Talk:Danah boyd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Somewhat futile at this point, but

According to the Boston Globe, "danah boyd": http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/02/18/techs_feminine_side/?page=2 Ubernostrum (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With time to reflect on things, it appears to me that the capitalization issue is a completely stylistic matter. Everyone has his own style guide, which tells him how to properly capitalize a name. Wikipedia has its own. There is no outside authority on style (except Tim Gunn). Andyparkerson (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Andy here. Further, in the five Boston Globe articles where she is mentioned, they have it as "Danah Boyd" in four of them, so that article is not the strongest piece of evidence for the "danah boyd" rendering. William Pietri (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the fact that even mainstream sources can't seem to agree on this, or even come to a consensus within their own organizations (witness "danah boyd" and "Danah Boyd" in stories from the same organizations), probably indicates that there's room for debate here. Sadly, no-one seems much interested in "debate" about how to handle this sort of thing; absolute proscription, backed by a clique of admins, FTW. Ubernostrum (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's dial back the drama here. We've had the debate. Both sides have made their cases known. Everyone has been heard. The reason no one is still talking is that there is nothing new to add. Andyparkerson (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No drama, really. I came back and looked over the whole thing again, and it's pretty obvious what goes on: somebody comes in and proposes the lower-case usage, backs it up and maybe gets a little support. Then a clique of very specific admins descends, puts up a fight (often with no variation, just repeating an argument again and again on the assumption that maybe we didn't hear it right the first fifty times it was responded to) and/or threatens to ban people (hi, Elonka!) until the opposition gives up. Then they declare a consensus in their favor and that's that. It's been a very instructive example of how to win at Wikipedia, and I thank you all for the educational opportunity. Ubernostrum (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is your "No drama" statement meant to be ironic? You went on to describe your perspective of events in what seems to be the most dramatic way possible. You need to step back for a second and try to analyze events without your perspective bias...

• When you are arguing, it's debate. When anyone else is arguing, it's people who are swooping in, not interested in debate, only in their own view.
• When you think you are right, it's vigilant. When anyone else thinks they are right, it is stubborn and ignorant.
• When you put forward and argument that's already been used (you really only have one or two) it's valuable because those are the facts. When anyone else says the same thing they've said before, you mark it is invalid simply because it's not new, and declare they must just think you didn't hear it. Maybe it's because you are repeating yourself in return, making everyone think you didn't understand. Or maybe, just maybe, that's actually a valid argument and it's worth hearing.
• When 5-10 admins agree or other editors who think differently from you, it's a clique or a conspiracy. When you and one other person agree, you portray it as representing some invisible majority. (Why don't you look at all our talk pages, or contribution history? There is no conspiracy, no collaboration. Simply people who disagree with you. I've disagreed with this point of view since almost two years ago, long before I was an administrator.)

All that is really enlightening here is your perspective bias. You can't seem to ever be wrong unless it was because of a dramatic conspiracy, or an unfair fight that ended in the "wrong" consensus. So really, Andyparkerson had a really good point when he said, "Let's dial back the drama here." -- Renesis (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, UN, but that comes across as a big helping of drama from this side of the screen. If that's not how you intend to come across, there are plenty of uninvolved parties on Wikipedia who will happily help you improve. For example, the Mediation Cabal is full of people like that.

I agree completely: this is a debatable point. Many things in style guides are; if they weren't, we wouldn't need to document them. But we've already had the debate. That the rest of us feel our time could be better spent than rehashing it isn't anything against you or Danah Boyd. She's in my social circle, and I have nothing but positive feelings for her. Were you in mine, I'm sure I'd feel the same way: my dad has a degree in philosophy, half my friends are web people, and a fair number of the rest are journalists and writers. But crikey, it's hard to be happy that you're reopening a debate that everybody, you included, see as futile. Please let it go until you have something big enough that you really think it will change the consensus. William Pietri (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to be happy with what's happened here, period. Seriously, go look back over the history: someone proposes the change, Elonka and a couple others come down on it like a ton of bricks, and proceed to shout down the opposition for as long as necessary (occasionally dropping ominous hints about their adminship), while never once dealing with, say, the reliable sources which use "danah boyd" or responding to the apparent policy conflict at the heart of this. Meanwhile, they're happy to cite essays which take a dismissive POV attitude toward people who prefer to idiosyncratically case their names (Hi again, Elonka!) while claiming that this does not disrespect the subject of the article. Is it so hard to see why one might grow disillusioned after months of this? Ubernostrum (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally conflicts on Wikipedia have both sides feeling that the other side has behaved shockingly. That's nothing new, as the bit about motes and beams suggests. Perhaps if you and Elonka were to talk this over some via email, you could both find ways to come across better to fellow editors. The way I keep from getting too disillusioned, both here and elsewhere, is to focus on the people and the process rather than particular outcomes. For example, I'm confident that along with honoring thy father and mother, God mandated the serial comma and cuddled elses. But when I am working among heathen, I'll follow local style, as I'd rather get the job done, and respecting their (foolish, erroneous) beliefs will create opportunities to bring them around later. And yes, I'm caricaturing myself here a bit, but only by a little. William Pietri (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amusing that my name keeps getting dragged into this, despite the fact that I haven't posted on this page since July 2007.  ;) I could repeat, "Let's please stick to discussing the article, not the other editors," to see if anyone actually pays attention. But for the record: I still think that the title "Danah Boyd" is appropriate, though "danah boyd" should definitely be mentioned in the lead. If at some point it looks like the primary method that Boyd's name is referred to in outside reliable sources, is the lowercased "danah boyd", then I might be willing to change my mind on how this article is titled. But how the subject herself styles her name, is not a compelling reason for me to go against Wikipedia style guidelines, because it's too arbitrary. Someone could come in and want to go uppercase one day, lowercase the next, ALL CAPS the next, last name first the next, etc., and we'd end up just running ragged trying to keep up with the subject's wishes. Which is why we don't do things that way on Wikipedia. Instead, we have our own style guidelines, and we follow the lead of outside reliable sources. And since the primary method in those outside sources still appears to be "Danah Boyd", my opinion has not changed. Wikipedia is here to summarize information that has already been published in reliable sources, not to act as a publicity outlet for Ms. Boyd.

Since consensus is clear on this, can we all please move on again, to the 2 million odd other articles on Wikipedia which could benefit from our attention? --Elonka 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Two questions for you, then, and I'd appreciate honest answers because so far as I can tell you, as one of the most stalwart capitalizers, have not satisfactorily answered either of them at any point:

1. If one or more "mainstream media" sources -- for example, the New York Times -- were to issue a correction and state that their use of "Danah Boyd" was incorrect, would your position change?

2. Given that there are different classes of reliable sources which differ on this issue, why do you focus exclusively on one class and ignore another? On what grounds do you, personally, judge that a newspaper article is more reliable than, say, a peer-reviewed journal (where correct citation is of vital importance, and mistakes in citing source can quite literally ruin careers)?

I await your reply. Ubernostrum (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To address point #2, in academic publications the styling of author name is controlled by the author, not peer reviewers. Even if it weren't, academic peers are unlikely to challenge her on this point because it would complicate their professional relationships with her. I.e., consulting these sources for name style is equivalent to consulting Ms. Boyd herself.

FWIW, I have previously been lurker on this discussion and agree with the consensus ("Danah Boyd"). --R27182818 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ubernostrum: If the NY Times published a correction, I agree that that would have weight, and I would definitely consider it in combination with other sources. As for the difference between newspapers and academic journals, the anon's post above is very pertinent. I would also point out that Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter are to title an article with the "most common name" that someone is referred to. Usage in mainstream newspapers, which have readers in the millions, is a better indicator of "common usage" than a spelling in a relatively low-circulation academic journal which may only have a few hundred subscribers. Our goal here at Wikipedia is to provide a resource for laypeople, for the "mainstream". And mainstream usage appears, to me and many others here, to still be "Danah Boyd". --Elonka 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may delurk for a moment, I object to the implication that wider readership indicates greater authority. By that standard, the Weekly World News would be more authoritative than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Surely the careful attention paid to accuracy by academic institutions and publishers counts for more than the quick-and-dirty review of newspaper editors? (For the record, I'm in the minority: I feel that the final, overriding authority over the spelling of a proper name--and yes, it is a spelling issue--is the person him/herself, if that person is alive. BLP, in other words. If she says it's "danah boyd", then it's "danah boyd", period. Spelling it any differently demonstrates a complete disregard for her wishes--the same disregard shown to her by the New York Times.) Brian Eisley (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The subject of the article says her name is "danah boyd". She has legal documents verifying that her legal name is "danah boyd". There really shouldn't be any further debate on the issue. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My view: although common usage is definitely helpful as an indicator, and I'd agree that general-circulation newspapers carry a lot more weight, I focus on convenience to readers. Many studies have shown that scannability is very important for the usability of text on the web. Capitalizing names and other proper nouns makes them easier to find when scanning. Although I don't have studies to prove it, I'd also expect that nonstandard capitalization is distracting to readers. Were eye-tracking studies done, I'd predict a lot more re-reads and slower comprehension compared with standard capitalization. The primary value of Wikipedia is in making easily digestible reference information available to the general reader, and I think nonstandard formatting goes against the grain of that. William Pietri (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization discussion at the manual of style

For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like danah boyd, for example). -- Irn (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I just plowed thru the talk page (thanks User:Elonka and the even lengthier Manual of Style discussion. [[1]]

I see a consensus that "danah boyd" should stay without capitalization if the person prefers it (she clearly does) and if it is widely used (which it is by academics -- I am a senior scholar, and I see everyone in the field who cites her using lower case). I think this trumps a few NYTimes references, so I am going to revert back to it. FWIW, I think danah has made herself a pain in the butt with this capitalization change, and I don't like it, but she did it, the scholarly world has accepted it, and so should Wikipedia with grace. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you cannot arbitrarily decide to declare a new "consensus" which goes against months of previous discussions. --Elonka 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the MoS consensus, which fits with what I said above: she did it, and the scholarly world has accepted it. See, for example, her major production at:

[2]

Please let it go, with grace. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bellagio99, trying to edit war to force through your preferred version of an article, is completely ineffective. If you feel that you have a strong case, please follow one of the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: For example, you can request comments from other editors, or try mediation. In the meantime, please respect the existing consensus on this article, forged through years of discussion. You are welcome to try and build a new consensus, but edit-warring is not the way to proceed. --Elonka 04:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I am a scholar, and not an admin, but it does strike me as WP:Civil to respect both the person's choice and the current widespread usage. Times have changed. However, I am away on a speaking trip, and I hope that others, include Ms boyd, will address this issue. BTW, I don't perceive what I have done as an edit war, but merely as a move towards Wiki accuracy. Frankly, I don't understand your intransigence on the subject. For a case where a Name Change has taken on WP, see Chad Ocho Cinco, known until last month as Chad Johnson. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Final thought before I go on the road: I re-trudged thru the WP:MOS/Capitalization discussion and found this quasi-consensus at the end. It is both later than the preponderance of opinion on this page (not a consensus), and I think MOS supersedes individual page discussions.

"to use a lower case variant of a name, it should be the wish of the subject and have regular and established use in reliable sources. This need not be a clear majority. If multiple styles exist in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the subject. I have bolded the three primary parts of this proposal: the preference of the subject (which is obvious), acceptance and use beyond that of the individual involved and from respected sources (to ensure that we are following the lead of reliable sources and not being jerked around), and, when in doubt, using the preferred orthography of the subject (because widespread acceptance is hard to define). -- Irn (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)" It's near the end of:

[3]. Good luck. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with that conversation, since as you may have seen, I was one of the people participating. In the case of this article Danah Boyd, this is a discussion that has been ongoing since 2006, and the consensus is for the article as you see it, which means a capitalized name in the article, which is the "regular and established use" in mainstream sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle,[4] Wired,[5] and New York Times.[6] We also include a mention of the lowercased form of the name in the lead of the article. If mainstream reliable sources switch to using the lowercased form of her name, then Wikipedia may follow. But that's the point: Wikipedia follows sources. We don't lead them. Show us major mainstream reliable sources which are lowercasing the name, and then we can talk about possibly changing our article to match. --Elonka 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Is the expressed wish and legal actions of the subject trumped by the (erroneous) usage by "mainstream reliable sources"? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is written in service of its readers, not its subjects; decisions should be made in light of their effect on readers, not the desires of those written about.

Also, it's not at all clear that names are even case-sensitive in the eyes of the law; nor should legal opinions published by the subject herself be accepted at face value. --R27182818 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Does seem inaccurate to declare this a settled consensus, Elonka. If the argument's been ongoing since 2006, there's obviously a steady stream of dispute from both sides. Given that reality, it's worth keeping in mind that (1) the practice of using lowercase names adheres to good-faith, widely accepted interpretations of MOS; (2) numerous precedents exist for using lower case names in Wikipedia. Furthermore, danah's claim is extensively supported by evidence from peer-reviewed academic publications and by highly reputable academic publishers such as the MIT Press, Social Science Research Council, the ACM, and the IEEE. These sources may not have as many readers as NYT or Wired, but they are without a doubt "mainstream" and "reliable." Indeed, they are frequently cited as primary sources by the same print media publications to which you refer. Therefore, this is no longer a case of Wikipedia simply following or leading sources. Instead, this is an opportunity to work within the rules of the community, adhere to standards of sound scholarship, and respect the wishes of the individual who is the subject of the article. We should take advantage of that chance and use the lower case spelling of danah's name. Aaronshaw (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aaronshaw. Since this keeps popping up as an issue reveals that any past "consensus" is either mistaken, or at least shifting. Major scholarly publications and organizations reflect her legal and preferred spelling, and Wikipedia should as well. A particular sentence within a policy should not be wielded as an iron fist that goes against what her real name is. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that consensus may have changed, I recommend another step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as filing a Request for Comment. If there's a genuine consensus to use lowercase, it'll show up that way. --Elonka 05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, scholarly publications are not independent of the subject: "academic peers are unlikely to challenge her on this point because it would complicate their professional relationships with her" --R27182818 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

While the MOS has recently been changed to be more accommodating towards individuals who wish for their names to be lowercased, two requirements still remain, to warrant that type of exception on our part: A reliable source to confirm that the subject's preference expressedly includes third-party writing and multiple independent sources which in turn emulate the lowercase formatting. We got the former covered here, no questions asked, but I have to agree with R27182818 that the latter is still missing. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC [7], Salon.com [8], Chicago Sun-Times [9], Washington Post [10], Toronto Star [11], PBS [12]... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very well then. No further objections from this editor. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page editing broke links

A recent edit here on the talk page broke a pile of links in old discussions, as far as I can tell. Undo is not available due to "conflicting edits". Not sure what to do. --R27182818 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Very odd! Thanks for bringing it up, I've gone ahead and restored it as best I could. If you see anything else broken, please point it out. --Elonka 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Boyd or boyd?

The question is whether the subject of this biography should have her name styled in the Wikipedia article as "Danah Boyd" or "danah boyd". Her own preference is lowercase. Reliable sources use both styles, though the more mainstream ones tend to use "Danah Boyd", but not consistently. --Elonka 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I question your assertion that "more mainstream [sources] tend to use "Danah Boyd"". On what basis do you make the claim that more captialize than not?. We have evidence that some mainstream sources capitalize her name (San Francisco Chronicle,[13] Wired,[14] and New York Times.[15]), and evidence that some mainstream sources use lowercase (MSNBC [16], Salon.com [17], Chicago Sun-Times [18], Washington Post [19], Toronto Star [20], PBS [21]). But we hardly can come to a definitive conclusion that more sources do one or the other. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In the lower case realm, I would add the very reputable and scholarly Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2007. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's important that third-party sources be independent; as I noted above, scholarly publications in the same field as the subject (which this is) are not independent. --R27182818 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

R, I dispute your assertion that "scholarly publications are not independent.", speaking as a scholar and journal editor. Peer reviewed journals are extraordinarily independent. We turn down many more articles than we accept. Indeed, my next task is to request that a set of authors do an extensive revise and resubmit. Similarly, books published by university presses go through extensive peer review processes (I'm there now, myself). This strikes me as the independent assertions that some editors say they are looking for here. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ Here's an elaboration of my earlier argument presented above, from my perspective as a researcher in computer science, which is Boyd's field and the field of JCMC cited as evidence above. I should also clarify that I do not claim scholarly pubs are nonindependent in general, but only for the narrow question of name styling.

In this field, citation styling is done by authors, not reviewers. Thus, the decision of whether to upper- or lower-case Boyd's name is done by people who (a) may know and like Boyd, therefore giving undue deference to her preferences, and/or (b) do not wish to complicate their professional relationships with her. In particular, the quality conferences and journals keep reviewers anonymous; who would style the name upper-case if Boyd herself might review the paper? --R27182818 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ I feel that an important sub-question is: Which styling is more useful for readers? Much virtual ink has been expended on this talk page arguing that in the absence of third-party source consensus for upper-case, the lower-case styling should be used because the subject prefers it. But arguments that we should do what is best for Wikipedia's readers seem to have been ignored. --R27182818 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the bare question of accuracy (which has obvious importance for readers), it seems like we could recognize the emerging consensus for a shift to lowercase and complement it with a re-direct from the capitalized spelling. No sacrifice for readers in terms of usability, but a net gain insofar as more people would be likely to recognize and accommodate danah's spelling preferences in accordance with Wikipedia community policies on the issue. Aaronshaw (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ I think it's premature to claim consensus. --R27182818 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

R27182818 asks "Which styling is more useful for readers?" Well, one needs to ask how presenting her name contrary to her own expressed wishes, and contrary to the legal form of her name, would benefit our readers? I can think of no reason. The fact that some major sources continue to spell her name with caps means they are providing a dis-service to their readers, since "Danah Boyd" simply is not her name. "danah boyd" is her name, and it would be in full service to our readers to accurately reflect that (legal) fact. Finally, the manual of style seems quite clear on the issue before us: "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual.". As I noted above, we do have multiple styles in use in reliable sources, so we should deer to the version preferred by the individual. What am I missing here? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is her name legally spelled in lower case? If so, than there is no need for further discussion: upper case spelling is an error, and we should not propagate it, EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

She claims here that in 2000 she "had legal paperwork acknowledging my name" in lower case, and that she "signed my new name change papers". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ Others have argued that from a legal standpoint, names are case-insensitive, so having paperwork with the name lower-case does not actually imply that it's legally lower-case. I don't have a link handy, unfortunately; I think it might have been in one of these talk pages. --R27182818 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

♦ Here's a couple of arguments why the upper-case styling better serves readers.

1. Lower-case names are jarring. When one encounters a lower-case name while reading a sentence, it's, "Huh? Is this a name? It's not capitalized. But it looks like a name." Extra thought is required to decide whether the lower-cased string is or is not a person's name.

Name changes are always jarring. Chad Ocho Rios is jarring, as he was known till this year as Chad Johnson. I was one of the many who were upset that Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammed Ali, but in both cases I respected his wishes (and in the latter case, the person)). We get used to it. User:Bellagio99

2. What do we do if the name appears at the beginning of a sentence? Do we upper-case the first name (Danah boyd), like most words? Or do we keep it lower-case, like program variables, because lower-case is "correct"? Most people's names do not require this choice to be made.

It's lower case, as she requested. User:Bellagio99

3. It is impossible to write the name without making a value judgement. If you write it lower-case, you declare that you support the lower-case identity choice in specific and (more weakly) the subject in general. If you write it upper-case, you declare that you do not support the lower-case identity choice in specific and the subject in general. Most people can be referred to in a value-neutral way.

It means we support this specific person's choice to legally change her name (even though I think it is silly). Bellagio99 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfair for Boyd (or anyone) to demand that other people accept these burdens in service of her personal identity, and Wikipedia should not perpetuate this unfairness.

I think the basic disagreement is: do people get to choose the case styling of their own names? I argue that people do not get this choice, because it leads to unfair burdens on others. As an analogy: it's generally accepted that you can customize your car to a large degree (fuzzy dice, new paint, etc.) as you see fit, but some customizations (removing the muffler, windshield decals that obstruct vision) are not acceptable because they impose unfair burdens on others (noise and risk, respectively). --R27182818 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your philosophical argument as to what is burdensome or fair for readers is better suited for the policy that addresses such treatment. For this article, we simply need to decide how to follow the existing policy, which, again, seems quite clear on the issue before us: "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual.". As I noted above, we do have multiple styles in use in reliable sources, so we should deer to the version preferred by the individual. Unless the policy changes, I see no further reason for discussion. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a guideline, but it is not policy. Please also review Wikipedia:Consensus, and WP:CIVIL. Saying, "I see no further reason for discussion" is a bit dismissive of other editors. The goal here, is to come up with a version of the article which reflects the community consensus. The best way to proceed here, is to ensure that everyone who wishes to comment, is listened to in a respectful manner, and that we do our best to create an article which everyone is happy with, which stays in accordance with Wikipedia policies, which best serves our readers, and reflects positively on Wikipedia. There's obviously a disagreement here, but the way through it is to try and find an acceptable compromise, not to try and silence one side or the other. --Elonka 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - didn't mean to sound dismissive, but I recognize it does come off that way. My point simply is that it appears that the MOS guideline (not policy, as I describe incorrectly above) is quite clear, and since that was decided based on consensus, the path before us here seems clear as well. If the consensus there is to let the subject's wishes dictate usage when conflicting versions exist in reliable sources, I don't see a compelling reason why we should go outside that guideline on this particular article. R27182818's arguments are more suited for the general guideline discussion, not this particular case. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was one of the people that participated in the discussion over the current guideline. There is still ambiguity though in terms of what "regular, established use" means. As I expressed there, and continue to express here, I am not (yet) convinced that the lowercase form of Boyd's name is sufficiently established in widely-available sources, to warrant changing the article from "Danah Boyd" to "danah boyd", though I do agree that more sources have become available which appear to be using the lowercase version. If this trend continues, then I would support moving the article to the lowercase spelling. But I'm not sure we're there yet. I say this not just to be stubborn, but also because I am trying to reduce disruption to the project. As some background, I spend a lot of time sorting out naming disputes on Wikipedia, especially in the nationalist areas where there are major edit wars over the names of towns and cities. The Eastern Europe topic area is particularly rife with these kinds of battles (Piotrus above is intimately familiar with these). Getting back to biographies though, even for those individuals where the lowercase form of a name is much more mainstream (such as bell hooks and e e cummings), those articles still tend to find themselves in a constant tug-of-war, such that pretty much every time I spotcheck them, they appear to be in a different state. So we should proceed slowly and carefully, so that if/when we do move the page, we are confident that something so controversial is going to "stick". We should also stick with the Principle of least astonishment, meaning the form of the name that is going to be the least surprising to a typical non-specialist reader. It is my feeling that at this time, the "Danah Boyd" title better serves our readers, though I fully support the idea of including the lowercase form of her name in the first paragraph of the article, to indicate the subject's preferred version. --Elonka 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

♦ As the person in this discussion who seems to be most strongly in favor of the upper-case styling, I should add that I agree that including the lower-case form very early is highly valuable; currently it's the 5th and 6th words of the article, and I support that. We do not currently say that it's the form she prefers until the 2nd section; I would support making that more prominent.

Should we have a section explaining the controversy, perhaps in comparison to other notable people whose lower-case stylings have gained more traction? Are there people whose lower-case stylings have gained less traction? I'm unsure that this is encyclopedic, but I find it interesting. --R27182818 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

E.E. Cummings has such a section. --ClarkLewis (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Status

Where are we regarding this RfC? -ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality - notable?

♦ A discussion of Boyd's sexuality has appeared:

She has an "attraction to people of different genders," but identifies as queer rather than lesbian or bi. "I very much attribute my comfortableness with my sexuality to the long nights in high school discussing the topic in IRC."

Is this notable; i.e., should it be included in the article? It's not relevant to her role as a professional. I'm having a hard time articulating arguments to keep it, but I feel that there must be some. --R27182818 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem relevant to her work or her notability, and unless there are 3rd party sources that make significant mention of how it is important, it should be removed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed, per both WP:BLP and talkpage consensus. --Elonka 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's very poorly worded and the emphasis is all wrong but it's important to her identity as a researcher and a person. The "attraction to people of different genders" doesn't seem important but the comfort with sexuality attributed to IRC bit is important. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We all have things that are important to our "identity as a...person" (sexuality, favorite flavor of ice cream, etc), but that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. And how is it important to her identity as a researcher? My point is that unless there is indication that her sexuality plays a role in her research (which is why she is notable), it seems spurious to mention. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that it significantly informed her understanding of the use of ICTs and motivated her interest in them. Admittedly, I don't know offhand of any notable interviews, articles, etc. outside of danah's self-published material that makes this connection. I personally believe that the media have totally missed this important and interesting connection but that's beyond the scope of this discussion (and a significant weakness in this particular argument). --ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of notability, I know for a fact ('cause I was a consultant on the project) that danah was a key member of the MacArthur report on teens and the internet that had a major NYTimes article the other day. Alas, only the team leader's name (Mizuki Ito) appeared in print, so we can't know if the NYT has finally decided to recognize danah's lower case name. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another voice heard from in the capitalizing dispute

I started a new section, as the indents were getting to be huge.

I just bought a copy of Structure of Participation in Digital Culture, edited by Joe Karaganis and published by the very prestigious and authoritative Social Science Research Council (2007). "danah boyd", so spelled, has an article in the book. The Table of Contents may be on line with Amazon, if anyone wants to doublecheck. The About the Contributors pp. at the end of the book (p. 252) puts everyone's name in small caps (DANAH BOYD). Make of it what you will, but I vote yet again, to accept the person's legal name and MSM adoption, PITA that it is IMHO, and move on to something else, such as her ideas. She just got hired by Microsoft Research, and their press release also used lower case, so Kill Bill if need be (only a joke). Bellagio99 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

♦ As I've argued above, I don't think that either of these sources is independent; in fact, it appears as if the styling was chosen by Boyd herself. --R27182818 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Per MOS: "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual."

This page and archived prior discussions present numerous reliable sources making use of the lower-case style, in contrast to numerous reliable sources making use of the upper-case style. The orthography preferred by the individual is clearly lower-case. Therefore, maintaining the upper-case usage for this article contradicts MOS' recommendations. While it is of course acceptable to contradict such recommendations from time to time, it is equally obvious that the burden of argument must lie on those who desire the article to contradict MOS (since even mere guidelines should only be contradicted when good reason exists to do so).

Your prior arguments in favor of the upper-case usage have, as far as I can tell, all been rebutted at various points during the length history of discussion, and in some cases your objections are answered by Wikipedia guidelines or policies without need to make further argument (e.g., what happens at the start of a sentence? Existing consensus for topics such as computer programming languages -- where factual correctness demands the lower-casing of certain terms each time they appear -- provides useful guidance, as does existing consensus for the handling of trademarked names such as "iPod", "eBay", etc. which properly begin with a lower-case letter).

Meanwhile, at best, the discussion up until now has been -- from an argumentative standpoint -- essentially a draw, with each side marshalling arguments and neither side particularly willing to concede any ground. It has only been the occasional influx of enough persistent interlocutors on one side or the other which has established a temporary "consensus" (see history of this article for a clue as to how fleeting and how hotly debated that consensus can be). Given that, the logical thing to do seems to be to go with MOS unless and until a strong argument backed by a strong and lasting consensus appears for contradicting MOS.

Of course personally I don't believe an RFC (recommended further up) should be necessary for something as simple as bringing an article into line with MOS (rather, such a thing should be recommended when it is proposed to contradict a guideline), and when prior revisions of MOS were more inclined to the upper-case usage this was often taken to be sufficient reason in itself for maintaining that usage here. But perhaps it's time to have such a discussion, and hear out any new arguments in favor of contradicting MOS. Want to get that started? Ubernostrum (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look at articles at news.google.com, and the predominant use in third-party sources still appears to be a capitalized version.[22] --Elonka 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, from MOS: If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual." Google hit counts for one option or another don't seem to figure into the wording of the guideline (and IIRC, such use of Google as a dispute resolution service is frowned upon here).

Also, you may recall that the first time I got involved in this debate one of the big questions I attempted to raise was what should happen when, as in this case, different reliable sources conflict. The MOS has apparently been updated to offer guidance on precisely this issue, and presumably it reflects the broad consensus of Wikipedia's editors (else it would read differently), so what's the rationale for going against the grain? Ubernostrum (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Assuming the change to the MOS was properly done, it seems that it's time to move this article to remain in accordance with the MOS. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I pointed out that wording from WP:MOS back in November, and since it is still there, presumably that change was "properly done". I fully support moving the article to danah boyd. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the MOS discussions, since I was participating in them. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalization continued.3B which sources and how to decide. However, consensus can change, and it's been over a year since the last time a move was proposed, so it wouldn't hurt to start a new WP:RM discussion and see what other editors think. Personally, I still feel that the Wikipedia title should reflect the usage in the majority of mainstream sources, and that still appears to be uppercase.[23] Wikipedia follows the usage of outside sources, we don't lead them. If it gets to the point where lowercase usage is common, for example see how sources are handling "bell hooks"[24] then it would make sense to move the Danah Boyd article to "danah boyd". But I personally don't think it would be appropriate yet. --Elonka 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While consensus certainly can change, the new MOS wording has stood up (with minor typographical/grammatical changes) for at least a few months now, which seems like an indicator that the consensus for the current guideline is currently stable. Which brings me back to my original point earlier today, which is that it feels like the burden is now on supporters of the upper-case usage to provide strong arguments for an exception to following the MOS here, rather simply continuing with the inertia of a now-outdated version of the guideline (just as, once upon a time, the burden was on supporters of the lower-case usage to provide adequate rationale for an exception to the older wording of the MOS).

Also, I can't help feeling that you're trying to have it both ways: when your opinion on this article and the MOS guideline were in agreement, you were happy to declare consensus behind the guideline. But now that your opinion and the MOS guideline are no longer in agreement, suddenly we hear that consensus can change and we should be wary ;) Ubernostrum (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to move an article, it is necessary to show that there is a clear consensus to accomplish the move. See WP:RM. --Elonka 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So like I originally asked: someone feel like starting the formalities so we can see what happens? Ubernostrum (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this, and I think it's an interesting case - we don't have the overwhelming usage of bell hooks, and we don't have the "actually, he didn't" solution we do with E. E. Cummings. A couple of short pieces that might be of interest are here (which references Wikipedia) on the philosophical basis, and here, a polemic for capitalising. Both from Language Log. Shimgray | talk | 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)