Talk:Touré/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Touré. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A source?

Howdy all, how's this as a reliable web source: http://www.bigcitypix.com/toure-biography-reality-show-host-writer-journalist-critic-television, from the media production company for his reality show I’ll Try Anything Once. It has both his birth year and, though it doesn't mention his surname, does have:

Toure is his real name, the name his mother gave him when he was born, the name his parents consciously chose for him. The last name was something that came along automatically, like fries with a burger. It wasn’t something that meant anything to him. Where other people have stories from grandpa or great-grandpa that make family history come alive, his father’s father passed away before his father was born, a symbol of how the link with history was broken. And plus, Toure is a last name in Africa. They laughed at him there – Silly American. Toure ain’t no first name. It’s kinda like an African named Kennedy. But in the one-namedness there’s a reference to the dislocation implicit in the African-American family name and a reach back to the unknown last names of Africa.

Coupled with the sources for the last name? Comments? TuckerResearch (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's perfect, we can include his full name, but then explain why he doesn't use it anymore. That's the whole point, isn't it? Then there isn't any issue, since we're explaining his stance on it. Silver seren^C 05:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say it's perfect, too. Provided the source passes muster, we can use it to explain why his entry does not list a surname. J N 466 13:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I say coupled with the several sources for his legal surname, we give his full name once and explain why he goes by a mononym. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I say that since it doesn't seem to be widely published by reliable sources and he doesn't wish to have it included here, we follow policy and leave it out. Having said that, there is currently an RfC to find consensus for this very question, so it really doesn't matter at this point what either of us think individually. Please let the RfC reach a conclusion before making suggestions that presuppose one outcome or the other. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Might I reiterate that policy doesn't SAY anything, it can't be "follow[ed]" as if it was a mathematical equation. It must be interpreted, and your interpretation is that the policy says keep it out; others interpret the policy as saying let the article have his name. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is simple - there is an RfC to find consensus on that very question. It is not helpful to have these types of discussion while the RfC is in progress, particularly if they could be taken as alternatives to finding that consensus. Let people have their say. 18:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'm asking what people think of this source, I don't think I should have to wait till the end of the RFC. Where's that rule? Less discussion because other discussions are going on? Please. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are making a suggestion about presupposes the outcome of the RfC. If the outcome of the RfC is that the surname is included, then I like your suggestion. But until the RfC is complete, the changes you propose are not going to happen. There really is no need to be belligerent or assume that people are trying to put something over on you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for you to be belligerent and tell people what can and can't be discussed. This is not a separate issue, I'm asking for comments about a source that may impinge on the current discussion. You're basically asking that I shutup for now. I find that disrespectful. Separately, I like that you think if the surname is included this is good to add too, but I also think it is good to add even if the outcome is to keep the surname off. People are going to come to this page looking for his surname. I think we should have it, he has voluntarily made himself a public figure (not like, say, Star Wars Kid); if not, we should at least explain why it isn't there. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect: please stop attacking one of Wikipedia’s most respected and experienced editors. Delicious carbuncle’s replies to you were polite and factual to a fault. What you are trying to do – linking unrelated sources – would amount to original research, and that is something we don’t do here. See WP:NOR. Please read the entire Rfc – both Guettarda and Fnordware explained this in more detail earlier. Now, I’ve had a look at your user page, where you state that you’re a Christian. Could you please tell me how you reconcile your Christian values with trying to promote a decision that would inflict pain on a fellow human being? Draco^E 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The irony of Draco saying that Tucker is attacking DC and then Draco going on to attack Tucker's religious values. Silver seren^C 21:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking a polite question does not constitute an attack. Do you consider your comments helpful to this discussion? Given that you declare yourself both a gay man and a furry on your user page, I would have expected you of all people to empathize with a subject who also happens to belong to a minority. A minority very much underrepresented among WP's editors. So while we're at it, and without any hint of irony - could you please explain to me why you want to force Touré's slave name on him? Draco^E 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to force the last name on him, I want to document that this is the name that he has moved away from, that he has rejected and this is why. The point of a biography is to explain someone's life, their full life. This includes the name that he has done away with. True rejection of something would not be trying to bury it, but to be able to look at it out in the open and say that that's not me. That's just my opinion, though. In terms of actual Wikipedia policy, if Toure hasn't legally changed his name, then it's not really something we can leave out, because it is of specific relevance to him as the subject. I'm perfectly fine with not putting it in the lede though and instead putting in a section that says the name and explains why he doesn't use it anymore, per the source Tucker found above. Silver seren^C 22:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Silver, for your kind and considerate reply. Your argument makes sense to me to a point. I’ve had a look at the source provided by User:Tuckerresearch, and it doesn’t mention Touré's last name. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we have any reliable secondary sources that mention whether Touré has legally changed his last name or not. Thank you also for not getting upset with me for having had a look at your user page. I didn’t know much about furry fandom before, but I’m intrigued, and willing to learn more. Best wishes – Draco^E 07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:DracoEssentialis, your comments to me are, in my opinion, absolutely reprehensible, and your arguments supine.

"With all due respect: please stop attacking one of Wikipedia’s most respected and experienced editors." - Are you serious? Are you saying some editors are better than others? That I am not allowed to make an argument or a reply because Delicious carbuncle is somehow better than me? That is, I apologize, an asinine assertion. Asinine. I've been an editor three years longer than User:Delicious carbuncle, does that mean anything? No. You are, in effect, saying that Some animals are more equal than others.

"Delicious carbuncle’s replies to you were polite..." - Was he polite? "What part of let the RfC finish did you not understand?" Is that polite? "You may do better with less attitude." Is that polite? Please point out where I was impolite in my replies? User:Delicious carbuncle told me to stop discussing something because he said so? Is that polite? Does that not bother you in the least?

"Delicious carbuncle’s replies to you were... factual to a fault." - We disagree on this. What I was doing was talking about a source and wondering if it impinges on the ongoing RFC. What is wrong with that? Please point me to the WP that says User:Delicious carbuncle gets to decide what can and can't be discussed because he is a better editor than anyone else because User:DracoEssentialis says he's respected. Please point me to the WP that says discussion about an issue must cease because there's an RFC going on? You can't.

"What you are trying to do –linking unrelated sources – would amount to original research, and that is something we don’t do here. See WP:NOR." - I've been an editor since 2005, what makes you think I don't know what WP:NOR is? What happened to WP:Assume good faith? I don't think this constitutes original research, nor would we be linking anything. One one side are several sources giving his birth name. One another side is a possible source on why he doesn't use that name. Two different things, two different sources. So go on quoting WPs as if they are scripture. It is your interpretation that I'm conducting original research, it's mine that I'm not. Consensus decides. Not you.

"Now, I’ve had a look at your user page, where you state that you’re a Christian. Could you please tell me how you reconcile your Christian values with trying to promote a decision that would inflict pain on a fellow human being?" - This is the oddest thing, and the portion of your reply I find the most reprehensible. What does it matter that I'm a Christian? My Christian values have nothing to do with talking about a fact on a secular encyclopedia. Did you also note on my page that I'm a historian? And I deal with facts? Why not ask how my values as an historian impact my decision to put historical facts on Wikipedia. Your questions to me and User:Silver seren are the very definition of an ad hominem attack. (Look it up.) You are addressing us as people instead of our arguments. It is reprehensible and rude and our personal lives do not impinge on this discussion one bit. You might as well say User:X is a female, so how can you comment on a man's article? Or User:Y is a Caucasian, so how can you comment on an African American's article? Ad hominem. And it's what you are doing. It is not "a polite question"; it is a debating tactic more suitable to elementary school than a Wikipedia talk page.

"...trying to promote a decision that would inflict pain on a fellow human being?" - I am trying to promote the idea that on Wikipedia we should not consider etheric pain when it comes to facts. If Wikipedia makes decisions based not on whether a statement is libelous or may inflict bodily harm, but because someone's feelings may be hurt, we are going down the wrong road. What if Madonna decides her birthdate causes her pain? Or Nolan Ryan his ERA in 1969? (As an aside, I doubt we'd be having this argument if Touré did not use the magic words "slave name.")

Now kindly, please stop referring to my Christianity, as if it mattered; and refrain from telling me I can't make any edits because you and User:Delicious carbuncle are just better and smarter than me. If I am indeed as rude as you say and violating policy, have me blocked. Good luck. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You were linking to a passage from the New Testament earlier in this discussion. That and the information you provide on your user page made me want to understand you better. I was trying to keep an open mind, and I’m sorry if that came across as an attack. My apologies. Draco^E 06:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I accepted this as an apology before, but since your recent ad hominem posts about me, it appears your "apology" was insincere. So I reject it. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tucker, you should be aware that you've blundered into one of Wikipedia's longest running conflicts. Delicious carbuncle, Youreallycan, and JN466 generally like to take stuff out of articles, oppose articles about porn and stuff like that, and have been arguing various flavors of having less information for years. Silver Seren and I tend to argue in favor of keeping everything. The page User talk:Jimbo Wales tends to organize these threads most of the time. Just this last week they were trying to abolish Wikimedia Commons... What people think of the different editors is, shall we say, highly political. I would call this "deletionist versus inclusionist", but some dispute this way of naming the conflict. Let's just say that to some people this kind of courteous removal of useful data seems like second nature, and to others it is just unbelievable. Wnt (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, your statements about me are almost entirely incorrect and it appears that you are deliberately trying to goad someone who is already testing the limits of civility. Nothing will come of this discussion until the RfC is finished, so why don't we all just try not to provoke one another in the meantime? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am "testing the limits of civility" and you are as pure as the wind-driven snow? I'll admit you said it a little more nicely this time, but you are still telling people to stop talking about a subject because you think it's best they do. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed the part where he was testing the limits of civility. I was doing no goading. And I tried to phrase that description above fairly diplomatically - I'm not sure which parts you'd contest. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Locating where Tuckerresearch cited "The Mote and the Beam" above ... someone was testing the limits of civility there, but it wasn't him. Wnt (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Identity

SlimVirgin raises a very important question about identity, above. She compares, soundly I think, the repudiation of a slave name with repudiation of imposed gender identity, and argues we should be respectful of the subject's preference in either case. Though the name has not been widely published, by ~~any~~ one reasonable reading of the term, and so the case for exclusion is strong solely per WP:DOB, I believe SlimVirgin's argument for respect for identity is also strong enough, on its own, to justify exclusion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Though thought-provoking, I don't think a surname equates to gender identity. And I believe the spirit of WP:DOB is to ensure against identity theft (and physical endangerment), not the exclusion of a full, legal name, which is explicitly not one of the things that the WP says to remove upon request. (Maybe that should be changed, but as it currently stands....) TuckerResearch (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

They're not the same, no. They're comparable. If a person has the right to repudiate an imposed gender identity, they have the right to repudiate a slave identity, and we should respect that. Feel free to argue against that proposition, but don't supplant it with a straw man. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think it is a false analogy. (I don't know where I've been constructing straw men.) True, his ancestors were slaves, but I hate to reiterate though that he has yet to change it legally. I worry too that we are giving him special treatment because of white guilt. Primarily, however, I worry about the precedent of a public figure being granted editorial control over his article for psychic pain. The name is out there, it's sourced (the best source by an African American journalist), it goes in, I say. We respect Mr. Touré by the title of the article and referencing him by his mononym almost exclusively. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(I say the two are comparable; you argue they're not equal: straw man argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

Respectfully (and I mean that, as you've been very kind and sober), that's not what a straw man argument is. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your style, too. I was just pointing to the fact that, while SV said they're comparable, you were arguing that they are not equal. I agree they're not equal. They're comparable. That's all. Not a big part of your response, and I should have let it slide. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I get it now. I was using "equal" as a mushy synonym for "comparable." Okay, I don't think they're comparable. It's apples and oranges, I think. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You and I are divided on the value of the feelings of others. I don't know you but, given your attitude towards the feelings of the subject of this article, I expect with a fair degree of certainty that the way a Muslim feels, seeing gratuitous images of Muhammad on Muhammad, doesn't concern you. Would I be right in thinking that you believe it's perfectly OK to put images of Muhammad on Muhammad that add nothing but prettiness to the page and very little of relevance to the article?

That article is a biography of Muhammad. Art history is of virtually no relevance to the article. It occupies one paragraph on depictions of Muhammad, and it didn't have that until I arrived at the article. That's not a bad objective measure of the value, the relative weight due art history in that article. You can comfortably fit one picture into that section.

I care about the feelings of our Muslim readers on two levels. I know a lot of Muslims and I love them. And it hurts me when I see someone deliberately ignoring their sensibility. As though their sensibility with regard to looking at images of their prophet is of lesser value than our sensibility with regard to cunts and cocks. So, I'd rather we didn't do that because it pains me.

The other dimension is strategic. That is, rational. I so love my friends that I want them to learn. I want my Muslim friends to come in and edit that page, if they want to. Or at least want to read it. And while it contains an undue number of figurative depictions of the Prophet, they won't look at it; out of both offense and distaste. And that's bad because I'd like them of all people to read a brilliant, evidence-based encyclopedia article on Muhammad. Sorry for the rant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, I'm sure you are a nice guy, but I think your description of the Muhammad does a good job of summing up how the Wikipedia guidelines are at odds with your desire to consider the feelings of others when editing an article. Wikipedia could have decided to consider those feelings, but instead they decided that Wikipedia shall not be censored. In addition to depictions of Muhammad, Wikipedia also includes pictures of cunts and cocks, as you put them. Some people probably find these images offensive, but Wikipedia's guidelines say that we do not respond to that. You are free to lobby to get the Wikipedia guidelines changed or start your own Wikipedia competitor with different guidelines. On this forum we should be discussing weather including his name would be following the guidelines, not what you'd like the guidelines to be. Fnordware (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with this Wikipedia; I think what I just did was lobbying. As for the relevance of my comment, I'm holding up an example, in a different domain - our readership, as opposed to our subjects - to demonstrate that how we affect others, matters. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As with anything else, Fnordware, there can be such a thing as overcompensation. That's as much to guard against as censorship. If you don't, you end up with an image of an erect penis with psoriasis in the infobox of our article on psoriasis.

I could do the argument all by myself ...

A: "Why are we showing an erect penis in our infobox for the psoriasis article?"

B: "Why not? People do have psoriasis on the penis. It's just a part of their skin like any other ... Wikipedia is not censored."

A: "Which medical or educational site would lead its article on psoriasis with an image of an erect penis? It's grossly undue."

B: "They may be censored, but we are not. And by the way, here is an example of a medical source that shows such an image."

A: "People will be needlessly distracted and offended. They'll consider us a bunch of immature gits, and a significant percentage will just leave the page, not reading what we have to offer."

B: "NOTCENSORED is policy. Viewers' feelings are theirs, and they have to take responsibility for them; we do not and must not consider them in creating an uncensored reference work."

etc. ad nauseam. Cheers, J N 466 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jayen. Thanks for clarifying that, I didn't notice the point about relevance that Fnordware raised by linking to cunt and cock. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I was only refuting Anthonyhcole's argument that we should act on the basis of someone's feelings, I was not necessarily advocating for keeping Touré's birth name in. It would be like someone in your hypothetical conversation leading off with "Can we take down the erect penis with psoriasis? It will offend some people." I might agree with taking it down, just not doing so because of someone's feelings. I only advocate for following Wikipedia guidelines. Fnordware (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that once an editor has inserted the image of a psoriasis-affected erect penis into the article, and you express the view that it is not a suitable lead image for the article on psoriasis, some Wikipedian will tell you that you are only wanting to remove it because you fear that it will offend people. And no matter what you say, they will always come back to that point: that you're really only just wanting to avoid offence, even if you claim to have other valid reasons for preferring another image, and tell you that therefore your wanting to remove the image is against policy. But let's leave that topic. In this present case, WP:BLPPRIVACY, along with the basic presumption in favour of privacy underlying the entire letter and spirit of BLP policy, gives us a solid ground in policy to omit the name. Regards. --J N 466 02:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for dwelling on this, but....Anthonyhcole was saying that the reason he wanted to remove the image/name was to avoid hurting someone's feelings, while your hypothetical person is making a presumption that my motivation for saying that the psoriasis erection be removed is for fear of causing offense. But who cares? This is why we must only debate adherence to the guidelines. Motivation is irrelevant. The former can be judged and regulated, the latter can not. Personally, I don't really care if the subject made edits to their article as long as it maintains its neutral point of view and follows other guidelines. Fnordware (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Fnordware, would you be so kind and read Wikipedia:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy as well? I am afraid you are making a distinction here that is itself at odds with Wikipedia policy. For example, the first paragraph in that section reads, "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Now, if we are talking about preventing victimisation, are we taking the subject's feelings into account, or do we have another reason for wanting to avoid it? We say, "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources." Now why do we restrain ourselves – is it to do with respecting subjects' privacy, because of the feelings a failure to do so would cause them? It could be. But you see, it doesn't really matter. The policy can be understood without raising that question. And nowhere does BLP policy say that biography subjects' feelings are irrelevant; if anything, it tells us to take them into account on matters that could do harm. --J N 466 06:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jayen466, there is a subtle difference. It is not up to the subject to tell us that they are being victimized, but up to us to determine that through consensus. And even then, if the subject is a public figure and the information is widely published (which I don't think is the case for Touré's name), that trumps any victimization. It should not matter if we are contacted by the subject or not. The only place in the guidelines that mentions any input from the subject is when identity theft might be an issue. Fnordware (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Cole, you are right, on Wikipedia I am concerned more with facts than feelings, because feelings are no way to determine facts. You bring up Muhammed. A user above asked if, in deference to Muslims, we should put (PBUH) after every mention of Muhammed's name. Since you want to soothe their feelings, should we? What about the Jesus article that treats him as a historical entity, or a gay man, or that he wasn't resurrected? These are offensive to Christians right? Should we remove the Holocaust article because Germans might feel bad readining it? Turks might feel bad reading about the Armenian genocide. Editing facts to suit a subject's or reader's emotions is a slippery slope (to use an overused cliche). Would we be having this argument if Madonna objected to having her first name on the article? I mean, to use an argument used here, her surname is not important to her notability. Right? (True, the sources are better, but focus on the name.) Would anyone argue her surname shouldn't be listed? No. But then Madonna doesn't have the emotional bludgeon of "slave name" to wield. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. I haven't made myself clear, the problem at Muhammad isn't that we have images that are offensive to Muslims on the article, most editors will live with an image if it adds something significant and very relevant to the topic. Presently there are images in sections that add nothing to the reader's understanding of the section, images that are purely decorative to non-Muslims and purely offensive to Muslims. As for Toure, you might be changing my mind on this issue. Or maybe it's sleep deprivation. Good night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Madonna is an excellent example. Not only is she several times more famous than Touré, her surname is indeed widely published. It is included in literally thousands of books [1], quite apart from thousands upon thousands of press articles. That is the relevant difference, not the perceived "emotional bludgeon". --J N 466 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bull. I said not to focus on the sources, focus on the name. What has her surname have to do with her fame? That is the argument being used here. That Touré's surname is irrelevant to his working life and thus this article. Ciccone is irrelevant to her working life, yet her name remains. If Madonna asked her surname to be removed, you'd say no, it's in several sources. Touré asks and you say, "There are no sources, let's take it out." But there are several sources. The true difference? The bludgeon. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference is reasonable expectation of privacy. Madonna is an A-list celebrity; her life story has been told and re-told and analysed and re-analysed; she has had her dad on stage with her, etc. etc. It's all out there. Not so here. And I would do the same for a Caucasian who felt embarrassed over their as yet generally unknown middle names Otto and Heliogabalus. --J N 466 02:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A person can call themselves by whatever fancyful name they want, and change it week-to-week if they want, and could claim they were born on Mars if they wanted to disavow their Earth heritage or the actions of its inhabitants. Wikipedia articles are meant to be factual and useful to readers - that requires being accurate about basic facts like birth name and place of birth if such information is known through credible sources. Articles are do not exist to cater to the personal whims and fancies of the subjects of the articles, any more than they exist to read as glossy advertising platforms for the subjects. Meowy 02:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, BLP policy requires us to edit conservatively, with a basic presumption in favour of the subject's privacy. If something is not widely published in the public domain, then it is not Wikipedia's job to put it there against the subject's expressed wishes. You may dislike that principle, but it is policy. --J N 466 02:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere does WP:BLP or WP:DOB say that someone's sourced and legal surname should be removed because his feelings are hurt. Nowhere. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY says, "people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". Yes, this case is relatively unusual in that the discarded name is not a middle name but a surname, but the fact is that almost all sources, including the university at which he teaches, respect his private choice. J N 466 03:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN, since you always seem to forget, WP:Date of Birth begins "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern..." and "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth..." NOTHING ABOUT A FULL, LEGAL NAME! Come on! Stop selectively quoting a WP about identity theft and saying it applies to claimed emotional pain. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't list all the possible gratuitously hurtful and insensitive things we should avoid. We have policies like WP:BLP that guide us in our judgment. This is a unique privacy issue requiring, as with most editorial decisions, human judgment guided by our policies and our sources. Both point to us leaving out the slave name. Some voters above disagree, but most of their arguments don't address WP:BLP, the policy in play here. Even a simplistic headcount, leaving aside the obvious socks, demonstrates no consensus for inclusion. We err on the side of respect for the BLP subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I dispute the contention that a surname is gratuitous. And nowhere is "hurtful" alone a guide on WP:BLP, but libelously hurtful, that's another matter. I also disagree with your contention that the "voters" didn't address WP:BLP, as many, me included, have mentioned it and pointed out that we believe it does not apply. I could say, and have, that the omit voters only point to hurt emotions, a polite request, and a misreading of a section of WP:BLP about identity theft. Again, the pro-omitters consistently use "slave name," which I thinks underscores that they are letting emotions guide their thoughts. Honestly ask yourself, if Touré was French and simply said "I don't use my last name," would we allow him to self-censor his own article? I think not. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, BLP's must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. The subject would like to keep his surname as private as possible. We do as he asks. What's the problem with that? You can say, "Where will it end? We'll be deleting Charlie Manson's murders next." But that slippery slope argument is invalid. Exercising judgment in the former doesn't mean we'll throw judgment out the window in the latter. Judgment involves not rotely doing the same thing regardless of circumstance.

You assert that our only concern for privacy is when a breach of privacy would be libelous or risk identity theft. Who says? What makes you think our only reason for regarding the subject's privacy is concern for us being sued? My concern for our subjects' privacy stems partly from fear of doing quantifiable harm to the subject but also concern for the less easily quantifiable but very real hurt we may cause such as embarrassment, humiliation, insult, etc. You'll need to support your assertion that the only concern of the drafters of WP:BLP was for libel and identity theft.

Wrt slave name; Touré isn't French and he didn't say "I don't use my last name." He gave a very reasonable rationale for preferring to leave out his surname. You seem to think there is some equivalence between repudiating a slave name and every or any other reason for dropping a surname. Don't you think it's reasonable for him to simply repudiate his slave name? I do. I'm happy to respect that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say a regular surname and a "slave name" were the same. I asked if you would respect anyone' else's request to remove their surname if they didn't use the magic words slave name? And of course I understand his decision to repudiate his legal surname in general use, what I don't respect is his attempt to censor what an encyclopedia says factually about him.

PS - WP:BLP was written in response to the Wikipedia biography controversy, about unfactual, libelous information, not hurt feelings. And please, anybody, point out where WP:BLP explicitly says a public figure's legal full name is to be removed because he claims emotional distress. It is nowhere, yet you all claim WP:BLP! Privacy! Emotions! Nowhere does WP:BLP currently say sourced full names of public figures should be modified at a polite disclosure of emotional pain. Nowhere. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Our policies do not spell out precise behaviour in every possible circumstance. Our publishing his surname is, obviously, an invasion of his privacy. It appears on a handful of web pages, none of them the subject's doing, none of them top Google results. BLP policy commands us to edit conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you admit that WP:BLP does not address a full name. :-) But you want to extend the spirit of "privacy" to a public figure's sourced surname. Yet we have a WP, WP:FULLNAME, which DOES EXPLICITLY STATE: "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." But you wish us to ignore that. When someone says: "We have his name," you say, "It's not sourced." When someone says: "Here's some sources," you say, "They're not widely published." When someone says: "Well, Huffington Post is often used as a reliable source on Wikipedia," you say, "Well, he's well known as Touré." When someone says, "But we have this sourced fact, and other mononymed people have their full name listed," you say, "WP:DOB says he can request its removal." Someone says: "WP:DOB refers to identity theft and explicitly does not mention full name removal." You then say, "Well, it causes him pain! Slave name! Slave name! Are you uncaring? Compare him to a transgendered person or a rape victim. Slave name! Have you no heart? Are you a racist!" WP:BLP does not say a person can request a sourced surname be removed from his article because it causes him emotional pain; WP:FULLNAME does say as an encyclopedia we should start the article with a full name. Let's stick to policy and not bend to the will of a public figure who wants editorial control over what facts are dispensed in his article. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, WP:FULLNAME is not a policy. It is a style guideline. WP:BLP is a policy and I believe it applies here. I'm completely dispassionate about this issue. I have not used and would not use the phrase "slave name". You might wish to review your last comment and ask yourself if you are trying to reach consensus here or simply shouting at your fellow editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, I assume you're using "you" in the plural because I never said most of what you attribute to "you."

DC, I'm sure his summary of the argument is exactly as it appears to Tuckerresearch, who's been reasonable, civil and a pleasure to argue with. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole, I want to say thank you for your reply. I was on the verge of giving a snarky, venom-laden "shout" to this editor who thinks because I disagree with him I must be shouting. Thank you for restoring my faith in Wiki-etiquette. And yes, the "you" is a collective you for the omit side of the debate, not you specifically. (And, as a reply to DC, I see little difference between a guideline and a policy.) TuckerResearch (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FULLNAME is just a guideline. In fact, there is a banner on the WP:FULLNAME page that reminds the reader to "[u]se common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."

I have not used the term "slave name." My argument is not motivated by "white guilt." If Touré were French, had chosen to dissociate himself from his surname, had never been notable under his full name (which was not published widely in RS anyway), and had requested that WP not include his birth surname in his WP entry, I would still lean in that case as in this toward omitting the surname out of respect for his privacy. Dezastru (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dezastru, I could quote WP:Ignore all rules too. (Has anyone ever thought of the fascinating conundrum of applying WP:Ignore all rules to WP:Ignore all rules?)

But really, if Cherilyn Sarkisian (not a "slave name"), if Cherilyn Sarkisian chose to disassociate herself from her surname, since she was never notable under it, and despite the sources, if she requested that Wikipedia not include her surname, would you respect her privacy and remove it? TuckerResearch (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The hypothetical you suggest is not comparable. The name Cherilyn Sarkisian has been widely published as a matter of course in mainstream authoritative sources for three or more decades. The performer who formerly was known by that name even includes that information on her own website. If she were to request that WP exclude the information from her WP entry, the request should certainly not be ignored or dismissed out of hand, but she would need to put forth an exceptional reason for making the request for WP to accede, as the question of protecting her privacy would be largely moot. Dezastru (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about sources. We have sources for Mr. Touré's name too. (Though I recognize the crux of your argument is we have no good ones, others argue something else.) If she repudiated her name, and since it isn't associated with her fame, we should accede to her request, you say, if she "put forth an exceptional reason," to use your words. An exceptional reason like... saying it's a slave name and stoking the fires of political correctness? TuckerResearch (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May I? Political correctness implies something about it being unnecessary for us to take account of the feelings of black people or that, because the subject is a black American, I would treat his request differently than a similar request coming from another race. The first (disregard suffering if it's reported by blacks) is racism. The second (I would treat a black American differently than a white) implies racism in me. If you briefly look at my contributions to the discussion here you'll see that I place an article subject's distress above us retaining relatively unimportant information in the case of white Englishmen too. These are roughly equivalent cases, where both subjects are claiming distress, and the keep argument is to either belittle any possible hurt we may be causing or declare that we don't weigh subject distress when making editorial decisions. So, my response to this case is not racist, but your repeated use of "political correctness" makes me wonder about what's motivating your response. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, what would constitute an exceptional reason would vary from case to case. If, for example, a subject of a WP article had learned that the person from whom he or she had assumed the name had committed unspeakably horrific acts (had tortured and raped the subject's mother, had sexually abused the subject's siblings, etc), the thought of which was extremely painful for the subject, and the subject had not been notable under that name, it would be reasonable for WP to strongly consider acceding to a request from the subject to not use the name to which he or she objected. This is not about race or political correctness. It is about treating others as you would want to be treated yourself (or as you would want your loved ones to be treated). Dezastru (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole, I am not accusing you of racism nor is my refusal to take Touré's claimed pain into account racism. (I am implying that some people are perhaps over-sensitive to being accused of being racist, and letting that drive their decision to give Mr. Touré editorial control nobody else has.) The case you pointed me to, Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), I would have voted to keep his article, disregarding his race and his "pain" from cyber-bullying. Frankly, I don't give a damn what race anyone is (and I worry you think I would, or that my wish to have Mr. Touré's legal name is indicative of any sort of racism). I do worry that some editors, in their rush to judgment here, are worried about political correctness and basing their judgement on emotion. Aside from the "not widely sourced argument," the main motivation for removal is "the subject's pain because of a slave name." Throwing around, as most editors have done, the words "slave name" evokes strong emotions about the past. My motivations, now by you, have been called into question: How dare I disregard someone's pain?!?! (The implication is that I am a racist if I want to keep the "slave name.") The fact I'm a Christian was attacked. Other editors, and now User:Dezastru just above, have asked me emotion-laden hypotheticals about rape and torture, as if my case for retention is tantamount to supporting rape and torture and pain. My contention has always been that if this subject did not use the words slave name (if he did not write directly to Jimbo too) and claim pain, very few would vociferously be advocating removal of the name. It's a sourced fact about a person who has placed himself in the public sphere, there is no WP directly on point concerning removing a full, legal name from such an article, and thus everyone's argument turns to emotion. I don't think emotion should be a rule in editing a fact-based encyclopedia. (And Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) is still here, isn't it?) Take User:Dezastru just above. Apparently I want only to inflict pain on people, and Wikipedia is about the Golden Rule, and if I am for retention of the name, I must be some sort of sadistic monster who doesn't like "my loved ones." Mr. Touré shouldn't get editorial control nobody else gets because he shouts "slave name." I am for a fact-based encyclopedia, not an emotion-based encyclopedia. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Touré isn't shouting. He's made a respectful request. He's not controlling anything, he's asking us to consider his request. You are of the view that repudiating a slave name is trivial and something we should ignore. Thank you for your view. I had no idea you were a Christian until you just pointed it out, I missed the earlier mention. I see you're the kind of "Christian" that advocates killing people. I get it. I see what I'm dealing with here. Have a nice day. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you also note I'm a historian by looking at my user page? (Or that I believe in indiscriminate pillaging and that the metric system is the devil?) Trust me, I know about the history of slavery, race, and its aftermath in the United States. I don't think Mr. Touré's repudiation of his surname is trivial, it's reasonable and I understand it completely. (If you note my first comment on this page, it included the phrase: "In fact, noting why he dropped his surname in the article might initiate the very discussions about history and race that Touré would like to encourage.") What I object to is his intention to make us ignore a fact as if it didn't exist. (Frankly, it bothers the historian in me.) But, I get the feeling you're no longer interested in amicable debate, since you're going to turn all ad hominem. By the tenor of your last two replies it appears you think I'm a racist, a fake Christian, and a murderer. To quote you: I see what I'm dealing with here. Have a nice day. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

True. That was shallow of me and you didn't deserve it. But we're so far apart on some pretty fundamental spectra I don't see any prospect of us aligning here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We are far apart. (And Mr. Touré's request is for control.) TuckerResearch (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You're using "control" in a slack (or deft, I'm not sure) way. Every attempt we make to influence others is an attempt at control. But you're loading the term in this case with something else. It's as if you're saying it's somehow illegitimate for the subject to attempt to influence, openly and respectfully, the content of the article. No one's suggesting we hand over the article to Touré. He's made a request and we're considering it. I'm afraid your response to that, that the very asking is somehow illegitimate, that his mentioning his motivation is purely manipulative, and your coupling this with "political correctness" and "white guilt" takes you into a realm I'm not willing to follow you into. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are correct when you say I find his "very asking" to be "illegitimate." When John Seigenthaler complained that his Wikipedia article falsely claimed that he was a suspect in the Kennedy assassination, to me that was legitimate. Mr. Touré asking us to remove a sourced fact not because it is fiction but because he doesn't like it is, I think, illegitimate. I have no clue what Mr. Touré's motivations are, and I have no reason to doubt his sincere desire to publicly (but not legally) repudiate his surname. (I have never once referenced his works, his politics, or his thoughts on race in the United States.) What I mean when I mention "political correctness" and "white guilt" is that I think many users are advocating the removal of his sourced surname because they want to bend over backwards to not seem racist. For instance, User:DracoEssentialis on this page worries about a "juicy PR disaster" while on Jimbo's talk page she makes the bold claim that: "The current Rfc on whether to retain or omit Touré’s slave name from his BLP is a good example of subtle racism by absence of black WP editors – the majority of the contributors voting Retain are white males who lack the cultural awareness to understand how much distress the mention of a name imposed on his ancestors is causing the subject." How she divined the race and gender of Wikipedia editors she never says, nor does she offer any proof that people who want to have Mr. Touré's surname mentioned briefly on this article don't know or care about the horrors of American slavery. (I have a Ph.D. in history for Pete's sake!) But this is what I want thoughtful users like you, User:Anthonyhcole, to consider. I have no doubt there is not one racist bone in User:DracoEssentialis's body (or your's), but in her headlong rush to prove she and Wikipedia aren't racist, I worry she's imputing racist motives to people like me, and giving Mr. Touré's request too much consideration. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony Thank you for dealing with these ad hominem arguments while I was on a wikibreak. User:Tuckerresearch made this interesting comment about me in the statement above: How she divined the race and gender of Wikipedia editors she never says. I'm sure that you, like most regular en-WP contributors, are familiar with the findings of this survey. Frankly I'm surprised that someone who uses the word 'research' in his user name did not do his homework regarding editor demographics but went straight into snark mode before moving on to speculate on the state of my (and your) body and my motivations for wanting to treat notable BLP subjects with the respect they deserve. User:Tuckerresearch seems to have developed a strange obsession with me, and his behavior is beginning to make me feel very uncomfortable indeed. He even took it upon himself to copy a source from the French Wikipedia into the article on Orlan previously mentioned several times by me on this talk page without researching the quality of the source he copied. Would you be willing to assist me in resolving this matter on here, or do you think I should attempt dispute resolution at WP:Wikiquette assistance? I should mention that I brought User:Tuckerresearch's cavalier attitude towards BLPs to the attention of the editing community here. Thank you very much. Draco^E 10:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How very petty and condescending, User:DracoEssentialis, in essence tattling on me to Jimbo and going against an RfC. Seriously? You accuse me of ad hominem when I pointed out elsewhere on this page that this is exactly what you engage in, not I. Asking me about about my Christianity, asking User:Silver_seren about his sexuality, etc. Perhaps you should read Ad hominem before you accuse others of it. I'm quite good at "research" (I suppose you don't think what you did there was an insult—while you're accusing me of being insulting!), but just because a survey shows many editors might be white males doesn't mean you can declare that every editor to this page is a white male. That's a logical fallacy (like your ad hominems). For instance, if a poll says 60% of people in Mobile, Alabama, are Republicans doesn't necessarily mean that six out of the first ten people you meet from Mobile are necessarily Republicans. See? Again, you're implying that wanting to have Mr. Touré's surname here I don't respect BLP subjects or people or whatever. I have not developed a "strange obsession with" you. Don't flatter yourself. I suppose you have no gall because, as other editors have noted about your behavior on this page, you have investigated me and other editors quite thoroughly in order to attack them and not their reasoning here. You looked at user pages and investigated past comments and edits of users. Not me. And your protestation that I am "beginning to make [you] feel very uncomfortable indeed" is laughably melodramatic. (I "speculate on the state of my (and your) body" - melodramatic piffle! "Not a ________ bone in his/her body" is a figure of speech! I was complimenting you! But are you implying I am actually obsessed with your physical body? Does that make me a rapist? It's been implied I'm an accessory to rape and slavery on this talk page.) As to the Orlan article, I looked at the French version and saw a source. I figured if it was good enough for French Wikipedia it should be good enough for English Wikipedia, and, admittedly, I didn't look at it too hard, just enough to see it had the her name. (French is only my third-best reading language, and a distant third!) But I only did that in good faith. (Remember WP:Assume good faith?) If it's a bad source, it's a bad source. It had nothing to do with you. Stop being paranoid. As to my "cavalier attitude" to BLPs that you tattled to Jimbo about: knock yourself out. Report me to a Wikiquette committee. I stand by everything I've ever edited on Wikipedia. And I think User:Anthonyhcole is a fair enough guy to recognize that despite our heated discussions here, and a slip or two on both of our sides perhaps, I'm not a horrible editor, or the devilish monster you're portraying me to be. Please stop attacking me because I disagree with you and the RfC didn't go your way. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My whole reason for being a Wikipedia editor, my humanity, my scholarship, et cetera all being questioned here and elsewhere by User:DracoEssentialis, which has poisoned my love for Wikipedia. Apparently users who disagree with User:DracoEssentialis are unfit to edit Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Some animals are more equal than others. I look forward to reading Dracopedia, the "encyclopedia written by people who are better than you." So, I am done feeding this particularly troll. I will no longer be commenting on this page or replying to her pontifical palaver. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I do understand the overcompensation that some bleeding hearts indulge in; and do think it can weirdly and counter-productively distort public policy and even one-on-one relations. I take issue with your assertion that it is at play here, though. I see no sign of it. Really, we're back where we ended a few paragraphs up. On policy, I assert WP:BLP demands we respect the subject's privacy here, you disagree - we'll see what the closing admin thinks. As JN466 pointed out above, that's the crucial question here.

But underlying this nit pickery over policy is a chasm between us on whether the feelings of others should have any influence on editorial choices. You're going to view any instance of us allowing the feelings of a subject to influence content as an overreaction, pusillanimity, political correctness, white guilt, whatever. I believe there are cases where the best choice is to take account of the subject's distress. This isn't the forum for that meta-discussion; I shouldn't have dragged it in here. Though that discussion will have to be had somewhere, sometime. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with much of your analysis. I don't want to open the Pandora's Box of feelings as an editing guideline. Pandora's Box by Aerosmith, however, I'll open that one... TuckerResearch (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am tempted to say that slavery does involve identity theft ;), but of course that's not the usual meaning of those words. The principle is the same though: it is not a widely publicised name, and inclusion or exclusion falls under the general presumption in favour of privacy that underlies BLP policy. There is a whole section devoted to that principle, of which BLPPRIVACY is only one part: Wikipedia:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. Recommended reading. --J N 466 04:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite familiar with it. Read it. Nowhere does it say that someone's sourced and legal surname should be removed because his feelings are hurt. Nowhere. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Tucker, you didn't agree with the transgender analogy, so here's another one (this one is made up, but entirely possible).

Imagine we are writing the biography of a woman who was raped in a country where women are expected to marry their rapists. She did this as required, and took his surname. Later in her life, she moves to a country that does not embrace this ideology, and there she becomes known again by her birth name, and she starts a successful business and becomes notable enough for a WP BLP. She never mentions her ex-husband's surname (or even his existence), she doesn't want to be associated with it, not even to reject it in public. She wants no part of it.

Now imagine that someone accessed her private documents without her consent, and a blogger posted that she used to be known as Mrs X, her husband's surname. The overwhelming majority of sources ignore that intrusion. And she writes to Wikipedia, asking that we not repeat it because it causes her such distress, and she was never notable under the name X anyway. If it were up to you alone, would you refuse that request? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my! Are we going to come up with soppy, dramatic appeals to emotion now to try and make a point? Rape? Evil bloggers accessing "private documents"? The whole silly analogy you're trying to draw falls down flat anyway. No evil blogger broke into Touré's mother's safe deposit box to get his birth certificate. A surname is not a rapist. I mean really!

Still, do you want my answer? Yes. (Yes I would refuse your hypothetical case and Touré's.) Because this is an encyclopedia and Touré has chosen to be a public figure. His surname is in several sources (and HuffPo is used as a source in several places on Wikipedia) and any objective fact-based source that knows this fact would put it in there. Again, we respect Touré by titling it "Touré," but we shouldn't bow to emotion and removed his sourced surname. That's giving him editorial control over his article. (Editorial control we give to no other public figure.) TuckerResearch (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The analogy holds up well, I think. He was born with a name that belonged to someone who "owned" his ancestors. This is a very weird situation to be in, one that requires some empathy so that those of us who weren't born into that situation can imagine the implications of it. I can well imagine that having a name attached to you by a slave owner or rapist (an act that says "Now you are mine, whether you want that or not") -- someone who had caused you or your family great pain -- would be a source of continual distress, and perhaps a feeling every time you heard it of being undermined.

We don't have to agree with him; we don't have to say "I would do the same." We only have to place ourselves in his shoes so that we can empathize. He not only rejects the name; he wants it to attach itself to him no further. And this is where Wikipedia's role is important. The key questions for us are therefore: was he notable under the previous name, and what do the preponderance of reliable sources do? And the answers to those questions are "no," and "they call him Touré". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a valid analogy. It's plain silly, melodramatic, and emotional. But to use it. Your mythical woman had a rape mythically perpetrated against her; Touré was factually never enslaved. (Nor any of his ancestors at least 105 years before his birth, assuming his ancestors weren't free blacks.) Nor am I a tucker. Almost nobody picks their surname. Again, empathy is not how we should edit a fact-based encyclopedia; and a person who has chosen to be a public figure doesn't get to edit what sourced facts get put in an article because he uses the magic words "slave name." TuckerResearch (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen calls empathy the word's most precious commodity. BLPs written without empathy would cause a lot of harm. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Now an appeal to authority? Sergeant Joe Friday said "Just the facts, ma'am." BLPs written with libelous facts would cause a lot of harm. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just the notable facts, Mr Tucker, the ones that are prominent in the sources we are reflecting. --J N 466 04:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This thread is addressing the argument that emotion should be our guide. Whether the sources are notable and widely published is another matter we're not discussing here. (I say HuffPo is used as a source elsewhere, you say it is not weighty enough. We disagree.) TuckerResearch (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Emotion always guides us, because we can't switch it off. Your posts seem quite emotional to me. But I am talking about empathy (which is not the same thing as emotion in general, and nor is it sympathy). It's the ability to see the world from the point of view of someone else, and that's an important ability, because without it it's harder to understand opposing arguments. So some more empathy applied to this situation wouldn't hurt, not because it would increase emotional involvement (desire states), but because it would enhance cognition (belief states). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not unaware of the difference between emotion and empathy, but you are asking Wikipedia to remove facts by empathizing with the emotions of an article's subject. (Of course "emotion always guides us," we're human beings, but we shouldn't let emotions rule over us.) TuckerResearch (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your last point, but nor should we act without empathy entirely. Balance is needed -- some empathy so that we fully understand the opposite position (not just the emotions, the whole position), then a look to see what the reliable sources have chosen to do. They are in the same position as us, making the same editorial decisions, and they have decided for the most part not to introduce a rejected surname.

We are not the Encyclopaedia Britannica. We are a website that calls itself an encyclopaedia, but which also requires its editors to follow the preponderance of secondary sources (a rule Britannica doesn't have). So, bit of empathy + following what most of the sources do = leaving the name out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point that a bit of empathy is needed. Which is why we respect Mr. Touré's wishes and not title the article "Touré Neblett" and refer to him as "Neblett" throughout. But as an encyclopedia, we are not the same as the New York Times or other outlets. We add a sourced fact, irrespective of the subject's emotions. We should not do for Mr. Touré what we do for nobody else. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is not called Touré because of empathy, but because that's the name he's known by (per Madonna, just a matter of policy). If you agree that a bit of empathy is required, where would you say it has made itself known? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We empathize by not starting the article: "Touré Neblett, better known as Touré..." but "Touré (born Touré Neblett)..." (The difference between Madonna's and Eminem's ledes.) TuckerResearch (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. You agree that a bit of empathy is needed. And the one area where we have shown it (not including the surname) is the area you want to change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood your point. You believe we're showing empathy already if we agree to move the surname from one part of the first sentence to another part of the same sentence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I believe we take empathy (your word) or emotion (my word) too far if we allow it to influence us into letting an article's subject self-censor his article and remove sourced facts. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(It was sleep deprivation, you're not convincing me. SlimVirgin and JN have saved my wavering soul. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

Pity. :-) TuckerResearch (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch writes, "Apparently I want only to inflict pain on people, and Wikipedia is about the Golden Rule, and if I am for retention of the name, I must be some sort of sadistic monster who doesn't like 'my loved ones.' Mr. Touré shouldn't get editorial control nobody else gets because he shouts 'slave name.' I am for a fact-based encyclopedia, not an emotion-based encyclopedia."

No, that is not the point I was trying to communicate. I am not saying that if someone supports inclusion of the full name, he or she must be some sort of sadistic monster. I am arguing that the ranking of priorities he or she is applying is at odds with WP's policy, which is partly based on the principle of not doing harm (Biographies of living persons ["BLP"s] must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's 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 must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment). The process of deciding what constitutes doing harm involves, for all but the most highly-enlightened of us mortals, considering how we ourselves would want to be treated or would want our loved ones treated in a similar situation. I am not arguing that Touré should be given this consideration while no other subject of a WP article should. On the contrary, I am arguing that any subject of a WP article who makes a plea for respect of privacy should be afforded similar consideration. The basis of the plea will understandably vary from case to case, and whether WP agrees to honor the request will vary from case to case.

Tuckerresearch repeatedly insists, "I am for a fact-based encyclopedia, not an emotion-based encyclopedia," without explaining how the particular fact of a not-notable surname of an individual who is notable under a mononym is of such overriding importance to the reader that it must be included in the article. BLP policy clearly states that a subject's feelings be taken into account in writing and maintaining an article about a subject: "The [Wikimedia] Foundation urges ... that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest ... and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect." This is not an either/or (facts vs. feelings) proposition.

And again, WP is not a collection of all possible facts on all possible subjects. The burden of justifying the inclusion of a possibly harmful piece of information in a BLP falls on the editor who would add or restore the information. Why is this non-notable surname of such overriding significance that it absolutely must be included? Dezastru (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dezastru, what do you imply when you say that the Golden Rule should be an editing guideline on Wikipedia? That I should consider how I would want to be treated. That if I inflict pain on Mr. Touré with his surname, it is the same as inflicting pain on myself. Again, you're saying I'm a sado-masochist. This is the problem with letting emotions guide us. Yes, WP:BLP says we should lean towards privacy, but we're not publishing his social security number or even his pet name for his wife. The first violates privacy, the second is irrelevant. At issue here is his surname, given at one point by a colleague, another a press release about his show, etc. For a subject's surname being somehow "unimportant," I believe that User:Nightscream said it best above: "[T]he birth name of a subject is not 'irrelevant' in a biography about them, and to say that it is preposterous. A person's birth name is one of the first things a biography mentions. Pretending it isn't means you have to ignore just about every biography ever written, and the practices of biographical scholarship itself." And, User:Dezastru, you're just plain wrong when you say: "BLP policy clearly states that a subject's feelings be taken into account..." because you proceed to quote a piece that says nothing about feelings, so it most certainly does not "clearly" state what you interpret it to say. (There is a difference.) If the article said "Touré is a poopy-face who is a member of Al-Qaeda and the Republican Party." That would violate WP:BLP. "Touré (born Touré...)" is, as I interpret it, not a violation of WP:BLP. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, you are right: the text I quoted does not explicitly use the word "feelings"; the meaning there that is clear to me may be understood differently by others. Considering someone's human dignity and personal privacy and treating them with kindness mean, for me, considering their feelings. Perhaps others do not share this understanding.

I do think you are missing the point I am trying to make about treating others as one would wish to be treated. To say that inflicting pain on another is the same as inflicting pain on oneself goes, I think, well beyond asking how one would wish oneself to be treated in a particular situation.

To your other point: Do I understand your argument correctly, that a full name (birth name) must be included in a biographical article simply because biographical articles customarily include a full name (birth name)? Dezastru (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dezastru, considering someone's dignity and privacy means not libeling them or publishing their address, etc., it does not mean I consider their "feelings." How do we judge one person's feelings against another's? Rank Mr. Touré's versus anybody else's? What if Touré decided his birthdate caused mental anguish? Should that be removed too? What if Madonna decided her birthdate caused her distress? That in kindergarten she was teased for her middle name and she wants it removed? How do you decide that Touré's pain is acceptable in one case, his name, but not another, his birthdate? That Madonna's pain over her name should be disregarded because there are more sources than Mr. Touré's case? These are the slippery slope problems I foresee if we bow to a request based on "feelings" (and one fraught with issues of political correctness). (And yes they are hypotheticals...) It's a road Wikipedia should not go down.

As to your continued insistence on trying to rephrase your argument based on the Golden Rule, you're still saying in considering Mr. Touré's pain, I should ask what would I do in the same situation, and that if I disregard the pain to myself, I am inflicting the pain on Mr. Touré. You're still saying that by including a brief, encyclopedic, sourced mention of his surname at the beginning of this article, I'm a sadist who inflicts pain (on myself and others). This is another problem when one argues about and from emotion in a fact-based encyclopedia.

Yes, I think WP:FULLNAME suggests we should begin with a full name. That User:Nightscream said it wonderfully when he said above that it is a principle of biographies to begin with full names! There isn't a biography I can think of that doesn't give the full name of a pseudonymous or mononymous subject. When Mr. Touré decided to become a public figure: write stories, pen books, dispense his opinion on television, he willingly became a public figure, which means that he has given up some of his rights in how people perceive him and write about him. Others have referenced his surname. We owe it to interested Wikipedia readers (like me, by the way), who come here to see what his full name was and wonder why he doesn't use it. There is nothing particularly prurient in this. Touré can use whatever name he wants, but he can't dictate (or request, if you want a softer verb) what a free people and a fact-based encyclopedia include in his article. His surname does not, in my opinion, violate WP:BLP. If we posted his address, the school his kids go to, his driver's license number, these are pointless facts that violate privacy and don't belong in an encyclopedia entry. His full, legal name: that's fair game for a public figure. Distress or not. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a biography that you can think of that doesn't give the full name of a pseudonymous or mononymous subject. Well, can you think of any biography of a pseudonymous or mononymous subject, written when the subject was still active as a public figure, who maintained a concerted effort to conceal their full legal name from widespread dissemination because the association with that name was painful or harmful to them?

I agree that all biographies should include the subject's full name when that name is widely notable and there is no issue of public dissemination of that name causing the subject harm. But if the publication of that full name could cause harm, then the mere fact that biographies conventionally include the full name of their subjects is not sufficient to automatically override the concern of the harm that might attend inclusion of the full name. Dezastru (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that if someday somebody was to write a biography of Mr. Touré, that the biographer wouldn't give his full, current name at the beginning of it? And I dispute that mentioning his surname briefly and encyclopedically at the beginning of his article is the type of "harm" that WP:BLP was meant to address. Slave name or no. Nor do I think Touré should be able to request its removal. This is where we diverge. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Analogy to articles about transgendered people: I find it remarkable that the analogy is being made to articles about transgendered people. What is Wikipedia's responsibility in writing such articles? If a man is surgically altered to appear as a woman, do we print that (s)he was born as a woman? That (s)he attended the Peoria Normal School for Girls, and achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in the Girl Scouts? That's an absurd and untrustworthy way to run an encyclopedia. Sure, you could delete all that information -- in which case you're saying, you won't write a real biography about transgendered people lest you offend them. Which is not much more reputable.; I would suggest that the essay cited (not a guideline, as noted in the text, despite the title), Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines, errs by suggesting that we treat information differently based on its origin rather than its sources, namely, "In cases where the prior name of a gender variant person is only known as the result of an outing, the prior likely should be left out of the article unless widely reported in reliable sources." The degree of reporting in reliable sources required should be the same relatively high BLP standard regardless of how the information first came to light.; Wikipedia is already making an emphatic application of the literal principle verifiability not truth when use pronouns for transgendered people in accordance with the simulated gender. We are scientific people, we know about chromosomes and transcription factors... we could readily argue that the 'truth' of the matter disagrees with common usage. In the end, however, we find that the only way to run the encyclopedia free of endless theoretical disputes is to stick strictly to the sources and follow their concept of sex or gender. This lesson should extend to everything we do - it is no more appropriate be making editor-initiated "ethics" decisions than editor-initiated philosophical distinctions. What the reliable sources write, we should print. Wnt (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Result was Retain

The result if the RfC was Retain yet User:DracoEssentialis removed it arguing WP:RS, despite the fact that this was addressed in the section that Admin Beeblebrox closed. I have restored the one, encyclopedic, fleeting mention of the Mr. Touré's surname with all the sources adduced. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole Sorry to disagree with you here, but a press release is not a WP:RS. I will therefore remove the name from the article, and I respectfully suggest keeping it out until we have a truly reliable source for it. The personal opinion of the administrator who closed the Rfc should not encourage us to use poor-quality sources. Draco^E 06:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Huffington Post article is perfectly reliable and more than enough to reference his name. If you wish to have more, there is a list of sources here higher up on the talk page. Silver seren^C 07:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not an article but a blog post. Thus not a reliable source. See Guettarda's earlier observation. BTW, I look forward to your answer to my question. Draco^E 10:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DracoEssentialis, please stop disregarding the results of the RfC. TuckerResearch (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Blog posts means nothing in regards to reliability. For example, see WP:NEWSBLOG. To be more specific, what you mean by your comment is that a number of articles on Huffington are user-generated. However, that means the reliability of an article depends on who's writing the piece. And, i'm sorry to say, Miles Marshall Lewis is perfectly reliable for the article, if not the perfect person to write such an article, being a culture critic. Silver seren^C 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here, here! TuckerResearch (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing unsourced claim

I guess this is a bad time to bring up the fact that his birth name is still incorrect on the article page? His birth name did not include an accent over the e at the end of his first name. I guess we'll have that fight another day, but for now it is great to see that Wikipedia has regained a modicum of credibility by finally listing the birth name of an article subject as they have done in every other biographical article I have read. I must say also that it is really distressing to see all the racial stuff in this thread. I don't know why race had to be brought into this. His birth name should be here because this is an encyclopedia. Race should not enter into this discussion and I'm sorry that it did. Anyway, the accent deal is minor I guess so we'll argue about that another time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.228.128.44 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Career

The career section isn't very clear; can someone clarify what happened after he was fired (unsourced).842U (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I added sources and material to that section. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Controversies

After the great concern of so many editors in sparing Mr Neblett's feelings, I find it odd that there is nothing in the entry about any of the recent controversies he has been involved in (such as the affair of teh fake cousin, the dispute with the Romney campaign, or his subsequent dismissal by MSNBC). What gives?Emory1989 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, do you have any sources? If you do, update the page yourself with sources. Or if you have the sources but don't want to edit the page, put your sources here. I think maybe a line or two should be put in about the Romney-Obama-N-word-zation comment, but I have no clue what you're talking about with a "fake cousin," and I haven't seen any actual source about his job at MSNBC, which I think is just blog rumor. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

An IP left a very similar feedback comment. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link about the cousin:http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2010/03/toure-s-cousin-responsible-for-every-bad-thing-ever/20125/ Thriley (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

More: http://gawker.com/5482474/the-mysterious-case-of-toure-praising-raped-slaves-for-seducing-massa Thriley (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe this cousin bit deserves one sentence? It's not really that important but it's a bit of pop culture I guess. Frame it, put it in, cite it, there you go. I think the ni****ization thing deserves two sentences too. Still no sources on his supposed dismissal from MSNBC. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I added two sentences on the ni****ization controversy and got a fairly NPOV, solid source to stick in there, to avoid any controversy. I also added a bib. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Recommend this article for deletion

This is clearly a self-serving article by this 'Toure' person or his publicist. It's locked to prevent anyone from interfering with his self-promotion.

The person in discussion is hardly worth any mention. He vanity published a couple books that you can't read anymore. He's been fired from some television shows that no one watched.

Thoughts on this? If this person deserves his own article, then I can't think of anyone in the world who doesn't deserve his own article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gufmaster (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The test for whether a subject merits a Wikipedia article is WP:Notability. The information in the article meets that criterion, and was not written by Touré or his representatives. Indeed, the scrutiny to which this article was subject by editors during the protracted discussion in April and May of this year (which are located in the archives) over whether to include his birth surname in the article would seem to preclude the deleterious effects of any conflicts of interest.

As for the article protection, I protected it because of vandalism, and not to prevent editing of it by legitimate editors. I would suggest that you not attack other editors ad hominem by making such false accusations, as this violates Wikipedia's policies of Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks.

Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not a fan of Mr. Touré's politics, writings, or, from what I've seen and read, him as a person, but as a Wikipedia editor, I'm bound to be neutral and give the guy a fair shake. So I am stunned by the bile spat at this guy by editors like the User:Gufmaster, et. al. For the record:

"This is clearly a self-serving article by this 'Toure' person or his publicist." - Um, no, look at the archives. He has no control over this article. We went against his express wishes on his surname. (And I was for putting his surname in the article.)
"It's locked to prevent anyone from interfering with his self-promotion." - As Mr. Nightscream says, it's protected to keep vandals from mucking with the page.
"The person in discussion is hardly worth any mention." - No, he's a notable person by all the rules.
"He vanity published a couple books that you can't read anymore." - Um, you can buy all his books on Amazon and you obviously don't know what a vanity press is, since Picador, Back Bay Books, and Free Press are hardly vanity publishers.
"He's been fired from some television shows that no one watched." - No. He's still on The Cycle, I saw him the other day, and he's still on the show's website. (Though I'll agree it's a pretty lousy show!)

So, stop the invective, do some research, and make the article better, don't denigrate the guy. Whatever we think of him. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, would be quite a trick to make the article better while it's locked out for editing for the next year, wouldn't it be?

Based on Nightscream's somewhat predictable overreaction that this is an attack on him as an editor, and not precisely what it is, being a summation of a self-serving article on 'Toure', I have to say that it furthers and not denigrates my point.

I'd be willing to wager that if I put this article up for deletion, more people will agree than oppose it. However, if you'd like to improve the article (those of you whom Nightscream find worthy, I welcome you to do so. Specifically, I'd say you should allow pertinant and articulate criticism of the subject which describes and typifies Toure's particular vernacular. Gufmaster (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Gufmaster:

"Well, would be quite a trick to make the article better while it's locked out..." - It is very easy to become an autoconfirmed user, look here: Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi. Or you could suggest an edit on this talkpage. But nothing you've suggested thus far is constructive and most of it palpably untrue. What exactly do you want us to add to the article? This? "User:Gufmaster says, despite the evidence, that Touré got fired from a show he's actually still on." Give me a break.
"Nightscream's somewhat predictable overreaction." - Nowhere did he overreact.
"...a self-serving article on 'Toure'" - It's a neutral article on Touré. If it was self-serving, he would have gotten his way and his surname wouldn't be on the article. (Look at the battle royale on the archived talkpages.)
"I have to say that it furthers and not denigrates my point." - So far your point has been that we should put demonstrable falsehoods into the article. Good point.
"if you'd like to improve the article... I welcome you to do so." - I have. I added a mention of his deplorable "niggerization" comment, for instance. But this is Wikipedia, not my blog, I can't say: "Touré is a jerkface and hack for calling Romney a racist without any evidence."
"I'd be willing to wager that if I put this article up for deletion, more people will agree than oppose it." - Ha! Go here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, suggest it. Good luck.
"...you should allow pertinant [sic] and articulate criticism of the subject which describes and typifies Toure's particular vernacular." - Find a solid secondary source criticizing Touré and suggest it here or add it. But this article is not meant to be merely a rant about Touré.

So, suggest something constructive instead of telling me and User:Nightscream that we are PR hacks for Touré (which, as a conservative, makes me laugh). TuckerResearch (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Based on Nightscream's somewhat predictable overreaction that this is an attack on him as an editor, and not precisely what it is, being a summation of a self-serving article on 'Toure'...."

You indeed attacked me when you falsely accused me of protecting the article in order to prevent critical editing of the article. The article was protected due to vandalism, which is documented in the article's edit history. Nothing prevents editors with username accounts like yourself from editing the article, and indeed, the article does contain some critical material on Touré, and more may be added if you can find encyclopedic material that is supported by reliable sources that can be cited in the article. Again, the long debate we had earlier this year over whether to include his surname in the article (in which I argued that we should include it--against Touré's wishes no less) disproves your rants about both my motives in particular and those of the editing community in general with regard to this article.

The problem isn't that you can't add material or that you can't nominate it for deletion, since you're more than able to do both of those things. The problem is that you have come to Wikipedia with a clear agenda, a lousy attitude, and disregard not only for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but for the rest of the editing community here, a point illustrated by the fact that in the 15 months you've been here, the seven edits you've made to Wikipedia consist of the following:

A set of two personal POV comments you added to the Simon Schama article
A single edit each to your user page and talk page
The three edits you made to this talk page.

If you want to add well-written, sourced, critical material here, then do so, since nothing is stopping you, and you haven't demonstrated otherwise. If you want to simply cause trouble, then go elsewhere for your Web hobbies, and take your whiny, contentious attitude with you. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Nightscream (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)