My surname is quite akin to the OP first example, but in a "foreign" (non-English) language. Were it instead to be expressed in English -- just a literal trans

My surname is quite akin to the OP first example, but in a "foreign" (non-English) language. Were it instead to be expressed in English -- just a literal translation -- I could well be in the same position as Ms. Yellow Horse. I've forgotten the multiple names academia has come up with for this situation. But in a nutshell, Google, you are conflating two "problems" you are trying to solve: "True" and "Names". We could and do debate the merits of these separately. E.g., I think your "true" initiative is kind of full of shit -- based upon my and others' experience on the Web. But even if you want to and decide to pursue "true", that doesn't give you any authority to judge and decide what is, or isn't, a "name". Perhaps your overwhelming mountain of data and analysis capabilities might enable you to establish a leading position in some de facto opinions on the matter. But, as the OP example demonstrates, even there you are most obviously failing -- it appears to us, the general public, to be in good part due to a lack of real effort to analytically and functionally back up your "initiative". So... as a result, once again your "initiative" and "policy" looks to be full of shit. Just drop it. Treat names like the name qualifier in email -- or I guess that is now, for Google, a field within Contacts: People enter a string, and that's the name. Maybe some subsequent processes try -- more or less successfully -- to parse it into components. But at the base level, it's an arbitrary string. There, that was simple, wasn't it? (Now, focus some effort on keeping that name from unintentionally bleeding across properties via Google+, etc.)