MOS has been shown many times not to work perfectly so project guidelines are made that better fit a set of specific circumstances. My bottom line is always "what is best for our readers?" What best describes something with the info readers need that is supported by many sources, yet is also understandable. How do other encyclopedias handle things? How do books handle the information? How does history look at things? But mostly, what is best for our readers? If our readers go everywhere else, even the Olympics, and see who won an event, and wikipedia tells them differently, then something is wrong and I have to say something. If it goes against the status quo, that doesn't bother me, as I'm not very politically correct in that manner. I thought this situation was resolved years ago, but obviously it has changed in MOS. I think an RfC is called for here with Jenner and I may start it when I get the gumption. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you somehow miss my comment here? The 2015 RfC here had about 50 participants; the 2021 MOS:DEADNAME RfC had well over 100. By both WP:CONLEVEL and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, the local RfC doesn't matter any more. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• In your overzealousness to throw the policy book at others, you might have missed one very crucial fact that invalidates pretty much all of it: the subject does not take offense at their old name being used.

but also point-blank refuses to retire references to “Bruce” or castigate others who use it. This so-called “dead-naming” is a source of particular angst to many in the trans community, for whom use of their old names is associated with efforts to shame them. But, says Jenner, “I had a life for 65 years. OK?” Besides which, “I liked Bruce. He was a good person. He did a lot in his life. Oh, ‘he didn’t even exist’. Yes he did exist! He worked his butt off. He won the [Olympic] Games. He raised amazing kids. He did a lot of very, very good things and it’s not like I just want to throw that away.”

• So the BLP concerns are unfounded, and a close reading of the MOS guideline you're citing so literally will show this is one of the allowable exceptions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:DEADNAME isn't driven by offense, though. Not the way it works. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: This is what WP:GENDERID says:

  This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

  unless they prefer their former name be used for past events.

  It does not say as long as they don't take offense to their old name being used. And Jenner has never (to my knowledge) said they prefer to be called Bruce for past events. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  • They're literally referring to themself in the context of this past event using their former name. What more do you want? A signed affidavit? As for picking guidelines word by word as though they were a text of law, that again brings back NOTBURO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Your reading of this interview is mighty peculiar. Lots of people refer to themselves with terms it would be a BLP vio for anyone else to use. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That's not any sort of definitive statement on what they prefer to be called for past events. All Jenner implied is that they don't mind how someone refers to them for past events. Don't twist Jenner's words to fit your viewpoint. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree that that is not an explicit preference for using the prior name for past events, just an indication that she does not take offense. She should be referred to as Caitlyn here, with a footnote on first reference, per MOS:DEADNAME. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• User:FormalDude, thanks for the ping. This was complicated then (and, as a closer, I like to think my close reflected the community consensus at the time, not really my opinion, which may have evolved), and it's complicated now. Still, I'm actually not quite sure what the problem is here. The article on Caitlyn Jenner is at Caitlyn Jenner, and I don't see why that shouldn't be the name here, in this article; a simple footnote can clarify that for whoever needs clarification. The whole name change thing ("we can't find it in the archives") is not a very good argument, and it compares to the use of married names for women who took their husbands' names. But I am not well-versed on what's in the MOS now--I think we need to treat these issues with some care and sensitivity, and not hold on too tightly to gender ideas that are now outdated. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I definitely think you did a stellar job closing the RfC without inserting opinion. It looks like we're leaning towards "Caitlyn Jenner" with "(as Bruce Jenner)" in parenthesis. Thanks for sharing your insight! ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I thank the gods of Olympus that the 2015 backlash is now firmly in the community's rear-view mirror. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• While sympathetic for a transitioned individual's beliefs about their former identity, we also have to contend with the reality that there were no mentions of an athlete named "Caitlyn Jenner" at the 1976 Olympics, in 1976. Having the person's current preferred name with a footnote listing the name that actually competed back then is perfectly acceptable. iMDB does this with film cast listings, e.g. Juno, where Elliot page is listed with the parenthetical "(as Ellen Page)". They acknowledge the new identity for a cast member in a 13 year-old film, while not hiding a simple fact. No reason why we cannot do the same in the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• MOS:GENDERID explicitly permits the use of parentheticals, not just footnotes. Given that the official sources in this case use the former name, and that these are men's events, I see no need to hide away the name in the footnote rather than a parenthetical. The comment above me notes that IMDB does that for Elliott Page. Having a woman's name in the men's events with only a footnote explaining creates a "confusing construction" we are told to avoid by GENDERID. What RandomCanadian said above about Caitlyn Jenner herself referring to "Bruce" as having won at the Olympics may be of interest to a potential RfC. Has Jenner ever attributed that to Caitlyn? A BLP's own consideration of how to describe their gender identity in the past logically applies just as much as how they do so in the present. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If you want a parenthetical, then introduce a parenthetical. I have no problem with that - I even mentioned the possibility above. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that the best option here is "Caitlyn Jenner (as Bruce Jenner)"). The name in use at the time is absolutely clear, as is the name many readers will know the individual by now.--Trystan (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That's fine. (I have a slight preference for footnotes in tables, but either is ok here per GENDERID.) -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree with Jonel–use either a parenthetical or footnote per WP:GENDERID. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I would continue to use Bruce Jenner (which links to Caitlyn Jenner) as that is the term that can be sourced for the time period in question and is correct per the rules of the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
      • It is fine for you to want what you want, but Wikipedia's site-wide consensus is incompatible with what you propose. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
        • And it's fine for you to stretch the limits of truth, but I'm not buying it for specific cases such as this. I care about our readers not your words. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
          • I have never stretched the limits of truth - please don't be unCIVIL. WP:CONLEVEL and MOS:GENDERID aren't "my words", yo. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Side note

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.

---

• On a side note, I think restrictions to Newimpartial should be applied as per WP:ARBGS. This is the third time I see their name attempting to (incorrectly) enforce a guideline through edit-wars (first at Utada Hikaru, later at Quinn, and now, here). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Where did I incorrectly enforce a guideline? My interpretations of policy have been upheld by much wiser editors at all three pages. You really want to re-open the ANI that found no problems with my interpretation of 3RRBLP? Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • According to what this is a "Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" issue? Further, 3RRBLP explicitly says: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Instead, I see a very passionate user whose user page indicate is involved in gender-related topics that edit-wars on gender-related controversies against what the Arbitration Committee has determined, including, but not limited to "follow editorial and behavioural best practice" and to "refrain from gaming the system". Instead of discussing the issue, you arrive to the pages, modify things without discussion, get reverted ad nauseum and only after that you start discussing. The three pages I mentioned had similar events that took place this month alone. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
      • These comments are unrelated to potential improvements to this article, and this talk page is not an appropriate venue for them. I know what I'm saying also applies to my comment; I am posting here to discourage others from engaging in a conduct dispute here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Deadnaming against policy has been established by the community as a BLP violation. If you don't like that, convince the community to change its view but don't blame me for editing according to policy and guidelines. I have, in fact, discussed the issue - I created this Talk page section, cited the relevant site-wide consensus and the relevant policies, and answered queries or misapprehensions of other editors at some length. Of the three pages you mentioned, I brought one of them to BLPN myself and discussed another of them there as well, in addition to the article Talk page. Your statement that I get reverted ad nauseum and only after that ... start discussing is completely untrue, if you look at the timestamps. But in any case WP:3RRBLP really is a thing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
        • "Deadnaming against policy has been established by the community as a BLP violation"... for people whose birth name was never relevant when they became famous, not for every trans person (i.e Laverne Cox). There is nothing contentious, unsourced nor poorly sourced about Jenner competing under her former name during the 1976 Olympics [1] (i.e. it is not a BLP violation). People tend to use BLP as a get-out-of-the-jail card when it merely invokes two principles: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" and "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". In simple terms, when writing about living people, anywhere, controversial statements must include an inline reliable source. If you go to the top of MOS:DEADNAME it says: "[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It is not a policy, which will say: "It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Even the ARBCOM has sanctions against those that attempt to enforce guidelines as policies through edit-warring ("The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.") This persistent behavior and this kind of edits (i.e. notifying me about something I already know) are indications that this is, as Firefangledfeathers said above, a conduct issue rather than a gender-related issue, and as Firefangledfeathers said, this is not the page to discuss them. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
          • For the record, Tbhotch, I searched the history for a gender and sexuality notification on your Talk page, and came up with none. So I don't understand your complaint about that diff; perhaps the search function wasn't working correctly.
          • And are you aware of the policy WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL? It specifically says that site-wide consensus - like MOS:DEADNAME, which emerged from BLP concerns and which governs both notable and non-notable deadnames - takes precedence over local consensus. That is a policy, and you can't argue that an occasional exception should be made for the 1976 Olympics when this is a 100% typical example of the type of case under discussion when the guideline was last revised, six months ago, in a widely-publicized RfC with very many participants.
          • The restrictions on the use of the former names of trans people, which have received community-wide support, are not at all limited to the exclusion of non-notable deadnames from article space and specified treatment in the lead sentence of a main BLP article. The community has found that BLP considerations around deadnames apply much more broadly - so if you disagree, please take it up with the community not with me. The vast majority of WP articles discussing trans and nonbinary people are already in accord with MOS:DEADNAME; all I have done here is to correct one of the outliers. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
            • In simple terms, this is what is happening: You are trying to enforce MOS:DEADNAME, a guideline, through the WP:CONSENSUS discussion that took place on WP:BLP grounds. When you get reverted, you continue reverting until the point that you have to invoke WP:3RRBLP, against 3RRBLP's own advice to not edit-war. You are selectively playing with the system: You support MOS:DEADNAME's advice, but you reject MOS itself: "Edit-warring over style is never acceptable"; you support WP:3RRBLP, but you are against 3RR itself: "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war." In fact, you don't think you are edit-warring, that's why you reach the point your summaries transform to "WP:3RRBLP: Explanation why I am still edit-warring but don't want my account blocked for it". You even leave me a DS notification of something ironically you are not following ("Seek consensus, avoid edit wars"). You further come with WP:BATTLEGROUNDESQUE comments like "if you disagree, please take it up with the community not with me" or "If you don't like that, convince the community to change its view but don't blame me" as if you already knew about how much I have supported and enforced MOS:TRANS since it was implemented. [2][3][4] The problem here is not what you are doing, the problem is how you are doing it, you think everyone that disagrees is the enemy and at no point you have said: "I'm sorry I did wrong at edit-warring". Instead, you are taking that recent ANI discussion ("You really want to re-open the ANI that found no problems with my interpretation of 3RRBLP") and transform it into an "I am free to edit-war on BLP topics". This is the problem here, and once again, this is not the page to discuss it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
              • @Tbhotch: Those comments are not in any way "WP:BATTLEGROUND esque". Not sure why you'd say that. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
                • • I read those comments with the full context of the previous edit-wars and discussions. "I am edit-warring because it's what it is correct, don't blame me, blame the others for deciding it." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
                • While I have no power to make you discuss anything anywhere, I want to clarify that I am not Edit-warring over style. Deadnaming is a BLP issue (primarily), not a style issue, and the current state of the guidelines can perhaps be most easily explained with reference to the Use–mention distinction - notable deadnames can be mentioned in articles, generally only once, but are never to be used. Using a trans person's former name in an article, as this one did before my edit, is a BLP violation, as the community has repeatedly agreed at this point. Now the article only mentions the former name. And the problem with seek consensus; avoid edit wars in this instance, as with the misgendering categories on Utada Hikaru, is that these are BLP violations, which the community takes seriously. They are matters of site-wide, not local consensus. Like it or not, 3RRBLP exists for precisely such instances as these.
                • As far as your support for MOS:GENDERID is concerned, I don't know anything about that one way or another. But in your first comment above, you said I was incorrectly enforcing a guideline. You never have explained what you thought was "incorrect" about my reading of MOS:DEADNAME or WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL, so pardon me if I assumed that we actually disagree. Your comment about DEADNAME as if it were a matter of style rather than BLP substance may have led me to incorrect conclusions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
                  • In anyway excuse you for edit-warring, especially here, where there is not BLP violation. If there were one, you would have already removed "Bruce" from that line. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

                    Take it to WP:AN/I if you have a problem, @Tbhotch. You're just beating a horse carcass here. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

                    Maybe because the horse carcass is the one that keeps replying on circles? If I wanted this to be discussed with admins, it wouldn't be at ANI, but at the ARBCOM as the problem is persistent[5] and against their arbitrary decision on gender-related topics. I'm merely giving Newimpartial the benefit of doubt but I perfectly know I will see their name again in a similar dispute. When will the community say enough is a different topic. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

                    In other words: you're just pearl clutching and don't actually think there's a valid reason to go to ARBCOM. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, Tbhotch: if you don't understand that the community understands misgendering and deadnaming (in the sense of use, not mention) as BLP violations - I'm not saying you should agree, but you need to understand - then you shouldn't be editing or WALLOFTEXTing in areas where MOS:GENDERID applies, regardless of whether or not you see yourself as "supporting" the guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• So, somehow, this is a BLP issue despite being listed in the MOS, and somehow although it is (supposedly) a BLP issue the subject's own opinion on the matter (quoted above) is entirely irrelevant? You can't have it both ways. You seem to be stuck up on the letter of the rules (which are guidelines, not absolutes). So let's explain the spirit. BLP is supposed to prevent issues with defamation and libel of living subjects (such as claims about serious crimes or the like), as well as serving as additional defense against POV editing (by requiring that contentious material be sourced, and by preventing the ever-so-frequent "allegations of x/y/x" which are so often present in newspapers). It isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for edit-warring (exceptions to 3RR are supposed to be for stuff that isn't really controversial. The fact this has created a wall of text on the talk page is proof that it isn't uncontroversial), or for the obvious condescension (telling other editors that, basically, they're not competent enough to edit in this area). And with that, I'm done here, since there's no point applying a force on unmoveable objects. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Making (or implying) false assertions about the gender of a living person - whether by means of names, pronouns, or other forms of misgendering, is the most basic kind of BLP issue there is, and one of the most serious. According to broad community input, it takes more than mealey-mouthed statements by a BLP to override that basic principle, and other editors have communicated that point earlier in this discussion. Since the community-wide RfCs on the subject over the last year or two, these principles really aren't controversial on a community basis, and the closer of the 2015 RfC that applied to this page (Drmies) has basically dismissed the former local consensus as no longer relevant, in a post yesterday.
  • No, BLP isn't a "get out of jail free" card, and WP:CRYBLP is a real thing, but that isn't what I have been doing. Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is a guideline level page, not a policy level page. WP:BLP is policy level page so we must adhere to it. We cannot repeatedly revert something from MOS unless it falls under WP:BLPREMOVE or other policy WP:3RRNO. Crying BLP for MOS changes about BLPs seems to be inappropriate. do not ping me Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL, which is a policy, is actually quite clear about this. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance ... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. That is certainly what certain editors have tried to do here: reject the application of a generally accepted guideline (MOS:DEADNAME) within its scope. And editors who have read these guidelines should understand that deadnaming living people is a (pretty much paradigmatic) BLP issue; there isn't any justification for editing, much less edit earrings against this fundamental BLP concern. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2021 (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.