Let me chime in with some background information that might help explain.
Article title disputes are some of the longest and most difficult disputes to resolve on
Wikipedia because many people, places, and things are well known by different names. So it
is almost impossible to make everyone feel good about the final decision. Plus there is
constantly a large incoming group of people who reopen the dispute.
Deciding on a name that is most widely associated with the person, place, and thing is a
reasonably good way to resolve the dispute and explain it to the next group of people who
question the title. So it is customary to use most widely known name when deciding on a
title of an article.
That said, Biographies of Living People need to be handled with extra care. I'm in
favor of taking into consideration the views of the person if it does not violate other
core policies. For example the name must be verifiable in reliable sources. This is a
general issue beyond transgender naming rules.
Part of the problem is the high profile nature of the person behind this article and the
dramatic way the announcement took place.
If I saw a request by a living person to rename an article that was verifiable I would
change it and most of the time no one would care. Documenting the reason on the talk page
would be adequate.
This particular article dispute is troubling to me because it seems to highlight the
systemic bias in Wikipedia. The talk page discussions had many I unenlightened comments
that were offensive.
I'm most worried that we are going enshrine in a revised policy a rigid naming
convention that will cause distress to lesser known people who are trying to make their
way in the world as they transition to their prefer gender identity.
I, too, support giving a living person a voice in deciding. and I see no harm in using the
gender pronouns and name that they prefer.
Hope that helps explain why using re-directs is not the first way editors think to resolve
this and other similar disputes.
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Valerie Aurora <valerie(a)adainitiative.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell
<jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually you would be surprised at the nature of
some of the renaming
debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention,
but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a
funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley
Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability
issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie,
people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black.
Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what
people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article."
As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for
"Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black"
with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley
Temple."
Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't
sufficient for the "what people search for" argument?
(FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including
pronouns" side of the question.)
-VAL
--
You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture!
Donate today at
http://adainitiative.org/donate/
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap