This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
So I just opened the lawsuit she filed against Kaiser to read as it was linked in a bunch of sources such as this one, and apparently, Cole is only an alias as her legal last name (and middle initial) is mentioned in the document. Should we include this per MOS:LEGALNAME? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
No, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, we can't use public documents as sources Tristario (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Since WP:BLPPRIMARY states Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source and since this is a lawsuit she's the defendant in I thought this counted as WP:ABOUTSELF which has been covered in WP:RS I thought it might be due, good thing I ran it by here first lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This is why WP:DEADNAME really needs to be more inclusive. Outing people's non-notable names should have a clear "do not", rather than forcing editors to untangle multiple policies to figure out when legal/birth names can be used and what level of sourcing is needed. But yeah, if all we have is a court document, that's not enough. Also, if no one else is talking about it, it's not Wikipedia's place to break the news. Slywriter (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Honestly DEADNAME should apply to any person (not just living and recently deceased) who changed their name, for any reason, and where their prior name(s) are non-notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree with that for the record, I was more so wondering out loud if we should and it's due (because of Wikipedia' labyrinthine naming policies) rather than saying outright we should. I now see it's up to independent sources to ascertain whether Cole is a public alias or a name she goes by personally as well (I was thinking the situation was akin to Posie Parker v Kellie Jay Keen, who sources at first referred to as Posie, then started saying Posie real name KJK, then started saying just KJK more often, though we are clearly in the 1.25th step of that 3 part process lol). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
It's funny, I was just thinking KJK was a good counter example to this. I see itas a four step process. Step 1 is that the subject, and people close to the subject know that the subject's name in the media is different than their name in their personal life. Step 2 is that through some sort of action on the part of the subject, that isn't doxxing or self-doxxing, it becomes known that the name in the media is a pseudonym. Step 3 is that reliable sources start disseminating the subject's actual name alongside their pseudonym. And step 4 is that the subject's actual name supplants the pseudonym.
We're now at step 2, through the court filing it's known that Cole's name is a pseudonym. If we get to step 3, then we can look to including that name in the article. And if we get to step 4, then we can move/rename the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The 4 step process certainly captures it better than the 3 step one! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY very clearly applies to this, as does WP:BLPNAME. Court filings are not an expression subject to WP:ABOUTSELF, which is limited to social media comments, personal blogs, and at a stretch uncontroversial appearances in self-published sources by others (eg podcast or YouTube interviews). For now this cannot be included.
However if this name starts to be widely published by reliable sources because of this filing, then we can discuss and look into either including it or moving this article should the primary name used by sources swap over. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
