Talk:Gene Robinson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Explanation of removal of sent

I removed this from Gene Robinson#Allegations of impropriety:

[quotation removed by Tb; see below]

The assertion is plausible, but unverified; worse yet, verification of it is an implausible prospect, since it would involve proving a negative about an enormous and poorly defined group of people.
And even if it were to be verified, it would appear to be excluded under SYN.
--Jerzy•t 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Moreover, because WP:BLP applies to talk pages also, I've removed the sentence from the talk here. It is still available of course in the edit history. Tb (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's important that i start by noting Tb's scrupulous approach to documenting removal of material from a signed contrib, and by also saying that all my concerns abt the removal are on behalf of the process issues and the possibility of an appearance of coverup, rather than on behalf of the value of the removed material for use in the accompanying article.
  That said, the relevant policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space includes, under "Talk pages", this sentence:

New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources.

which implies to me that the applicability of BLP to talk pages is not a matter of identical application to all namespaces, but contemplates what common sense would demand, which is to maintain proportionality between means and ends, and thus to tolerate questionable material far longer on the talk page than we would on the article:

_ _ It is far less hazardous here (on the talk page) where the surrounding material challenges its validity than (in the article) where it is permitted to continue to rub elbows with the surrounding material we are presenting is presented as established fact.
_ _ It is far more useful here where it presents editors with focused occasion to evaluate it, than where its major effect is to cast aspersions on the credibility of elements of the article that are verified or offer most readers a sense of the ring of truth and relevance, while sitting there itself, unverified and requiring acceptance of some sort of conspiracy theory for its relevance to be possible.

I am prepared only to say "[on the article] far longer", bcz i have turned lazy after determining that the removed sentence spent six months or more in the article, in contrast to this precision: the same material survived on this talk page for 18 minutes.
As to the appearance of a coverup, the hiding of the sentence conceals something that some readers (and some editors) don't know how to uncover for themselves, and that others won't bother to exhume for themselves from the edit history. And a problem with that is that it also conceals the fact that the sentence does not actually criticize Robinson, nor does it actually criticize anyone of failing to criticize him, nor does it actually criticize anyone of failing to criticize anyone who might have failed to criticize those who might have failed to criticize him. It just

1. says that someone did fail to follow one proposed avenue for evidence supporting criticism those who might have failed to criticize him,
2. offers no description of why that statement should be taken seriously,
3. offers no defense against the obvious claim that no one making that statement could have a reasonable basis for believing it to be true, and
4. does all this in a context that where even if proven proof would make it of interest only as a clue to a tacit conspiracy among those three parties to avoid the various criticisms (and thus a SYN violation).

By continuing to suppress the statement from the talk page', WP offers itself as a logical candidate as a fourth-level party in the hierarchy of such a conspiracy (and thus a SYN violation).
Do i need to say that the rapid suppression on this talk page is about the worst response i can imagine? Unless, i mean, someone would like to add a graphic of their Illuminatist Conspiracy membership card to the talk page.
--Jerzy•t 08:51 & 09:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Coming out

Under the Gene Robinson#Coming out subsection, I'm having a hard time understanding why the following content is in this subsection:

Robinson became Canon to the Ordinary in 1988, the executive assistant to the then bishop of New Hampshire, Douglas Theuner. Robinson remained in this job for the next seventeen years until he was elected bishop. Robinson and his daughters are very close. Ella actively helped her father with public relations at the General Convention in 2003. Just a week before the General Convention, Robinson had been with his daughter Jamee and held his four-hour-old first granddaughter. He now has two granddaughters.

In February 2006, Robinson was treated at an inpatient rehabilitation facility to deal with his "increasing dependence on alcohol". Diocesan officials were surprised by the news and asserted that they did not notice his alcoholism affect his ministry in any way. The Episcopal Church, through its General Convention, has long recognized alcoholism as a treatable human disease, not a failure of character or will. The members of the Standing Committee issued a statement fully supporting Robinson. He returned to work in March 2006.

What does any of that content, especially the alcohol abuse content, have to do with his "coming out"?? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the rehab comes long after coming out, after consecration, and after the he began living under 24 hour protection because of death threats - which have not been included (has anybody tried to source that yet?). Mish (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Death threats, bulletproof vests and protection: [1][2][3] Mish (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit, it was tied to the chronology more than anything else. -- Banjeboi 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

V. Gene Robinson's birth name

Would it be against Wikipedia standards to state that his birth name was Victoria Imogene Robinson? If properly sourced. --Frissell (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frissell (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you can find such a source, since his name was and is Vicki Gene Robinson. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Normal Wikipedia style is to give the bio subject's full name in bold at the start of the atticle, even if it's not the common name. That includes cases where the bio subject uses his or her middle name. For example, the article about the 28th President is at Woodrow Wilson but it begins, "Thomas Woodrow Wilson...." Is there a reason not to do the same thing here? JamesMLane t c 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

None I can see. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would advise caution in this regard since the article is about a living person. I would say no to changing the lead if the real purpose or intent were just to tease or ridicule him or to direct unnecessary attention to a name he rarely uses. clariosophic (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is already in the article. It's just buried. My purpose in changing it would be to provide the information in the standard format we use for all bios, whether the subject is living or dead. The BLP policy doesn't apply here. (If you want an example of a living person, see the Lil' Kim article, which begins with her full legal name.) In any event, a proposed edit stands or falls on its own merit, regardless of the motivation of the editor. JamesMLane t c 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to put it in the lede but you can certainly add it to the infobox. This just isn't that notable of an item. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability doesn't enter into it. It's simply a matter of what's set forth in the MoS: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names) It's not notable that Woodrow Wilson, like Gene Robinson, is always referred to by his middle name, with the first name being known only to a few people. Nevertheless, his article begins with "Thomas Woodrow Wilson" in boldface. In fact, every Wikipedia bio article I know of begins with the subject's full name in boldface, unless we don't (yet) know the full name. JamesMLane t c 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out the only reason there seems to be to emphasize it in the lede would be to disparage the subject so I would lean on WP:IAR concerning that MOS point much as we do on articles for people who transition gender and birthnames don't match their gender identity. This is a bit of a judgement call and the consensus seems to be leaning toward leaving it off the lede for now. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your reference to people who transition gender. Some people change their names during their lives, for that reason or for any number of other reasons. The MoS (in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names) addresses that situation:

In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

• (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …

This rule is fully applicable to transgendered people. See, for example, Patrick Califia, which begins: "Patrick Califia (formerly known as Pat Califia)...."

I assure you that there's no intent on my part to disparage the subject. I raised the point because I saw that the initial was used at the beginning of the article, which made me think that we didn't know the full name, and I then discovered that we did have the information but had buried it. It's certainly not correct to say that the only reason is emphasis (for whatever purpose); I made clear that my reason is MoS compliance. There's quite an array of people whose bios follow the standard format -- Woodrow Wilson, Lil' Kim, Bill Clinton, and Patrick Califia. There's no reason to make an exception for Gene Robinson just because some nutjob homophobes hate him.

As for the alleged consensus, two editors (The Wednesday Island and myself) favor following the MoS, one (you, Banjeboi) is opposed, and one (clariosophic) is opposed if the purpose is ridicule. If, having considered the MoS, you and clariosophic remain opposed, then we should probably prepare an RfC to get additional opinions. JamesMLane t c 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps point out that Robinson is someone I respect and admire; I still believe we should follow the MoS. The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My source would be the exact Concord Monitor article footnoted to establish his birth name. See: http://www.deimel.org/church_resources/monitor_profile.htm "Charles and Imogene Robinson had counted on a girl, so Robinson's father named the baby Vicky Imogene Robinson".Frissell (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts the information is true. The question is does adding into the lede help our readers understand the subject better or does it cause more problems. Perhaps a footnote on the current name that delves into this so next time someone wonders the information is readily available would work? And the correlation to transgender BLPs is that if we have evidence someone wants this information minimised we do so. We don't have to have it in the lede, the infobox and prominently discussed. Sometimes we downplay the information to focus less on their gender transition and more on all the other aspects about them that are notable. -- Banjeboi 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We begin a bio with the bio subject's name. That's how we begin all our bios. I don't see how following an invariant policy focuses attention on a fact (one that is, as you note, undisputed).

Considerations of how to handle a name change don't shed much light on the case of a person like Robinson whose name has not changed. I'll note, however, that there's no problem with giving undisputed information about different names that the person has used. The MoS example is Bill Clinton. Nobody seems to have argued that the beginning of his article gives undue weight to the death of his biological father and his subsequent use of his stepfather's surname. It just reports the facts about his name, with the explanation coming later in the article.

If you're concerned about giving it too much attention, I think that relegating the subject's full name to a footnote -- a procedure that I don't recall ever seeing in any comparable case -- would make it stand out more, not less. As for a person's desire that particular information be minimized, I don't accord that any weight, but even if we apply it in this instance, we would honor it by giving the person's preferred nickname in quotation marks. Just as the Jerrold Nadler article begins "Jerrold Lewis "Jerry" Nadler....", this one would begin "Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson...." (I'd go with "Vicky", not "Vicki", on the basis of the source found by Frissell.) JamesMLane t c 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am opposed to this after doing a quick Google search turning up 10 ghits all derivatives of this page suggesting that we are not following how anyone presents this information but our own convention. That is no one is using this unique way and we seemingly are going out of our way to disparage a BLP subject which is a really bad idea. We do not lead, we follow. Until we get some FA writers to guide the most logical way to present this I think what we have is fine. Do you have any reliable sources the subject prefers their name spelled out that way? To suggest Right Reverend Vicki "Gene" Robinson will in any way help our readers understand the subject better seems disingenuous at best. -- Banjeboi 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I confess the truth of your charge against me: My proposal is indeed that we follow our own convention, even though other sites follow their own conventions instead. Yup, I'm busted good on that one.

I object, however, to your repeated but unsupported assertion that the purpose of following our convention is to disparage. This article on Robinson was created on August 5, 2003. As of that date, the MoS page on biographies was already several months old, and already called for beginning the article with the subject's name, even if that name wasn't the one most commonly used (see the "Slim Pickens" example here). Was that MoS page deliberately set up that way so as to facilitate the subsequent disparagement of Gene Robinson? and the policy is applied to U.S. presidents and rap stars and scores of thousands of other people just to provide cover for our mockery of Gene Robinssn? It's like saying that it's disparaging for us to refer to him as "Robinson" when many other sources say "Rev. Robinson" or "Mr. Robinson".

You ask, "Do you have any reliable sources the subject prefers their name spelled out that way?" No. I haven't even looked. I'll look when the MoS says "Present the name of a living person in the form preferred by the bio subject." When you get the MoS changed to say that, we'll go fix the Mitt Romney article, too, because he sure as heck doesn't like to be called "Willard". (By the way, I'm not urging such a change. BLP-mania has already gone way too far on Wikipedia, and I regret to say that there might be some support for changing the policy so as to eliminate or bury the "Willard" and "Vicki" information.) Unless and until that change is approved, though, we should apply the MoS as it currently stands. JamesMLane t c 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll follow up to recruit some FA writers who know this area well to see if they can provide relevant insight on which way might be best. -- Banjeboi 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the above, how about this? Is it clear from sources that the Bp does not use either baptismal name and has effectively replaced them with 'V Gene'? So he is Bp V Gene Robinson, that is his title and name, regardless of his baptismal name. To refer to somebody using a name they do not themselves choose (or like) or use is disrespectful. However, as you say, there was a baptismal name that differs and this is suggested in the source given below. I am not personally convinced that it was not Victoria, but you are going by the available evidence which stands unless shown to be Victoria from different sources - that would need to come next, as per other biographies, as (born Vicky Imogene Robinson, etc...), not what is inline in the text further on (Vicki Gene Robinson) which cannot be supported from the cited source. I'm not sure this makes him an object of ridicule, although I understand that some would use it that way. Mish (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't use "Victoria" unless someone finds a reliable source that gives that as his name. Where I disagree with you is that you're taking the fact that he's commonly known by a variant of his baptismal name and you're trying to analogize that to a formal name change. That's not accurate. He's not like Bill Clinton, whose name did change (as a result of his mother's remarriage) and whose bio begins with both names. He's not like Slim Pickens, who adopted a stage name and whose bio also begins with both names. He's more like Barney Frank, in that he's universally known by a nickname derived from his "official" name. In Robinson's case, the nickname is from his middle name, but even when someone is known by his middle name, we begin the article with the full name -- see Woodrow Wilson and Mitt Romney. And, speaking of Woodrow Wilson, let's not forget Woodrow Wilson Guthrie. How many people could tell you his official name? Virtually none. He effectively replaced it, to use your phrase. Nevertheless, his article begins "Woodrow Wilson "Woody" Guthrie...." That article, Barney Frank, and Jerrold Nadler are examples of how we begin bios of people known by a nickname. They're the model for what we should do here. JamesMLane t c 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but think you are in error, he is consecrated "The Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson" [4], and that is his formal episcopal title, so that is his name, not a nickname - I very much doubt the presidents you referred to were inaugurated 'Bill' or 'Woody', but using their real names. The same is true for other Bishops - I'm not aware of any consecrated using nicknames, although may be referred to by nickname by people known to them. Whether one agrees with his consecration or not, it still stands and this is the title by which he should be referred. It is common practice in the church for people to undergo re-naming on taking up formal offices or taking religious vows - I doubt very much you will find other religious figures not listed using the name associated with their formal title, for example Pope_Benedict_XVI. To make this case an exception because 'V Gene' is similar to 'Vicky Imogene' is perjorative. Somebody mentioned trangender. Well, intersex is a closer parallel, and when children are found have been 'wrongly' assigned a sex and name at birth they may have their sex and names changed while they are still very young, and from that point the new sex and name stands, they stop using the 'wrong' name, rather the one that makes sense for the gender that was reassigned, for example, Cheryl_Chase_(activist) (on the point about transgender adults, they are also referred to by their current name, not their birth-name Del_LaGrace_Volcano, and the details listed when available in the public domain. If somebody has changed their name (which in this case happened either early on in his life when it was understood he was a boy, or formally during consecration - we do not seem to know) then this is the usage that should stand. You may see this as a nickname, but that is a POV, because it has clearly been formalised at some point as his real name. Mish (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept your assumption that the way he's listed on a church website establishes the equivalent of a formal name change. You misunderstand about Wilson -- "Woody" was never a nickname of his -- but if you want to look at presidential inaugurations, then the use of a nickname is not unheard of. The 1977 inauguration went: " I, Jimmy Carter do solemnly swear... " [5] I think he signed bills into law that way, too. That doesn't mean it was formalized as a name change. Our article about him properly begins: "James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr....." I can also tell you, from personal knowledge, that Congressman Theodore S. Weiss always used "Ted" -- that's how he was listed in Congressional directories, and when, as a lawyer, I prepared an affidavit for him to sign in connection with a lawsuit, he wanted it to state his name as "Ted Weiss". That doesn't mean we should say "Ted Weiss (born Theodore S. Weiss)". It's correct in its current form: "Theodore S. "Ted" Weiss". Your inference from the church website is, IMO, too thin a reed on which to rest an implicit assertion of a name change.

Still, if your assumption were accurate, then the current state of this article would still be wrong. The correct way to begin it would be: "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on May 29, 1947)...." That would satisfy my criterion of including the available information in the first line, in compliance with the MoS, rather than burying it four paragraphs later. There's no such burial in any of the examples you cite. (Incidentally, in Cheryl Chase (activist) her birth name should be in the parenthetical with her birth date, the way Clinton's is, but I'm quite sick of this issue and I don't intend to try to fix it there.)

My preferred approach here would be: Begin the article with "Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson"; in the later text, retain the current explanation of why he was given a typically female name; and add, probably at that point, that he now uses "V. Gene Robinson" as his formal name for church purposes. I'd guess that he was always known as "Gene" even as boy, and if we find a reliable source that supports that, we could add it in, too. Alternatively, if most editors think that this should be treated as the equivalent of a formal name change, then I could live with "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on May 29, 1947)...." JamesMLane t c 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it and could read, "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on May 29, 1947)...." and would be personally be OK with that, because at some point, between Baptism and consecration, the name has changed. I have written to the diocese to see whether they can confirm the Episcopal website's wording (which would be a valid source) correctly reflects the consecration described, if somebody has access to the year book for the Church it will list the correct name there, but not being in the USA I do not. I realised after I wrote the above that whether a president does use his nickname or not is actually irrelevant - inauguration does not make it his real name, but being consecrated does have this effect (the Pope, comes by his name at the point he is elected and installed as Pope), at the moment the evidence suggests that his real name is the one currently used, unless evidence to the contrary can be provided, the only evidence should stand.

However, for example, Cardinal Basil Hume has a different baptismal name, "George Haliburton Hume", but this is not reflected in the lede which simply lists him as "(George) Basil Hume"; only the body of text refers to the baptismal name. So it does appear in similar contexts the baptismal names are not used in the lede if they are not particularly relevant.

Others will have to say what they think. Mish (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A private email from the diocese to you would fail WP:V, so we couldn't use it as a valid source in the article. Tell them to post the information on their website so we can quote it! Of course, you can report it here as part of our discussion.

I don't think Robinson can be analogized to the Pope. A papal name is a different sort of thing. According to our article, a Cardinal comes out and tells the crowd that the new Pope "has conferred upon himself the name ____". Unless there's a source establishing that a consecration is similar, with the newly consecrated bishop authorized to confer a name upon himself, it seems more analogous to Jimmy Carter's inauguration than to the installation of a new Pope.

As for the Basil Hume article, it's not correct in its current form. There's no mention in the applicable MoS provision of whether a baptismal name is "particularly relevant". The name is simply included, as a matter of course. That's the point of having a Manual of Style -- to create a certain minimum level of uniformity in all the articles of a particular type. JamesMLane t c 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

By valid source I meant their website, I was asking them to confirm what the website said was his name. I've now dug up the order of service [[6]]:

THE CELEBRATION OF HOLY EUCHARIST AND THE ORDINATION AND CONSECRATION OF V. GENE ROBINSON AS BISHOP COADJUTOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of he Holy Spirit, I, Gene Robinson, chosen Bishop of the Church in New Hampshire, solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things, necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.

Neither "Vicky" nor "Imogene" are used, only "Gene" and "V. Gene". I don't have time to look at what you do with other bishops in the USA, and I don't have time to take this further. I'm beginning to think you might be a bit more slack in these things over that side of the pond.

I also turned up this from the BBC [7]:

Charles and Imogene Robinson had been preparing for a girl and - reckoning it did not matter much - gave their gravely ill baby the names they had picked out for a daughter - Vicky Imogene. The birth certificate was never changed.

Most sites (including the media) use "V. Gene Robinson" in the context of his formal title, or simply "Gene Robinson"; the only sites that use "Vicky" (I can find) are sites that don't like his being consecrated. So, it could be argued that calling him Vicky is a term associated with a POV about him and what he 'should' be called, rather than what his name is now.

I will let you inform the editors of Basil Hume's biography that they need to attend to this at some point, and I realise it is not as pressing as this one. I take your point about the Pope, but Basil changed his name in some way between when he was born and became a cardinal. Whether the style is right or wrong, they should be treated the same way I agree.

I'd be happy with the suggested solution (although going by the BBC report he appears to have been registered as a girl at birth, but no clear indication of gender/sex then, or formal change of sex/gender or name in childhood). Also, the registration name would be the one that would be relevant at birth, not the baptismal name, he was raised nonconformist so was not baptised until he was 13 - I got them mixed up. Mish (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Per MOS we have In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. which isn't terribly helpful but the do suggest that reliable sourcng should lead the way and I think they have. It seems all sources avoid using it, the BLP subject avoids it and no one else really uses it either. I'm still digging through to see if it has any set policy but still posit that it's really not needed or helpful in the lede and may be causing harm to do so. They also have for all MOS guidelines - though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. As we are arguably the main source for information on this living person I feel we should adhere to minimizing it and only mentioning it as an aside in the birth section, they never bothered to change it. -- Banjeboi 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The foregoing comment by Banjeboi establishes that we do not have and probably will not reach consensus. We can begin preparing the Request for Comment now, or we can wait a bit if Mish thinks that a communication from the diocese in the near future might shed some light on the matter. Mish, what do you think? JamesMLane t c 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in no rush, but I'm not holding my breath either. I asked the diocese for clarification on a different aspect of this situation back in Nov 2006, and never received a reply then (respect for privacy may have meant they felt unable to answer). I think that both approaches hold merit (either a bracketed reference following the lede, or leave as is in the body text). Given that most of the 'hate sites' already have some variation of the registered name already, it won't be news to his detractors. I don't see it as a stigma to be given a girl's name at birth, even for a man, in the way those of sites seem to. On Wikipedia, however, it lacks a certain sensitivity to the circumstances of his birth not to deal with this sensitively - and locates this entry in a certain position that reflects the usage of hate sites than the mainstream media. This would be a precedent if it were accepted. I cannnot see that just because somebody did not have their male name formally ratified along with their male gender after birth, that it makes sense to insist that they be referred to by a name given mistakenly on what proved to be a false assumption. Being male seems to overrule the birth certificate, as clearly it was invalid. He proved not to be a girl, so why insist now he be identified with a girl's name?

Wikipedia itself seems fairly inconsistent in how this policy is applied: John Wayne has 'John Wayne' in the lede, and not 'Marion Robert Morrison', which only appears in the body text; Dean Martin, on the other hand has the birth-name in brackets after 'Dean Martin'. They are dead, so not as pressing or problematic as a BLP - but as I understand it BLPs need to be handled sensitively, so I am unclear why the leniency (or laxity) that is accommodated elsewhere is being resisted here.

What I would appeal to is respect for the subject, that policies are guidelines not rules, so variations can be made; however, if such respect is lacking, then by all means RfC. The better way would be to come to consensus, and to that end I would agree with Benji if it resolved the matter. You could agree too, the sky would not fall on our heads, and there need be no more discussion. Mish (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave the man's name as he wishes to be known in the lead paragraph. The MoS is, as mentioned, a guideline, and not a rule. The unfortunate choice of name for his son (that he thought would never live to answer to it), shouldn't be made an opportunity for disparaging that son. "Jimmy" Carter's full name wasn't the source of humour for his opponents, nor for that matter where those of any of the others brought forward in the argument for following the MoS. I don't think the lead paragraph is the proper place to make mention of the 'full name'. Leave it down in the 'early childhood' section. Just my thoughts. Bo (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mish, thanks for the information about what we can expect from the diocese. I agree with you that there's no stigma attached to Robinson's name. My purpose isn't to disparage Gene Robinson; my purpose is to set up the article so that it best serves our readers, who can reasonably expect to find such information in the introductory section. To depart from the MoS by burying the information, in the name of sensitivity to a living person, would be buying into the "stigma" point of view. The BLP policy says that negative or contentious information must be properly sourced, but I don't see this information as falling in that category. Even if the information were negative, it's properly sourced. No one contends that "V. Gene Robinson" was his birth name.

I don't agree that Wikipedia is "fairly inconsistent" on this point. I'd say that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, that it's largely followed, but that in a project that maintains millions of articles and relies on volunteers, some mistakes are made. (As another example, the MoS is absolutely clear that section headings are to be in sentence case. Nevertheless, many aren't. To find an example for you, I just did a "Random article" cruise, and hit 1993 Little League World Series on approximately the tenth try. That mistakes are made doesn't mean the MoS is just a helpful suggestion.) As for John Wayne, that article followed the correct format for much of its existence -- see this version. It was changed in this edit by an editor with less than one week's experience, whose ES asked, "is this relevant to the opening?" -- evincing the new editor's ignorance of the MoS. That no one editing John Wayne has bothered to correct the error is unfortunate, but that omission on their part doesn't constitute an amendment of the MoS.

You're right that the sky wouldn't fall on our heads if this article were left in the incorrect format. We will also survive if the article is corrected. The discussion has sought consensus, but neither side has been persuaded, nor has either side decided to view the matter as minor and acquiesce. Therefore, the appropriate next step is to go to RfC, to get wider input. JamesMLane t c 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point, the triviality is in seeking to apply a policy when it makes no sense to apply it, simply in order to ensure conformity to the letter rather than to serve the purpose of the policy. What is not trivial is using the policy in a way that it operates detrimentally to the subject, and puts Wikipedia in a position where it treats an individual in the same way as a hate group. I see no stigma, you say you don't either, and who knows how the subject see this. Sites that would be inadmissible in a biography here give this information prominence by using it as his name, rather than simply referring to it, do so they see it as derogatory. Does it make sense to follow their usage, rather than the name the subject now uses? Mish (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"[P]urpose is to set up the article so that it best serves our readers" - exactly. Our readers expect the lede to effectively summarize the rest of the article. This does that. Adding Vicky or any surprising information that seems quite trivial doesn't help. It creates more questions which then have to be answered - in this case we'd need to explain as a newborn he was very sick so the doctor asked the young couple for a name for both the birth and death certificates, blah blah blah - too trivial and too much for the lede. Luckily it is discussed immediately in the early life section. So if anyone was somehow alarmed that we didn't immediately to them what that "V." was for they get the answer in the very next paragraph. -- Banjeboi 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Setting up the RfC

First, I've reverted the collapsing of the thread. Collapsing would generally be a bad idea when it would make it less convenient for RfC respondents to see the whole discussion. If it were to be collapsed, there would be no justification for hiding all my comments about the MoS -- including direct quotations -- while leaving visible Banjeboi's personal interpretation. Anyone concerned about the length can save even more space by collapsing the whole thing, though I personally would prefer that it remain visible.

The better course is to present succinct summaries in the RfC, leaving the entire previous thread visible for those who want more detail. I've seen way too many RfC's that just throw a question at the participants and expect them to wade through a lot of talk-page arguing even to figure out exactly what the issue is, let alone understand the arguments. It's worthwhile to devote some attention to preparing it before posting it.

As I see it there are two issues: (1) Should Robinson's birth name be included at the top of the article, or omitted there and addressed later? (2) If it's included, should it be presented as his name, with "Gene" in quotation marks as a nickname (as in Jimmy Carter), or should it be presented as a birth name that was subsequently changed (as in Bill Clinton)? The advantage of setting it up as two separate questions is that people who favor the current setup, of not mentioning the birth name until later, would also be able to opine on how to mention it if their view doesn't prevail.

The obvious alternative would be to give the three options and let people choose Version 1 (V. Gene Robinson), Version 2 (Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson) or Version 3 (V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on [etc.]). The problem with doing it that way is that people favoring the current version would be excluded from the discussion of how to change it if it's changed.

I've prepared a framework for the RfC at User:JamesMLane/Robinson sandbox. Everyone else is welcome to edit it and/or comment on it, especially to present the summaries of arguments. I'll be working on the argument for including the name. At some point we'll copy it onto this page as a new thread, and then post the RfC. JamesMLane t c 10:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is belabouring a rather pointy arguement so allow me to help you since you insist on pushing this. Feel free to add your statement before mine if you wish. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so instead of working with me to prepare a neutral RfC, you just bashed ahead and did it your way. You created a nonneutral statement, one that includes a fact you consider important (it's a BLP) and omits what I consider important (the MoS). You posted the RfC with only your statement of position, not waiting for mine. Evidently, you and I have divergent ideas of what constitutes collaborative editing. By the way, the formatting is messed up so that this entry doesn't display properly as a wikilink at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, and I recommend that you fix that while deleting the BLP reference. Nevertheless, as an involved editor, I won't engage in edit warring by modifying your improper RfC. JamesMLane t c 05:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene appropriate for the lede of this BLP?

Per updated information from the subject of this BLP we've added a footnote in the lede sentence to explain the name but the rest will remain as it has been. Duely weighted content detailling of the name is to remain in the birth section. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene approprite for the lede of this BLP? - 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Statements from involved editors No one but us seems to be interested in doing this, the subject doesn't, his employer doesn't and the reason for the surprising name is discussed in the very next section after the lede - his young parents thought that baby would die so gave him a feminine name because theu wanted a girl. Our readers are hardly served by presenting this information and this easily falls under the do no harm clause of BLP. A quick Google search 1100+ hits for "Vicki Gene Robinson" verifies that those who prefer to use "Vicki" could be easily seen as social conservatives who don't agree with "the homosexual agenda" or Obama having Robinson as part of the 2008 U.S. presidential innuguaration; note they prefer to pejorative describe him as "openly homosexual" rather than "openly gay". Meanwhile "V Gene Robinson" gets 210,000 Ghits. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Follow the Manual of Style which has provision for people who go by their middle names, people who go by nicknames, people who change their names, etc. Gene Robinson isn't the first such person. Our Manual of Style (MoS) states: While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. [emphasis added] Accordingly, the Mitt Romney article begins with his complete legal name, which he never uses. The 39th President took the oath of office using a nickname, "Jimmy", but the Jimmy Carter article begins with his full legal name (while including "Jimmy" in quotation marks). The 42nd President did change his name as a teenager, and so the Bill Clinton article begins by giving both versions (and again with the commonly used name, "Bill", in quotation marks). Please note that this is not an issue of the article title. There is universal agreement that the article title, following the examples of the three politicians mentioned above as well as thousands of other Wikipedia bios, should be at the most commonly known name -- here, "Gene Robinson". The issue is whether the argument should begin with his full name, with "Gene" interpolated in quotation marks, following the model of James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr., as per the MoS. The argument for trashing the MoS in this instance seems to be that, if we provide accurate and undisputed information about Robinson's name, some bad people will be happy. Well, so what? We're here to provide the information. What our readers do with it is their business. We don't suppress information just because some bigoted readers might draw irrational conclusions. Once we start down that road, the NPOV policy is in shreds, and we're reduced to writing polemics in favor of whatever opinion is shared by enough of the editors who work on a particular article. What's next -- the removal of the "Allegations of impropriety" section because that information, too, might please some of those same bad people who dislike Robinson? By comparison, accurately stating the man's legal birth name is in no way harmful. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Compromise position: The name used changed from female to male after birth, so reflect the way he is referred to as adult and in formal title (e.g., at his consecration), followed with his birth name in brackets (born as...). Be sure it is Vicky, not Vicki or Victoria, (some people still appear to be using unsupported versions); if there is still some doubt about which it is, then it should not be in the lede at all. Mish (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Comments Oppose use of "Vicki" in lede at all. What we have is well presented; our readers can make it all the way to the next paragraph after the lede if the wish to learn of this trivial information. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Spell out his full name at the beginning. I think we should follow our conventions on this. Just because people who want to disparage him make it a point to spell it out, that does not mean it is itself disparaging. It is factual, not disparaging. (Actually, I think it more insulting to imply there is something shameful about it.) LadyofShalott 03:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC) We write conservatively on BLPs, however because they do impact people's lives. The only people who do not follow this subject's naming wishes are religious conservatives, as I pointed out above who refer to him at the same time as openly homosexual and now us. We don't use MOS, a guideline, to surprise (a man witha woman's name) and embarass. We do the opposite and we certainly don't lead reliable sources, we follow. No reliable sources use "Vicki". -- Banjeboi 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) The Guardian article referenced below does. Just because people who don't like him use his name in a childish manner ("teehee that boy's name is Vicky hahaha") does not mean that for us to present it in a mature manner (Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson) is harmful to him. I do not believe it is. LadyofShalott 16:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) That's now one source out of hundreds so to follow reliable sources we logically would leave it off the lead as 99% do their entire articles. Harm is in the eye of teh beholder, calling someone queer can be seen as a compliment but using our common sense it's a bit obvious who is using the legal name and how here. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Banjiboi, your statement that "it's a bit obvious who is using the legal name and how here" comes close to violating WP:AGF. During the pre-RfC discussion, you constantly asserted, without support, that those of us seeking to follow the MoS were actually trying to disparage Gene Robinson. In response to your charge, The Wednesday Island wrote: "I should perhaps point out that Robinson is someone I respect and admire; I still believe we should follow the MoS." I also disclaimed any hostility to Robinson, and pointed out that the MoS guideline was formulated before the Robinson article was even created. In the responses to the RfC, other editors have also rejected the idea of disparaging Robinson and have engaged in sincere discussion of the applicability of the MoS. I would appreciate it, as a personal favor, if you would stop lumping all of us in with rightwing nutjob homophobes. JamesMLane t c 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Given that several of us who have responded here are active members of the LGBT Wikiproject, there is ample proof that we are not all "rightwing nutjob cases" just because we think a certain way on this particular issue. LadyofShalott 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Personally I'm going by reliable sources on this and common sense on this; nearly universally Vicki is used by those who oppose homosexuality and not by reliable sources. To me this rather speaks clearly which way to go. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Reasonable people can and do disagree all the time. Please do not imply that those of us who don't see eye to eye with you on this, Benjiboi, lack common sense or are being disengenous. LadyofShalott 02:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Again I'm going by reliable sourcing and not speculating at all about the other editors here. By Ghits, which of course are not all reliable sources, those who use Vicky trend toward also disparaging Robinson and homosexuality. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose use of Vicki Imogene - reasons given above and in the draft. Bo (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) spell out full name please disregard my incorrect remark earlier Oppose use of Vicki in lede, as long as it's spelled out clearly in the early life section. Our convention is to use the nomenclature preferred by the person themselves, which is usually only a big deal in the case of transgendered or transexual people different issue, striking, but might seem applicable here. How are people on the internet seeking him via search-engines? What are people expecting to see when they land here and attempt to confirm that they've found the article about the correct person? How would Robinson want people to find him? Certainly seems reasonable (to me) to use "Gene" or "V. Gene" in the lede, and then give the proper elaboration in the subsequent appropriate place. We can use the standard redirection options for other variations, as we do for so many public figures whose "famous" names are different from their "legal" names. Oh, and the Manual Of Style is a manual, not commandments carved in stone. We use the style guides to help our readers find and sort and distinguish between various pieces of information presented. The spirit of the manual is to help our readers more easily locate, perceive, and absorb the information. Let's try to emphasize presentations which most efficiently assist our readers' eyes, and worry about the letter of the law only when it furthers that goal. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Will respond below. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Support including the full name at the beginning of the article, per the MoS, but including the common nickname "Gene". Contrary to Teledildonix314's comment above, our convention is to give the full name, even for public figures who are widely known by a different name. Redirects are used only for article titles. Woodrow Wilson Guthrie redirects to Woody Guthrie, which begins with the singer's full legal name, though it's not his "famous" name. Here, we already have Vicky Imogene Robinson properly redirecting to this article. JamesMLane t c 05:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Ooops, very sorry, i had a total brainfart and completely misunderstood some distinctions of Lede versus Title. Assuming we consider the basic premise of "how do our readers locate this article with their search engines?", we aren't "harming" anybody by following the Manual Of Style. After re-examining the APA guidelines, i can't see any harm done in this case. MoS biography guidelines seem quite allright in this situation, and naming conventions for clergy don't indicate anything particularly special in this instance. I'm applying strikethrough to my comment above (but i do stand by what i said about the Manual being a guide rather than a commandment, generally speaking). Sorry for my confusion. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately we do seem to be doing harm, there's nothing to suggest this is accepted and we are the leading published authority on reliable information for V Gene Robinson. What we publish is repeated around the world, we have a responsibility to get it right. If the subject has avoided this usage of their name and no one credible uses it but those who apparently disagree with homosexuality it is a sign that we should not follow this nuance in the MOS guideline and instead keep this trivial information in context with their birth information where it currently is spelled out and exlained sufficiently. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) The more i think about it, the more i see the "Barack Hussein Obama" analogy is perfect, and in fact i think we should go with that compromise of "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on May 29, 1947)", because we can do the same thing here which i've been doing in my own life by "reclaiming" the word "queer" and disempowering it as a pejorative. It's only pejorative if we know for a fact that Robinson himself believes it to be pejorative, but even then we still can look at Big Daddy and other examples of how to rise above childish taunts. Unless there has been an incredible hoax, i would say we have to assume that this is not offensive to Robinson. Believe me, if i thought there was an attempt to "taunt" the clergyman with a female name, i would totally look for a different compromise; but my own stepfather and my own grandfather both have "feminine" names (in English and Welsh) and they have totally refused to be "shamed" by the implied heterosexism and petty bigotry of using the feminine nomenclature sneeringly ("Francis" and "Gwenhyfar" most definitely did not object to their official names, although people usually just called them "Frank" and "Goody".) As long as we are absolutely certain that Vicky Imogene is his true name, i think we should do as we would for Jimbo Wales and Barack Obama. If smallminded bigots want to tee-hee like immature little twiddlebrained children because they think it's an ingeniously clever insult to call the man by his technically legal name instead of his properly respectful name, then we could actually do Robinson a favor and don't let the word have that power over him. The only three possible ways i could see opposing the full MOS usage in the lede would be if 1) Robinson himself told our Reliable Sources that he legally changed his name to remove the Vicky Imogene because he was hurt by it; or 2) if we don't have ironclad Reliable Sources to attest that this isn't all some kind of juvenile hoax, then i would be embarrassed to have failed in our basic standards of verification; or 3) if people tried to make a churlish point in multiple other places in the overall biography, calling him "Vicki" all over the place (just to be derogatory) then i would decry possible undue emphasis. In this man's biography i think we can do our readers a service and show them that it doesn't make any difference if you are a gay Vicki Gene who comes out of the closet— you can still become an Anglican bishop in our modern society; just as there is no shame in having a middle name of "Hussein", no matter how much the xenophobic bigots try to sneer about it like some kind of childishly whitebread jingoistic "boogeyman" terminology, you can still be elected President anyway. Don't let the heterosexism have power over us; the absolute honest truth is always the best defense! And i say all of this as an editor who is fervently devoted to the elimination of homophobia, sexism, heterosexism, xenophobia, and any other kind of bigotry, wherever i find it in people's petty— or important— language. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) P.S.— as a shameless nonconformist, i would be eager to ditch the Manual Of Style if i thought we could apply Emerson's quip of how "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". But this isn't foolish consistency, it's a consistency which can actually be a useful tool, a weapon in our arsenal against heterosexism. We prove to our readers that there is nothing terrible about having a name which is unusual for a person's gender identity, it won't stop that person from achieving amazing things; as long as we don't call him "Vicki" anywhere else other than the first lede sentence and the subsequent "Early Childhood" explanation, we might actually be advancing the cause of LGBT people everywhere by treating Robinson the same way we treat presidents and athletes. If we make an exception here, it would be like saying gay people can't take the heat, but African American politicians and British Wrestlers can! No way— …i say: we queers are as confident and unfazed as those non-gays are! and Robinson looks way better in a giant shiny hat than the rest of them! ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 12:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with everything stated here, which is why I continue to support the inclusion of his full name. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC) By Big Daddy I assume you mean Shirley Crabtree rather than Idi Amin or any of the other Big Daddies? I don't see it as derogatory, but a search online yields plenty of sites that do, substituting a range of versions to refer him by, even castigating his parents for giving him such a name, and pointing to this as being connected to his 'perversity' in some way. I don't think Big Daddy is a good analogy, as it was his wrestling name - however, John Wayne is not listed as Marion currently, but John Wayne. There are other exceptions in Wikipedia if you hunt around. It is not down to us to use this to make a point - it is to come a decision about the best way to deal with this. For me, the compromise (V. Gene, folloed by (born as...)) meets the requirements of accuracy, clarity, and respect for the subject given we have such limited information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Other stuff exists/doesn't exist is a really bad editing idea. That can inform our decisions but the Obama naming issue was international news and he himself discusses it regularly. That simply isn't the case here. Out of hundreds of reliable sources only one even uses this at that was from years ago. The only people who seem to use it now are doing so to disparage him, that's a really bad idea. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Spell out full name in lead per MOS, as is done for all the other people mentioned above. Barack Obama begins with his full name Barack Hussein Obama II even though (as with Gene Robinson) only his political opponents ever use his middle name. —Angr 05:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) MOS is a guideline and all evidence is that we're going against the wishes of the subject. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) You're right, it's a guideline. That means we follow it unless there is a very good reason not to. Here, there is no reason not to. His full name is nothing for him to be ashamed of, and for us to use it is not derogatory, demeaning, or disparaging, and it's rather insulting to him to insinuate it is. —Angr 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC) We have quite a few good reasons not to WP:Do no harm, WP:Astonish, WP:Undue, WP:Reliable sources. In short we should follow reliable sources only one of hundreds seems to use the legal name; it presents surprising and undue content all ina effort that is likely to bring harm to a BLP. Those are great reasons not to follow the letter of a guideline but the spirit of our policies. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Support including the full name per MoS. We aren't here to shelter individuals from their own name. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Same as above, we aren't sheltering, merely giving this trivial information due weight. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Support as Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson (born May 29, 1947... per our universally accepted naming conventions. I'm satisfied that the sources provide for this and that this isn't a WP:BLP infraction. I mean, it's the man's name and he doesn't contest it anywhere that I can find. And this is the style that is generally acceptable on BLP articles. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Comment for now.. is there a BLP issue here? Does he not use, not want to use, told anyone not to use or denied Vicki or Imogene? I'm leaning towards support because honestly, this is just how all people articles are done and I don't see why that should change just for one person.. unless of course there is a BLP issue I'm unaware of. Anyone? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 07:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC) There is, this information is only being used to disparage this BLP. It is trivial and already covered sufficiently in the early life section. The subject and no reliable sources support this use. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Unless Gene himself has expressed personal resentment of his birth name (specifying that he does not use it for reasons presented on this talk page), I see no reason to exclude it simply because bigots choose to use it in a derogatory manor, which in and of itself, has nothing to do with his biography here on wiki. The only exception I can think of is if he has had his name legally changed. Transgender individuals and married women who are not known by their surname have obvious reasons for not having their birth name included in the lead. If that is the case then I can see excluding it from the lead. Otherwise, I think claiming WP:HARM, WP:ASTONISH and WP:UNDUE is a stretch. I had the pleasure of seeing Gene at GLAAD this year, and he doesn't strike me as an individual who would be phased about his birth name being present in an encyclopedia. As indicated above I think "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on May 29, 1947) would be a welcome compromise. Given the sources present in the article I don't see any indication Gene himself is uncomfortable with his birth name being known and I believe that is the burden of proof for claiming harm. And to be clear I have all the respect in the world for this man. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Saying "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson..." implies that he has legally changed his middle name from Imogene to Gene. Is that the case? —Angr 13:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with Angr's point here. Unless there is evidence that he has legally changed the name (?) I think that phrasing is misleading, and we should say "Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson". LadyofShalott 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Perhaps once he's dead this would be another issue but for now this only serves to feminize one of the most visible gay bishops at the center of culture wars. MOS is not intended to be used this way at all. And nothing suggests Robinson approves of using this and everything suggests he doesn't. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Use full name. I see no reason to make an exception to normal WP practice. This is an encyclopaedia, not a Facebook entry. We record fact, not personal preference. If his full name is in the public domain and can be supported with references then there is no reason not to record it in the lead as with any other person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC) There is actually, WP:HARM and WP:Due weight helps spell out we should avoid bring ing harm especially on a BLP. The information is discussed, with due weight, in the first section after the lede but "Vicki" is surprising information that would then need to be explained in the lede as well bringing us back to WP:Undue. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Has it harmed him or have you decided to make that decision for him? Many men's names can seem female (e.g. Hilary Benn). How does it harm them? Robinson does indeed choose to shorten it, but many people do that with perfectly normal names. I can see no good backing for your argument. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I'm going by how it is nearly universally presented by him and the vast majority of reliable sources as well as the evidence of those sources who wish to refer to him in this way as mentioned below - seemingly to disparage him. -- Banjeboi 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Comment Provided the full name is well-attested in reliable sources I don't see any reason to go against normal encyclopaedic practice and use the subject's full name. The Barak Obama comparison is a good one, another that spring sto mind for me is Shirley Crabtree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 April 2009 Further, Vicky is not exclusively feminine anyway, viz Vicky Peretz and Victor Weisz (whose cartoons were published under the name "Vicky"). I'm sure there have been other famous Victors and Ludovics who have been known to friends as Vicky as well, but I can't quite bring them to mind at the moment. If he really had a problem with the name being known, I suspect he would asked The Guardian (not exactly known for right-wing anti gay views) not to mention it so prominently in this article. David Underdown (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Use full name as per MOS. The comment above about the name being used in The Guardian also serves to indicate that the subject is not himself necessarily opposed to the use of the name, and I can see no reason why we should not follow MOS in the interests of the subject when there is no clear evidence that the subject himself necessarily has the interests we seek to ascribe to him in the first place. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) In the interest of balance I should point out that this Guardian article includes "Naturally, his conservative opponents usually spell out his names, presumably to emphasise his supposed effeminacy". I don't think however, taht spelling out his name automatically constitutes an attack, it's the way and context (and intention) of its use that does that. In this article we merely present it as a matter of fact, and explain the reasons for what at first sight seems a little unusual. David Underdown (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with David Underdown's comment above. I'll add that the Guardian quotation about his opponents' use of his name is interesting and we might consider it for inclusion in the text (later on, of course, not in the lead section). It's informative about the nature of the opposition that's been generated against him. JamesMLane t c 16:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC) It's rather disingenuous that because The Guardian printed it that Robinson was ok with it. They may or may not have asked. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Neutral - the status quo of "V. Gene Robinson" and mentioning the name in the body is fine. We don't have to follow WP:MOS, which is merely a guideline, and this is a special situation; it isn't merely an embarassing name given by parents for whatever reason, it's a name deriving from before they knew the sex, and which is now used by political opponents as a personal attack on his sexuality, as if that special circumstance had any relevance to that. However, it is still his name, and to remove it because of the personal attacks might imply we agree that having this legal name has any relevance. Anyway, if it is placed in the lead, I'd support Mish's suggestion of "V. Gene" (born as Vicky Imogene) to show the name was not chosen by him. Rd232 talk 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, if that's in the lead that risks implying a sex change! So how about a footnote, as I've just done? Rd232 talk 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I agree that some discussion about the way his name has been used as part of the bullying by his opponents is important, and the footnote could cover all these aspects. As an aside, having a male/female name assigned at birth changed during childhood does not imply a sex change, but a reassignment in childhood (see Cheryl Chase). We do not need to delve into this, because it is private and Robinson survived and was a boy, with a form of name that reflects this. He has used this name since early childhood, so regardless of whether it was formally ratified, it is effectively reassignment of name. One of the points of BLP guidelines is to protect living individuals from partisan abuse of their biographies - not to insist that rules be followed blindly without any respect for the subject's own usage (which would indicate his preference). Mish (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Comment. I intend to get a statement from Robinson himself on what he prefers. We have exactly one reliable source that has used this, in 2003 I believe, and apparently no other media do so with the obvious exception of conservative religious writers whose agenda is suspect at best. Sorry, our policies on doing no harm trump any guidelines. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Comment. The Guardian pieces I have read only give the details, not that he uses the name now. This is further complicated by different sources giving different variations of the names: 'If you didn't know one thing about Vicky Gene Robinson' [8] 'He was so ill at birth that he was not expected to survive and was rapidly Christened Vicki Gene' [9] 'gave their gravely ill baby the names they had picked out for a daughter - Vicky Imogene.' [10] It is hard to see how it is possible to definitively say which is correct (Vicky, Vicki, Gene, Imogene, "Gene", etc.), and until it can be ascertained, the reference should remain 'V. Gene', with a note. Otherwise, we will have to go through all this again, over whether to use Vicki Gene, Vicky Gene, Vicki Imogene, Vicky Imogene, Vicki 'Gene' Imogene, Vicky 'Gene' Imogene (assuming nobody finds a reference to 'Imogen', or 'Victoria', or even 'Eugene' in some verifiable source - as opposed to blogs etc. [11]) Mish (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) If the subject objects to the use of the name, it should be possible to e-mail him and tell him to contact WP:OTRS. If no such complaint from the subject himself is acquired within a reasonable length of time, then I think it is reasonable to assume he has no objections to the name. I am myself sending an e-mail to the diocesan office, and would expect that we would hear something within a week. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC) If a portion of a biographical article accurately presents truthful information, but it's information that the bio subject would prefer to conceal, what happens if the bio subject asks us to remove the information? The answer is that we assess the information according to our policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc.). If the bio subject wants to have some facts suppressed, that's too bad. Our BLP policy doesn't mean that a living person gets veto power over the content of the article. It means that negative or contentious information must be omitted unless supported by a reliable source. In the present case, the information isn't contentious (absolutely no one contends that "V. Gene Robinson" is his birth name), nor is it negative (as has been pointed out by LadyofShalott, Teledildonix314, Angr, and TheBookkeeper -- in fact, it's the treating it as if it were negative that would effectively disparage Robinson). Furthermore, if a reliable source were deemed necessary, they abound. What would we do if Mitt Romney asked OTRS to drop the "Willard" from his article because he doesn't like it? JamesMLane t c 23:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC) If Robinson objects to the 'prominent use we would likely present it similiar to how we have it now. Discussed encyclopedicly in relation to his birth information but not emphasized in the lede because it's really not needed there. Negative is in the eye of the beholder so perhaps we can see what the subject of the article thinks. -- Banjeboi 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Your first sentence begs the question. If some information were being given unusual prominence, it would be an editorial decision whether to continue to do so, regardless of whether the subject objected. For example, unlike most biographies, this one mentions the subject's religion prominently -- clearly a sensible choice in this instance. By contrast, no one is arguing for unusual prominence to his name. We're arguing for following the standard format that is used in thousands (probably scores of thousands) of other biographical articles. JamesMLane t c 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC) The people at OTRS are very well acquainted with the relevant policies and guidelines, probably more so than any of us. I'm sure that they will be able to deal with the response from the subject without any pointers from us. However, if there is no such response, then I would believe that there is no objection to the name from the subject, and there would be no reason to act as if there were the potential for one. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) That's also a bit disingenuous - unless they make a stink they approve. Silence equals consent may fly for wikipedians but not real world. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Random section break Spell out the full name It is his name, not a nickname or anything else. This is verifiable information and censoring it because people make fun of him for it isn't the thing to do. Per WP:NOTCENSORED information should stay in an article if it is relevant. What could be more relevant to a biography than the subject's name? Our job is to report accurately on our subjects and as his name is common knowledge we aren't doing anything contentious. How more objective can you get than providing one's verified name? BLP policy doesn't have much to say about an issue as broad and easily-verifiable as a subject's name as content like this that is so easily verified shouldn't be changed because they are offensive to the person. This is squarely in line with the MOS and NPOV. In fact, I would see not putting his name in as as a particular point of view since it is generally required information in the lede of an article. ThemFromSpace 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) You may have missed the gist of this. No one has suggested removing altogether at all. Just leaving it in the birth section where it is apt instead of adding it to the lede sentence like we would normally. BLP does speak to this and all other information presenting with due weight and causing no harm. In this case his legal name has been V Gene rather than his birth name Vicky Imogene. He was given the name because his young parents didn't expec their baby to live and they had wanted a girl. The issue came up in 2003 during one controversy and now has resurfaced again with only those who also disparage LGBT people apparently using it. The vast majority of reliable sources do not. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I understand the gist of this fully and I'm talking about the name being in the lede. Just because his parents thought he would be a girl doesn't mean we can sidestep the MOS and wipe the name out of the lede. Just because one side of people use his name to disparge him doesn't mean we have to hide his name from the public's eye, which is in effect what we're doing. If it was a trivial detail about his past I could see moving it out of the lede but something as relevant as his name definitly belongs. ThemFromSpace 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) We can and do make exception to the MOS guidelines for this very reason actually. nce we know explicitly the wishes of the subject I think we can make a more infrmed decisin. -- Banjeboi 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) unverifiable You have still not discussed how you decide which of the three different variations of his two forenames, all published in reputable and independent sources, you would be using. Once you decide which one, then that can be challenged by citing an alternate version from a different reputable source. The only way to opt for one is for us to decide on one - but it is not acceptable for a BLP to assign a name because people 'think' one is the 'right' name. When the name itself cannot be verified with certainty, it should not be used - all that is known for sure is 'V. Gene', as that is how he is referred to in his title; the others reflect uncertainty as to specifics. To insert one of the versions will open the page up to the possibility of an edit war - because every reference to 'Vicki' can legitimately be replaced by 'Vicky', and vice versa. We do not have authority to say which is correct. The best way to avoid this is to allow 'V. Gene' to stand, and insert a note about the circumstances and uncertainty of his birth names. I contacted the Diocese a few days ago about this - they have yet to respond to that, just as they did not respond back in 2005/6 when I made a related enquiry - so don't hold your breath. Lack of response indicates that they do not respond to such requests, not that they assent; the prudent approach would be to restrain from changing the name until a definitive reply has been received, or a source which can be cited that is attributable to him in his own words. Until a definitive answer is forthcoming, it should stand as is, because for all we know the name could be 'Victoria' (as some suggest), with 'Vicky' or 'Vicki' being an informal version of this picked up by the press (which would explain the confusion over spelling), and we would find ourselves simply substituting what may or may not be a nickname with something that may prove to be a nickname itself. The reality is, we do not have enough information to make this call - we cannot tell for sure from the sources what his registered name was, because they differ. Mish (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC) This isn't the first instance in the history of Wikipedia in which reliable sources have supported contrary conclusions. The normal practice is to present the available information, even if certainty is lacking. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton and how that article addresses his birth date. That he might have been born in 1755 or 1757 doesn't mean that we throw up our hands and say he was born sometime in the eighteenth century. Instead, we address the comparatively minor discrepancy. In Robinson's case, the difference between "Vicky" and "Vicki" is even more minor. Some of the sources are addressed in Talk:Gene Robinson/Archive 1#Vicki Gene Robinson. We can use the Hamilton article as a model. JamesMLane t c 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Sources that use his full name: A March 22 article incorrectly referred to the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire as V. Eugene Robinson. His full name is Vicky Imogene Robinson, and he goes by Gene Robinson or V. Gene Robinson. The Washington Post. "CORRECTIONS" Washington, D.C.: Mar 24, 2007. pg. A.2 ISSN 01908286 2003 Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson, a gay divorced father of two is elected and consecrated as ninth bishop of New Hampshire in the US 2003 Archbishop of Canterbury sets up Lambeth Commission to look into the crisis as Anglican Communion begins to implode 2004 Commission publishes Windsor report that calls for repentance from the US Church and for a covenant to restrict similar unilateral action by one province 2006 US Episcopalians gather in Columbus, Ohio, to debate the call to repentance, the possibility of future gay ordinations and same-sex blessings. The Times."Anglicans face rift over gay clergy" by Ruth Gledhill. London (UK): Jun 13, 2006. pg. 14 ISSN 01400460 The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) If 99.9 of reliable sources go with V. Gene or Gene Robinson and the most compelling evidence of other sources are the odd one here and there; so far one from 2003, one from 2004 and a technical correction from 2007. Isn't that a bit of a clue that we are leading rather than following? We're suppose to report the news not create it. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Reporting his birth name isn't creating news, its simply reporting it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with TheBookkeeper. There is not one single reliable source that asserts his birth name to be "V. Gene Robinson". There seems to be no dispute about the basic fact -- that he's most commonly known by a name other than his exact birth name. So we follow the pattern of other such people, such as Mitt Romney, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Woody Guthrie, Lil' Kim, etc. -- the article title is the common name and the article begins by reporting the full birth name. JamesMLane t c 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC) The application of this rule seems to be selective, lots of people are referred to in Wikipedia this way. Muhammed Ali Malcolm X Louis Farrakhan Pope Benedict XVI Basil Hume Dean Martin John Wayne Tommy Dorsey Lenny Bruce Madonna Johnny Cash etc., just as there are different approaches for others. Suggest waiting until we have heard from the diocese. Mish (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Most of your examples are people who changed their name (especially entertainers who adopted stage names). The correct format for such cases is the one I've repeatedly cited from the Bill Clinton article: William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946). Most of your examples comply. In a project of this size, that mistakes are occasionally made doesn't mean the MoS is just a helpful suggestion. (For example, Tommy Dorsey doesn't comply with the MoS about names, but it also doesn't comply with the MoS concerning section headings; "Number One Hits" is improperly in title case rather than sentence case.) We've already discussed John Wayne. That article followed the correct format for much of its existence -- see this version. It was changed in this edit by an editor with less than one week's experience, whose ES asked, "is this relevant to the opening?" -- evincing the new editor's ignorance of the MoS. If the diocese can give us a reference that meets the standards of WP:RS and WP:V and that says Robinson has changed his name, we can include that information (by treating him as we treat Bill Clinton). Unless and until we find such information, however, all we know is that he's most commonly known by a variant of his birth name, so we treat him as we treat Jimmy Carter. JamesMLane t c 12:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC) You are still missing the point here, this is trivial information that we already cover. Placing it in the lede sentence, which is fine under normal circumstances, in this case creates problems for our readers that we then have to resolve. Why does a man have a woman's name, why is Wikipedia emphasizing this when no one else does, etc. It's undue and likely being used by Robinson's critics to in some way discredit him. Let's see if we get a more clear statement from the subject. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) official clarification. I have now received this from the Bishop's Executive Assistant: "Bishop Robinson's legal name is Vicky Gene Robinson. As bishop he is formally addressed as The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Informally, he is simply Gene Robinson." This is the full text of the reply. Mish (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC) That's helpful for some of the naming part but not whether he finds "Vicky" appropriate for the lede. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) suggestion. In the light of the above, and given the unwillingness to take advantage of the two compromise solutions suggested - V. Gene... (born as Vicky...) - or V.Gene... with footnote. We follow one of the styles used for John Sentamu, Rowan Williams (full name in lede, and a box displaying the formal title) or Stephen Oliver (separate 'style' section giving his formal title) or Richard Chartres (formal reference detailed in the lede text as well as in box). In this case, the box needs updating to reflect the formal title and name 'Right Rev. V. Gene Robinson', the lede updated to read 'Vicky Gene Robinson' as per the correspondence from his office, pointing to a footnote detailing the confusion in the media over his name, and where the text discusses the circumstances of his birth, a pointer to the same footnote be included as well. I can make the lede changes, but am happy to leave it to whoever sees it as burning issue. I will correct the information box once I have finished typing this, as it is not part of the contested point. Mish (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) The private communication to you fails the verifiability test. Policies aside, I'm dubious about its accuracy, because no other source gives "Gene" (as opposed to "Imogene") as Robinson's middle name at birth. I strongly suspect that someone was focusing on the "Vicky" question and got a little careless about "Gene". I take it that the point of your examples is to show use of a common form of the name in the infobox; I agree with you that the wording of the infobox, as opposed to the lead section of the text, is not involved in this RfC. JamesMLane t c 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I note that the letter did not refer to the birth name, but to the legal name, which is a different matter entirely. I could go with using the legal name, as that is the one the subject himself seems to have petitioned the court for. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Um, "the court"? You seem to be assuming that there's been a formal name-change proceeding. We have no source saying that. If there had been, I doubt that Robinson would have petitioned for "Vicky Gene Robinson" as his name; he probably would've gone with "V. Gene Robinson". The issue of the existence or nonexistence of a formal change has been noted by other participants here. If Robinson is like Jimmy Carter and simply prefers to use a less formal variant of his birth name, then the correct format for the beginning of this article is "Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson". It's only if, like Bill Clinton, he changed his name that the correct format would be "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on May 29, 1947)". Mish was partial to the latter version, calling it a compromise. Some of us, however, have a problem with that version, because it implies a name change for which we have no evidence. JamesMLane t c 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Legal names are those used for ... legal purposes. Many people have more than one and the legal precedent is usually in light of fraud - is someone using another name to break the law in some way. Personally I'd like a more definitive answer but I'm convinced will get it since we already have a response. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Move to close this discussion. I am sick of you wasting my time. No, I do not see this as a compromise - the other two suggestions, one by myself, were the compromise. This was the Bishop's Executive Assistant's acknowledgment which of the variety of versions in the press - Vicky, Vicki, Imogene, Gene - constituted his name. The question was clear. The answer was clear - Vicky Gene. I am accepting that this is the best information available, and willing to go along with this. You however, will not accept anything does not conform to your version. There are newspaper reports that give Vicky Gene, as well as Imogene, and Vicki. These are not verifiable, because of the discrepancy between them. If you are seeking guidance which to use, then this confirms which is correct, otherwise you are speculating. I will not support that. Nor will I insist the discourteous way in which you are insisting upon your own way, demanding verification from the diocese, then dismissing it because it is not what you wanted to hear. I have replied to the assistant, pointing out that some Wikipedia editors do not accept his word on this matter, to see if he can help further - which is absurd. Because you do not know which is correct, and cannot verify which is correct, and will not accept a statement from the bishop's office which is correct, I move that the page stands as it is until some more accurate form of information be made available (although I fail to see what that might be this side of the grave). Mish (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC) You write, "Nor will I insist the discourteous way in which you are insisting upon your own way, demanding verification from the diocese, then dismissing it because it is not what you wanted to hear." That falsely implies that my reaction is based on the substance of the communication. In fact, however, as soon as you said you were contacting the diocese, and before I knew the result, I responded, "A private email from the diocese to you would fail WP:V, so we couldn't use it as a valid source in the article. Tell them to post the information on their website so we can quote it!" If you believe that the latest email somehow satisfies WP:V, feel free to explain. Of course, even if it were published, its statement of the "legal" name wouldn't specify what the birth name was, as John Carter pointed out above. As for my reference to a compromise, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't referring to the use of the form contained in the email, but rather to the form you addressed in this edit, in which you used the term "compromise". If I misunderstood your view, I apologize. JamesMLane t c 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC) We don't have to close discussion although it may be on hold until we have a clarifying discussion and ultimately a statement on file from the subject. FYI, the question isn't what is your legal name? the question is Vicky Gene may be the legal name but should we emphasize Vicky Gene or V. Gene in the lede. Whatever we put in the Wikipedia article will be propagated worldwide. So should "Vicky" or "V." be in the lede and should we mitigate the Vicky information only to the section about the naming issue at birth? -- Banjeboi 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Support use of full name in the lead, but i prefer the format: "V. Gene Robinson (born Vicky Imogene Robinson on May 29, 1947)". A different official name is important (for example if searching for info at various legal agencies, such as births, marriages, deaths), and should be in the lead. I don't see anything that over-rides the normal convention for this one. Assuming he finds his orginal name derogatory does more harm imo, than informing readers of the fact. Maybe it is growing up watching Vicky the Viking that makes me see nothing unusual about the name :-)YobMod 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I'm comfortable awaiting the subject's wishes on this. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I was also misled by the newspaper reports that his name is Imogene, just as others have been misled that his name is Vicki. But, having gained a response, I obviously did not make myself clear. I must have missed what you, James, meant when you said that a communication from the Bishop's office would not be a verifiable source at one point - and said at another point that we would need to see what the response was to clarify the situation. The question asked was specifically for the diocese to clarify which of the variety of ways his name has been rendered in the newspapers (i.e. reliable sources) was the actual name of the Bishop. This is the question asked: “ ...Looking at the order of service, his consecration features the name 'V. Gene Robinson', the vows 'Gene Robinson'. From trawling the web, he is referred to by reputable newspapers as 'V. Gene Robinson', with details about his birth suggesting he was registered 'Vicki Imogene', 'Vicky Imogene', or 'Vicky Gene', and his birth certificate never changed.... Do you know whether he has any objection to his birth-registration names being used? Can you confirm which version is accurate, and that 'Vicky/Vicki' is itself not an abbreviated form? ” The response to this is clear. “ Bishop Robinson's legal name is Vicky Gene Robinson. As bishop he is formally addressed as The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Informally, he is simply Gene Robinson. ” I responded citing your objection. I have now received another response. “ Trust me, his middle name is Gene. He was named Vicky Gene after his parents who are Victor and Imogene. If you don't believe me check out the biography, "Going To Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson" by Elizabeth Adams. Frankly, I'm insulted that the members you are working with do not believe me. I have no reason to be dishonest about his name. The newspaper have repeated printed much mis-information and continue to repeat it when a correction is brought to their attention. I already spoke to Bishop Robinson and will speak to him again. ” This does not need to count as a verifiable source, because what he is doing is clarifying which of the conflicting verifiable sources are correct and which are incorrect. The book should substantiate this further. So, I have made clear that I was wrong in suggesting it should be 'V. Gene Robinson', because it appears his name is 'Vicky Gene Robinson', and now accept that his legal name can feature in the lede because no objection has been made to this through his office - and that the formal title 'Right Rev. V. Gene Robinson' be used in the infobox as per other Anglican bishops. "Vicky Imogene 'Gene'" appears to be wrong, "Vicky Gene" correct and, apparently, verifiable. I ordered the book from Amazon on Monday, and it should be with me tomorrow. I am happy to keep things as they are and check this confirms the Bishop's assistant, and if you are still unable to accept this then I suggest we stop discussing this and leave things as they are until new evidence can be found that is more reliable (although I cannot imagine what that might be). Mish (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) You should make clear to your correspondent that it's nothing personal -- the issue is that we have a policy, WP:V, that restricts us to using published sources. An email, regardless of whom it's from, just doesn't qualify. (As to your assertion that I "said at another point that we would need to see what the response was to clarify the situation," I don't recall saying that. I did offer to defer starting the RfC to accommodate your wishes if you thought that, but that's because I try to cooperate with other editors even when I disagree with them.) Examining the book is a good idea. Start on page 10, where, according to a post in Talk:Gene Robinson/Archive 1#Vicki Gene Robinson, "the birth name is explicitly printed as Vicki Gene Robinson." If that's what the book says, then I'd be comfortable beginning the article with "Vicki Gene Robinson (born May 29, 1947)..." If what Robinson goes by is his actual middle name, rather than a nickname form of his name, then he's a Mitt Romney, not a Jimmy Carter as I'd previously thought, and we shouldn't put "Gene" in quotation marks. Because there's ample evidence that he uses the form "V. Gene Robinson" for formal occasions, that information should be added to the text of the article, presumably right after the explanation of "Vicki". (In other words, this addition becomes necessary if the specific form "V. Gene Robinson" is no longer in the lead section.) JamesMLane t c 01:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Emails can be sent to OTRS. LadyofShalott 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) The instructions are the person, or representative, can write in citing erroneous material. It is not in the lede yet. I will pass on the e-mail anyway. Mish (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Hold on there. It's good that we clarified this point but the core issue was percieved harm in presenting Vicky in the lede sentence. I think Robinson's office has been presented a red herring of sorts, perhaps completely unintentional. They need to understand, as we do, that Wikipedia has become the primary source for information about Robinson for the world. Arguably the majority of the world will be directed here when searching for information on him. Likewise what we print here will also be mirrored around the world and accepted as "truth", right or wrong. In that context should we lede the article with his common name and de-emphasize "Vicky" presenting that only in context of his birth or is it OK to propagate it prominently? Robinson and his staff should be quite clear what they are signing up for. In light that only critics have been using Vicky apparently to ridicule in various ways these are hardly lightweight concerns. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I realise now that I ordered his more recent book 'The Eye of the Storm', not the biography referred to in the e-mail; skimming through I can see nothing about his name, other than how he is listed by the publisher (V. Gene Robinson). I'm more interested in the book I have than his biography, as it contains some material about him by Desmond Tutu as well as some other cite-able material that could be used in this biography. I suggest somebody else goes to the library to check what his biography says, or waits to see what results from pointing his office to OTRS is if the e-mails confirming which sources are correct are not admissable. In the meantime, the lede stands regardless of our speculations, because there is reason to doubt the various reliable sources, and there is little point discussing this any more until we have accurate information. (Regarding the Times getting the name wrong even in its correction of a previous error... well it just shows it is not the paper it was before Murdoch took over, which is why I stopped reading it then and followed the decent journalists to the Independent) Mish (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I will keep in communication with him until the matter is resolved. They need t make their statements with due diligence and eyes wide open. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Mish, but no individual editor is authorized to pronounce that "the lede stands" regardless of other editors' views. You and Banjiboi appear to place a great deal of weight on the bio subject's expressed preference. Many other editors place more weight on following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A bio subject cannot dictate that a particular bit of accurate information be omitted, or given more or less prominence; if the material complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then it's eligible for inclusion. Whether it should be included, and if so in what form, are matters for the Wikipedia community to decide. JamesMLane t c 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC) You are again confusing the issues here. No one has suggested omitting anything, at all. Everyone agrees that it should be accurate. The only issues are if the lede should use Vicky or V. with many agreeing that if the subject has a reasonable objection we can favor leaving it the way it's been. I want clear statement from them either way - yes it's fine or no it's harmful in some way. And yes, we do very much allow for a subject's wishes and entire articles have been deleted for these reasons. We are not robots, we are human and we assume inherant dignity and respect and we acknowledge that what we do here impacts people's lives ergo we try to get it right. -- Banjeboi 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC) "You are again confusing the issues here." No, you are again not paying attention to what I actually wrote. I noted that whether to include information, and if so how, are separate issues. Article deletion is yet another case. I think there's a policy under which, in a case of borderline notability, the subject's wishes may be given some weight, at editors' discretion, but I don't care enough to try to find it and post a link. Certainly some articles, like Don Murphy, have been kept against the subject's vehement objections. At any rate, no one has posted a link to a policy or guideline that empowers a bio subject to dictate the prominence with which information will be displayed, especially on a matter governed by existing Wikipedia rules of general applicability. JamesMLane t c 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) It is here: http://www.amazon.com/Going-Heaven-Election-Bishop-Robinson/dp/1933368225#reader, and contrary to the bishop's assistant, it does say Vicki Gene Robinson, not Vicky. Mish (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (outdent) There is such a policy, of a sort, which is I think generally conducted through OTRS, regarding information which could be a violation of [{WP:BLP]]. I emailed the diocese giving them the information on how to contact OTRS if they had any clear preferences one way or another. Like I said, if, in a reasonable length of time, there is no contact with OTRS, we can reasonably conclude that the subject has no serious objections to our doing as the sources indicate. I expect if OTRS does receive any communication, someone from OTRS will leave a message of some sort here, so that we can know the message was received. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) As I have managed to get responses, I have forwarded to his assistant the OTRS details as well as pointing out the discrepancy between what was in the e-mail and the biography. There is an automated message stating that she will not be in the office Thursday or Friday. So, I'm not expecting a response before Monday. I have set the text in the section about his birth to reflect the citation in the biography (Vicki Gene), rather than the original newspaper piece (Vicky Imogene), but left the erroneous newspaper reference in place next to the biography reference. This in line with the BLP policy of amending error as soon as it becomes evident. I guess the reference to the erroneous newspaper report should come out completely, I don't think it is referenced anywhere else. Mish (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Based on our current information, I'm inclined to go with "Vicki Gene Robinson (born May 29, 1947)" at the beginning of the article; later in text, after the explanation of his unusual birth name, we'd note that "Vicki" is sometimes reported as "Vicky" and "Gene" is sometimes reported as "Imogene"; somewhere, probably at that same point, we'd add that the form of his name he uses in official contexts is "V. Gene Robinson". I agree with you about amending error, but that doesn't preclude us from including links to indicate that we're aware of the other sources. That will lessen the chance that some well-meaning future editor will come along and "correct" the name to accord with one of the newspaper articles. JamesMLane t c 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I'd prefer to wait till his assistant returns on Monday and see what she says then. Not sure what the big rush is, as there is nothing there now that is not accurate, simply differing from the MoS, which is not urgent. It is only error if we don't feature the best possible information, we have that, but the lede merely has a different version of the correct name, as used in his formal title. Mish (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) The assistant referred you to the book, and you've dug up the information from the book. In the unlikely event that the assistant has something new to say next week, we can always change the article again. Assuming that the assistant has nothing further to add, do you have any objection to the proposal I made? JamesMLane t c 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I think it unnecessary, and I don't particularly like it, but you have convinced me that if this is policy and permissible, then so be it. I think that without any clear indication from the bishop I am not sure what else to say. I guess he has more important things to do than waste his time over an issue that seems more important to other people than himself - otherwise he would have made sure it was clearer long before now. I am still not sure why this does not apply to the Pope, but am not sure I feel confident enough myself to challenge it. Looking at a few other religious (apart from Basil Hume) it does seem their legal name is normally used, with the name taken in religion referred to subsequently. Dom Gregory Dix, the 14th Dalai Lama and Āgā Khān IV, for example. So, it looks like Pope Benedict XVI is wrong too, and John XXIII. Might be worth starting with a Borje (nobody like them), see how that goes, and then work through the list. Mish (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC) A Pope's name could be considered to be more like a Regnal name than a name in religion, so in that case there is a good cse for putting Benedict XVI first and then the birth name (compare Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, though here there's an added argument as to whether she actually has a surname). David Underdown (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (not Mrs. Mountbatten (born Windsor) then? Or Mountbatten-Windsor? - I begin to see why some pages are protected...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Support full name in lead. This is the guideline, and I see no compelling reason not to follow it. Guidelines exist to be followed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Except when they violate policy - that's what we're trying to avoid here. -- Banjeboi 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, and if I agreed with you that this violated policy, I would be on the other side of the fence. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC) We now have confirmation that the subject sees the use of Vicky only being done so to disparage him in some ways. Thus we would be violating BLP policies. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Continue to oppose full name in lead. (Seeing how Carl put it way he has) This is 'only' a guideline, and I see no compelling reason to follow it. Guidelines exist to guide, and do not 'have' to be followed except where not doing so may cause harm to the subject. The following seem to suggest there is no issue here, we can leave the page as it is, regardless of the information available, because we ensure no harm, no distribution of certain material, work within the guidelines, do not contravene policy in relation to the MoS, but seek not to follow the guidelines because having the lede does nothing to improve wickipedia, but possibly the opposite: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."BLP#Writing_and_editing "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. [...] The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles. Following these guidelines is recommended, but not required." MOS:BIO "Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Our list of policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas our guidelines are more advisory in nature, and our processes are routine methods to serve the above policies and guidelines. If process, guideline or policy pages appear to conflict, then policies should be followed before guidelines, and guidelines over processes. [...] Policies need to be approached with common sense; adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia." WP:PG I accept the point about what the name may be, and this is reflected in the body text, but I still see no clear reason why the lede should be changed to reflect this. Other biographies seem to display a certain flexibility on this point. Mish (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC) To call it "flexibility" implies that it was a considered decision -- a stretch when there was no talk page discussion. I'd say that most of our biographies comply with the MoS, but a few exhibit mistakes. Mistakes don't establish a precedent. For example, you'll find the misspelling "accomodate" here, here, and here, among other places, but that doesn't mean that we're flexible about what the correct spelling is. (Having found those mistakes, I promise I'll fix them once this discussion ends.) JamesMLane t c 20:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Sure, but the thing is the policy guidelines say we don't have to, so I'm thinking, why do something the guidelines say if the policy is we don't have to? Why not just leave things as they are, at least until we hear what the man prefers. Eh? Mish (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC) As carl bunderson pointed out, this would be a different situation if compliance with the guideline somehow violated the policy. If a bio subject were to say, "I would like you to depart from your established guidelines when it comes to my article," I wouldn't honor that request unless the bio subject or someone else could point to a policy violation. Individual preferences do not create such a violation. This is not disparagement of Gene Robinson. If Mitt Romney dropped by here and said that his personal preference was for us to move that boldfaced "Willard" so it wasn't the first word in his article, I'd give him the same answer. And, of course, your objection is purely hypothetical. You've had multiple correspondences with Robinson's assistant, who says she's talked with Robinson himself. In all that communication, you've heard not one word to the effect that Robinson wants his full birth name buried lower in the article. Why haven't you? My guess is that Robinson is way ahead of you and Banjiboi on this issue. He probably knows what Teledildonix314 pointed out, "that there is nothing terrible about having a name which is unusual for a person's gender identity, it won't stop that person from achieving amazing things...." So some conservative leaders now resurrect gibes he heard from his grade-school classmates? Robinson probably finds that more amusing than distressing. JamesMLane t c 00:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Doesn't matter. It's a guideline. We don't have to follow it just because you say so. I got the impression you meant it was policy. It isn't. Getting things right is policy, layout is guidelines, and the policy says we don't have to follow the guidelines, and to use common sense. Common sense is that V. Gene is what he prefers, as that how he is referred to in instances he has sanctioned. We can do that, because the guidelines say so. Had I understood this better a week ago, I need not have gone through the discussion above. I had read the relevant sections before, but it was not until I saw Carl's comment (which did not seem to conform to my understanding of a guideline, but more a policy - although even policies can be deviated from if necessary) that I went back to check where this was located. Content is policy - accuracy. Style is guidelines - can deviate. I'm all for deviation when the situation is right. So, by deviating here in this way, we do not withhold anything, we are not being innacurate, we are simply presenting the name as used in the lede, unlike other situations where they have the legal name first, with other names following, or the titular name first, with the legal name following, or the legal name first, with the birth name following. We had the chance to compromise with the formal name first followed by the birth name - but that was rejected. So, I'm sticking. Now there is no point discussing, because there's nothing more to be said. We don't have to do it the way you want, so I'm saying, let's not bother then. Simple as that. Mish (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) It's true that we don't have to do it the way that I want, in the sense of following policy -- and I don't think I've said it was policy. Nevertheless, there's good reason to follow the guideline so that information is where our readers expect it. More to the point, we also don't have to do it the way you want. The guideline should be followed unless there's good reason to deviate. Most of us think there's no such reason here. Among the editors responding to the RfC, use of the full name in the lead section is supported by LadyofShalott, Teledildonix314, JamesMLane, Angr, The Bookkeeper, ALLST☆R, Necrothesp, David Underdown, John Carter, ThemFromSpace, YobMod, and carl bunderson, and is opposed by Banjeboi, Bo, Mish, and JoanR (apparently), with Rd232 neutral. RfC is not a vote but this result provides a clear picture of the community's views. I agree with you that there's nothing more to be said, with all perspectives having already been presented at great length. Of course, there may be some remaining issues about exactly how to present all the information; I've given my proposal, while recognizing that the outcome can be modified later if new information becomes available. JamesMLane t c 09:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) As you say, you are unable to gain a consensus. Mish (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, I said no such thing. Most Wikipedians would agree with the statement in WP:NOTUNANIMITY: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity." Whether the results of this RfC show a consensus is a subject about which people would disagree. A crucial point, though, is that some editors are seeking to depart from a Wikipedia guideline. The guideline itself is the product of consensus, so adhering to it in a particular case doesn't require re-establishing a consensus. The difficult question would be if RfC responses divided heavily in favor of your view. We would then be in the situation covered by this statement in the policy concerning consensus: "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline." Here it's absolutely clear that there's no consensus to override the guideline. JamesMLane t c 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Hi James. First. You said. Way back at the top of this page "We begin a bio with the bio subject's name. That's how we begin all our bios. I don't see how following an invariant policy focuses attention on a fact (one that is, as you note, undisputed)." This is not correct. It is a guideline, not policy. Policy is that we get the name right when we use it. You also have missed out at least one person who agrees with the current lede (clarisiophic), and for all I know maybe more. Given the discussion that followed was based on this being about policy, rather than guidelines, were we to have this discussion again, then that might entail a different outcome. I see no point in having this discussion again. As for consensus, well, every statement I cited above came out of consensus, including the suggestions about guidelines, as does this one: "Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you." They are part of a policy at the heart of the ethos of Wikipedia, and pre-date subsequent guidelines such as those you have been citing as if they were policy. Second. As you have subsequently argued for the name that is used to be "Vicki Gene Robinson" (rather than "Vicky"), the RfC itself is invalid: "Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene appropriate for the lede of this BLP?". The RfC is about inserting invalid (according to the biography) information in the lede. The discussion about the RfC seems to render it invalid, and we would need to start all over again. Mish (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Given that 1 & 2 suggest the ground for this discussion involve inaccurate premises, a better way to proceed might be to apprach this in a way that would improve the entry, and thus Wikipedia, by doing something that reflects the confusion that already exists. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to reflect the sources, not define which is or is not true - information needs to be verifiable and accurate, not necessarily true. So, what we could do is have V. Gene Robinson followed by a brief bracketed comment that states "(believed to have been named Vicki or Vicky Gene Robinson, depending on the sources), with a note that gives the references to the sources, and also mentions and includes those that say Imogene, and point out that despite attempts to find out what the actual birth name is, the best information available is from his biography, which states Vicki Gene Robinson, although this is not what is confirmed by the Bishop's office). Or something along those lines, which could be discussed. That way, we are representing the issue as it actually stands, at least until we have further information, without doing what Wikipedia is not about - establishing what is 'true', and fulfilling its role as an encyclopedia, presenting the situation as it exists in reliable sources. It is not our role to resolve the confusion, it is our role to refer to it. Mish (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I agree that's an excellent way to MoveForward, and the worst possible harm that's been suggested is that his possible detractors will potentially learn elaborate details about the material which is already widely disputed in secondary sources. In order to stop our MoveForward with a roadblack of Harm To BLP we would have to suspect possible libel or a hoax or a blatantly inaccurate piece of contentious information; what we have here is the opposite, because you can't sue for libel or slander in New Hampshire or Kentucky when the publication truthfully uses public records and direct citation from the Biography Subject's Own Bishopric Office. As much as it pains me to see one more visible gay American potentially teased because of our heterosexist culture, it doesn't excuse us from our responsibity to edit truthfully in precisely the way you've justified. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 00:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC) I have made the change as per WP:BRD, highlighted in Teledildonix' response, in order to break this deadlock through a compromise that will hopefully allow us to move forward in this matter. Mish (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Use of birth name vs professional name While there is certainly precedent for listing 'professional name' (birth name) in the lede, it can also be sensible to use the name by which the subject was known when they became 'notable' enough to rate an article in the first place. For example, the lede for singer Beverly Sills uses only that name, with her birth name first mentioned in the 'early career' section. It's the same for John Wayne.So using this pattern in the Robinson article would put the birth name discussion in the 'Early Life' section (where the more extended discussion of the name would fit best anyway) JoanR (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Both the John Wayne and Beverly Sills articles were in correct format. In mid-2007, however, each of them was rendered incorrect in an edit by User:Tell-Tale Ghost (see [12] and [13]), during that user's first few weeks on Wikipedia. I find no discussion of the subject on either talk page. So one user was ignorant of the MoS, and the other editors of those articles haven't bothered to correct the error. With volunteers maintaining millions of articles in a system of open editing, such mistakes will be made here and there. That doesn't mean that the MoS has been amended or repealed. I do agree with you that we should also use the bio subject's most common name, as per the relevant MoS provision. JamesMLane t c 05:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC) One editor's mistake can be seen as another's correction. This still is a BLP and we nw are communicating with the subject who is considered an expert on themselves. Examples can help inform the chices we have but these are just examples, not the rule book on how things must be. -- Banjeboi 12:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Style vs accuracy From what I gather from the above discussion, it is still not sufficiently clear exactly what his birth name was. It would be abysmal style to delve into all the options in the lede, especially as it would have to be in the first sentence. ("Won't somebody think of the readers?") Relegate this discussion to a footnote and/or the background section. Apart from anything else, a full discussion would violate WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Lead section. Rd232 talk 16:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC) What a shame, it seemed like a workable compromise. Still, as you say, it is covered by a footnote. I do recall the Bishop talking about his birth & name when he preached at St, Martin's in the Fields in London in 2005, and I did provide a transcript of the notes I took of his talk to the UK organisation that invited him subsequently. I was thinking of digging it out, but I doubt it would be of much assistance, because I would probably have spelled it as it sounded, with a 'y'. I suspect this confusion has arisen from people spelling what they have heard aurally (as in interviews or speaking engagements) with either a 'y' or an 'i' - they do sound very similar. Mish (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC) I would like to point out the current version of the lede as of this moment: V. Gene Robinson[1] (born May 29, 1947 in Fayette County, Kentucky) is the ninth bishop of the... has two advantages. 1st: it allays any worries about "harm" to the Bishop from undue prominence of his uncommon "female-ish" legal/technical name being emphasized. (Although just between us editors, and the LGBTQ community, i would like to mention again that it actually plays into the hands of the heterosexists when we buy their bullcrap about "female-sounding" names being somehow derogatory; i wholeheartedly endorse the comment from LadyOfShalott on that issue.) 2nd: it uses a footnote to clarify the known inaccuracies in our source materials, without cluttering up the lede with stuff that distracts from what our readers are most often going to need when they start at the top of the page. So i know that there is no such thing as a "final version" of any part of any article, but i hope that in the case of future revisions to the lede, we can try to keep these 2 points as advantageous. I know this is a departure from the standard formatting of the Manual Of Style, but i believe it does a good job of serving our readers. Thanks to everybody who has been putting effort into making a good article. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I agree, as I have said already, that I see nothing intrinsically problematic about such a name, especially as he has talked about it publicly; unfortunately it has been used to try and disparage him, and taunt those who admire and support him. As we assume 'good faith', I am assuming that this discussion is not a reflection of that taunting, and responding accordingly. What I was trying to do was find a way that could have moved us forward by presenting a solution that had the potential to satisfy the legalists. Perhaps a simple bracketed (named Vicki/Vicky Gene...) would have sufficed, but I agree that the footnote as it now stands is what is needed to ensure the readers have access to the relevant information. I obviously misread your previous comment, and apologise. Mish (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you, no apologies are needed, but they are appreciated anyway in the spirit of cooperation. I think your work had been fine, i just see the current compromise as the best revision so far— because it seems to be inclusive of all editors' concerns, with the exception that it isn't absolutely fastidiously pure MOS format. I'm glad editors like you are watching these things because i think your perspective provides rational balance to the various tilting points of view. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Support the use of the full name in the lede. The lede should probably start: "Gene Robinson (full name Vicky Gene Robinson) is ... " We don't want to imply that he has changed his name since that's not true, so saying "Born Vicky Gene Robinson" would be wrong. But at the same time, MOS:BIO supports this and it's important and relevant to readers to mention it immediately; it helps explain things to anyone who arrives via the redirect or by searching on his full name. It really doesn't matter who uses the full name or how popular the shortened name is: we are only mentioning it for the sake of factual completeness, we are not talking about changing how the name is used or changing the title of the page. Mangojuicetalk 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I would support using 'Gene Robinson' instead of 'V. Gene Robinson', possibly followed by (full name...), even though it departs from the style guideline; we have discussed how 'Vicky' seems less likely than 'Vicki', as per his biography - are you suggesting we use Vicky instead as this appears to be his current usage? Mish (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I have no opinion on which name is his full name, I'm just commenting that it should be included in the first line, and I think this is the way to do it, so as not to cause confusion. Mangojuicetalk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I agree with Mangojuice that "born Vicki Gene Robinson" is wrong, because it implies that "Vicki Gene Robinson" is no longer the Rt. Rev. Mr. Robinson's legal name, which apparently it is (according to his own writing). IceCreamEmpress (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Good point. But, it is a deduction based on his biographer saying he was named 'Vicki' at birth, and his birth certificate not being changed after, rather than his own writing about what name was registered at birth or what his legal name is now. Mish (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Update I was able to get some clarity on a few issues from Bishop Robinson's office; (i) his legal name is Vicky Gene Robinson, (ii) he solely uses V. Gene Robinson and (iii) the people who use Vicky mainly/solely/primarilly etc. are doing so to disparage him. Based on this, and as I've expressed from the beginning, we should leave things much as they are with the footnote explaining the V. as we now have. -- Banjeboi 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks Benji, I don't think they are speaking to me any more. Maybe we can just leave it as it is? Mish (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, thanks for the update, Bboi. I still think we should spell it out in the lead, for all the reasons stated above. LadyofShalott 18:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I think Wikipedia:Avoiding harm could spell out better that sometimes, as in the case here, we can find ways to include sourced information but only with due weight. Similar to those who are LGBT, we can add the information as it applies to their notability. If someone is known for being LGBT then there is a stronger case for including it in the lede; whereas if this is just a peice of info maybe the personal life section is best. That we have the vast majority of reliable sources stating his name as we have it; that the vast majority of those sources that use Vicky disparagingly and that the subject has confirmed this does suggest we should err on the conservative side of MOS guidelines. -- Banjeboi 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Leave it as is. --Secisek (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)