According to MOS:GENDERID [1], a person's former name can be used when they were notable under that name. You're trying to make it out as if there's some nefarious double standard when there's not, editors just want Wikipedia to be clear and encyclopedic.

It's incredible that in a discussion about brutal violence against a child, the child victim is being painted as the "extremist"!

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biog...

Notability. Those two celebrities were known for a very long time under their old name. To prevent confusion, their old name is shown.

The victim of a crime was not notable before their name change.

> Calling somebody with his former name and mentioning his former name in a Wikipedia page are two completely different things

Except when people keep vandalizing Wikipedia renaming people there with their dead name. And yes it happens over and over and over again.

Because the most active extremists on the topic are by far the anti-trans crowd. (And it's not even close, there are trans people assaulted every week, sometimes going as far as murder this is extremism).

And again, Wikipedia keeps mentioning the former name when it's necessary (look for Bradley Manning on Wikipedia, the page redirects to Chelsea Manning but the old name is state because it's important).

> level of extremism of the pro-trans activists

What on earth are you talking about?

The use of the masculine pronoun here when we're referring to someone who transitioned from male kind of gives away that you're probably less concerned with searchability and preservation of history, and more concerned with promoting a transphobic agenda. I suppose it's possible you were using it as a generic pronoun, but in that case I would have expected "they." Am I wrong?

Not all historic facts are relevant. Using someone’s old name when relevance can be achieved by stating the person was transgender is preferable.

> It makes it harder to find other sources of information on someone

No it doesn't. Googling or searching on Wikipedia for either name yields the same page.

> Its omitting information which seems antithetical to the whole point of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn't a database of private information on individuals. On most celebrities pages you won't find their infidelities record either, unless it has some historical relevance.

> Its really not very different from a Wikipedia article using an author's pseudonym mentioning their real name.

In fact, when an author made it publicly clear that they didn't want their real name be known, Wikipedia usually respect their choice (until their real name stops being private information and gets historical relevance).

And somehow anti-trans activists seem to care much less. How surprising, really.

There's no such thing “as neutral account of factual events”, it's a “map and territory” thing, you always have to weight if something is relevant and this is always a subjective exercise.

And then you have to ponder the relevance with whether or not publishing may cause harm.

Let's take an example, unrelated to the topic: why aren't the addresses of stars, or the identification number of billionaires personal jets, listed on Wikipedia? Because it's not relevant, and can be harmful.

And it's the same thing for trans people's name. Most of the time, their birth name is irrelevant and can even be harmful. But sometimes, when it's important, the name will still be there, with the redirection and all, see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

And, by the way, this isn't a Wikipedia thing, this is how press right works! Newspapers get sued all the time for mentioning irrelevant personal information about people, and lose.