Jump to content

Talk:Will.i.am/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Palisades Charter School or Palisades High School?

Is it Palisades Charter School or Palisades High School? I think there's only the charter school in Los Angeles Aznfurball 07:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nearly this entire article has been ripped from the Will.I.am fansite listed on the page. please make sure this is not blatent plagiarism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.180.174 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2006‎ (UTC)

Feat. vocals

Since some user decided to just blank the list with no reason, let's at the very least move this here for now.

--Thunderbird L17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.33.72 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel this should be put back in the article. The user who removed it didn't give a reason, and this is the only edit he's ever made. And it's a good list. Sweetie Petie 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Will.i.am (musician) or Will.i.am

Can we please make a decision what the title of the article will be, without the constant changing back and forth. --Zimbabweed 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be named "will.i.am". Due to technical restrictions, the closest name is Will.i.am. There is no reason to add "(musician)" since there is nobody else called "will.i.am" and likely never will be. I'm moving it back to Will.i.am. Mike Dillon 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 Requested move

Will.i.am (musician) → Will.i.am … Rationale: Unique spelling; no need to disambiguate with "(musician)". --Mike Dillon 22:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Aww, I don't understand! Will.i.am is killa. - Gabbeh

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I Love my B****

Does he RAP or SING on this Busta Rhymes track? I thought he was the guy singin'... JamRoc 02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Jamil

Whether he raps or sings is pretty irrelevant. The important thing is that he is a guest vocalist on the track. But as aside, his only part in the song is the pre-chorus verse ("My baby never lets me down, that's why I never let it go..." and so forth).109.255.137.187 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He sings, because Busta Rhymes can't sing as he is too fat. 87.254.67.181 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Collaborations and others songs

I have put the most complete list of will.i.am collaborations and others songs.

I think that list is the best, because is the most complete and the most appropiate:

  • Sergio Mendes - That Heat (feat. will.i.am & Erykah Badu)
  • Sergio Mendes - Let Me (feat. will.i.am & Jill Scott)
  • Sergio Mendes - The Frog (feat. will.i.am & Q-Tip)
  • Sergio Mendes - Loose Ends (feat. Justin Timberlake, Pharoahe Monch & will.i.am)
  • Sergio Mendes – Surfboard (feat. will.i.am)
  • Sergio Mendes - Yes Yes Ya'll (feat. Black Thought, Chali 2na, Debi Nova & will.i.am)
  • will.i.am - Don't Call Me Toby
  • will.i.am - Tell Of Tales (Tell Me You Need It Again)
  • will.i.am - Secrets (Dexter's Laboratory soundtrack)
  • will.i.am & Fergie – True
  • Sly & the Family Stone - Dance To The Music (feat. will.i.am)
  • Santana - I Am Somebody (feat. will.i.am )
  • Shaggy - Shut Up And Dance (feat. will.i.am)
  • Burning Star - On My Own (feat. will.i.am)
  • Destiny's Child - I Know (feat. will.i.am)
  • Earth, Wind & Fire - Lovely People (feat. will.i.am)
  • Long Beach Dub Allstars - Sunny Hours (feat. will.i.am)
  • Mary J. Blige - About You (feat. will.i.am)
  • Mary J. Blige, Sting & will.i.am- Whenever I Say Your Name
  • Pussycat Dolls – Beep (feat. will.i.am)
  • Saian Supa Crew - La Patte (feat. will.i.am)
  • Uncle Charlie Wilson, Justin Timberlake & will.i.am - Floatin'
  • Sting - Stolen Car (feat. will.i.am)
  • Kelis - Weekend (feat. will.i.am)
  • Kelis - What's The Right There (feat. will.i.am)
  • Kelis - Till Them Wheels Fall Off
  • Kelis - Fuck Them Bitche's (Hidden Track)
  • Busta Rhymes - I Love My B*** (feat. Kelis & will.i.am)
  • Justin Timberlake - Damn Girl (feat. will.i.am)
  • Marcelo D2 - CB Sangue Bom (feat. will.i.am) (acoustic MTV)
  • Ozomatli - Vocal Artillery (feat. will.i.am, Kanetic Source & Medusa)
  • Rolling Stones – Rains Fall Down (Remix feat. will.i.am)
  • Bob Marley and Wailers - Africa Unit (feat. will.i.am)
  • DMC feat. Sarah McLachlan - Just Like Me (will.i.am mix)
  • Too $hort - Keep Bouncin (feat. Snoop Dogg, will.i.am. & Fergie)
  • Fergie - Fergalicious (feat. will.i.am)
  • Fergie - All That I Got(The Make Up Song)(feat. will.i.am)
  • Fergie - Here I Come (feat. will.i.am)
  • Ciara - Do It (feat. will.i.am)
  • The Game - Compton (feat. will.i.am)

BUT PLEASE, DON'T ADD MUSIC PRODUCED BY HIM, because we should include 10000 songs more! and THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.55.33 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2006‎ (UTC)

  • Eazy-E - Merry Muthph****n Christmas (feat. Will.i.am)
  • Blood of Abraham - N****z & Jewz (feat. Will.i.am)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.233.178 (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Steve Aoki - I'm in the House (ft. Zuper Blahq)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Killanator (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson The King

Hes producing albums and working with King Micael Jackson and its not even been named on this article, does anyone feel guilty for this lack of knowledge? ~ Gaogier (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if you feel guilty for calling him "King Michael Jackson". Barf!!! DFS (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bio needs rewrite

The intro to the *Personal Life* section of the bio as of rev 190415406 10Feb08 was:

"The possible connection with the Black Eyed Peas' vocalist is through the Peas' producer Sergio Mendes, a jazz aficionado who saw Coltrane play in the early 60s."

The description of jazz legend Mendes is laughable, and the Coltrane reference no longer makes sense, ever since a preceding sentence containing a reference to him was removed by Grover cleveland in version 189033718.

And what's the whole sentence even doing here, anyway? This whole section badly needs a rewrite. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

William James Adams, Jr. (born March 15, 1975) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.189.56 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Career?

Why isn't there a career section? Like it says active since 1989 but there's nothing mentioned before 2001?!?!?!?!?!?! 86.45.200.40 (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of his music at all really. Odd. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be rewritten. There is almost no focus on his musical career! It's nice that he's also a fashion designer and political activist, but the vast majority of the content should revolve around his Will's music. It barely even mentions the fact that he's a member of the Black Eyed Peas. StanHater (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Barely even mentions? It either mentions it or it doesn't, you can't 'barely mention' something. Jabberwockgee (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong pictures

Obviously, someone butchered the pictures in this article. - 12 January 09 @ 4:50 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.171.51 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

All the early life section says is where he was born! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.136.150 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I at least edited the sentence (wasn't logged in) - this really needs further writing, or it should be removed as a separate section IMKatgrrl (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion of where he meet apl.de.ap it says they met at Palsades high school. In Apl.de.ap's page it says they met at John Marshall High School. Can anyone get a source that's correct for this, or did they actually meet each other while attending both high schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.133.74 (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Philanthropist?

The intro to an article should be a summary of the main points in the article. Either a new section should be written outlining in detail the great extent of this man's philanthropy, or it should be removed from the intro.

Philanthropy is conventially known as the dedication of substantial time, money or skill to recognized social needs, not-for-profit organizations or charities. Although many people may disagree with me, I don't consider that the US Democratic Party belongs any of these groups. I'm pretty sure that when most people think of philanthropy, they think of an incomprehensibly rich person giving an incomprehensible amount of money to a hospital, or setting up a charity to help homeless people; they dont think of every famous person who has ever supported a political party - even if it is the Democrats.

As far as I can tell from the article, the only thing possibly pertaining to charity was the donation of one song to a compilation album for charity. Come on now. His marketing manager might call that philanthropy, most commentators would just as likely call it publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.60.45 (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He started several charities. I am home fund.org and also a scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.250.98 (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

May 21st 2012 Will.I.Am Ran in the Olympic Torch Relay in Taunton, Somerset — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.199.30 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Zuper Blahq

I am adding zuper blahq to the associated acts. It is one of his side projects, its on dim mak and so far hes got one pretty popular track with steve aoki(Steve Aoki ft. Zuper Blahq - I'm in the House), it has about 25k views on youtube in the past few weeks. I don't have time to make an article for zuper blahq right now, I might get around to it though.

75.111.37.124 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: heres a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uhSCcxF7Gc

and another useful link: http://elbo.ws/artist/zuper-blahq-williams-side-project/

Ok this is same ip just logged in now and i made the section

Killanator (talk)

I put that section back in but removed the bit about his album, new video, and keyboards on im in miami bitch as there weren't any citations about it. I doubt the miami part is true at all but i will look around for info about that album later. Any removals or unconstructive edits to the zuper blahq sections I will undo. Killanator (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wolverine?

Not trying to point fingers, but why is there no mention made of his role as John Wraith in X-Men Origins: Wolverine? *EDIT* - looks like IP vandalism. I've restored the section. --Teancum (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Name punctuation

Does anyone know why he uses periods in his stage name, instead of the more correct hyphens? That might be worth mentioning in the article. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In such an exercise of artistic license as he's employed in his stage name, there isn't really any correct or incorrect format.
--K10wnsta (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, this can also be discussed without needing a Requested Move discussion as the mediawiki software doesn't handle lowercase in the pagetitle. Taelus (Talk) 23:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

will.i.am → Will.i.am — Proposing that the "Lowercase title" template used on this article be removed, and tht capatalisation of his stage name within this article be accordingly modified. Please see his official website and external sources including the BBC, the Toronto Sun, the Press Association and the Associated Press. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concerning Fly Girl and Michael Jackson

Someone added a citation needed mark on my edit about the song Fly Girl. Here is a video proving that it was for Michael (this is possibly an early version of the song) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8niFZ_Rus

And if you see on the tracklist for Songs About Girls you see Fly Girl. The chords are the same for both songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.154.183 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this video doesn't prove anything. Maybe Will.i.am just wanted him to hear the melody of the song and he played it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakor (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Filipino?

Will.i.am says in his song Someday (Album: The Beginning), "I came here from the Phillipines with big big dreams." --24.222.82.111 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of lowercase

I noticed there's an inconsistency between using lowercase and capitalization for his stage name 'will.i.am.' Has some consensus been reached for lowercase in the past? I'm assuming the rational is based on the stylization. What exactly is the encyclopedic relevance? Imperatore (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • WP:MOSCAPS is quite clear that lower case is acceptable here : "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." MrMarmite (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and dignity

This page was obviously vandalized to try and attempt to regain some dignity for william. 86.131.143.135 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC) tmc

Vandalism

Some idiot vandalised Wil.i.am's wikipedia article, could someone restore it? 79.194.92.183 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Cleanup-biography" Template

I added the "Cleanup-biography" template because this biography very awkwardly jumps suddenly from 1991 to 2004. In fact, there is one reference to 2004, and another brief reference to will-i-am's clothing line, but the rest of the bio is focused exclusively on pre->1991 and then 2007->after. This is an especially noteworthy omission considering that will-i-am's rise to fame, and the majority of his professional success took place during that 1991-2007 period. It's as if someone were to write an article on Vivien Leigh and skipped over the period from Gone With The Wind to A Streetcar Named Desire.

I hope that someone will add to the biography and cover the 1991-2007 period. I can't do the edits myself because, unfortunately, I am far from an authority on will-i-am. Thanks a lot. - KevinScott71 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential accuracy issues.

Thought I'd mention it here, but Will.i.am tweeted that he noticed some issues with his Wikipedia article. He stated "Just read my wikipedia page...wow they are so wrong on so many things...like my name, where I'm born, album release info, nick names #wrong "

See https://twitter.com/#!/iamwill/status/161998696039456768. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it and see what I can do, but I've placed an accuracy tag on the article for the time being. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 06:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the citation for where he was born/raised (BiggestStars.com) doesn't seem to have that information. At least not the detail "Estrada Courts housing projects of Boyle Heights" CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

He even said on Facebook "on wiki everythings wrong" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.186.148 (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

About accuracy issues

After reviewing Will.i.am page i made some modifications, but i couldn't do anything more complete because i didn't find truthful references. I expect to find what i need soon, but i don't want to speculate with the information shown on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarceCancino (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Will 1X (Infobox - also known as)

In the prose of this article (1988–2000: Formations and The Black Eyed Peas) and other articles about his early work, he originally credited himself as Will 1X, however not listed in his infobox under also known as. Will add Dohertyben (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

the oldest living man ever, at 1 million years old?

According to this news story, will.i.am was not pleased with this edit, describing him as "DJ, producer and oldest living man ever". This was reverted after seven minutes today. Mr. Adams seems take a keen interest in his BLP, and has mentioned the incident on Twitter.--'''''♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this was mentioned in the reasons for requesting protection. I think will.i.am was brought to the edit by this tweet, as will.i.am re-tweeted it in his Twitter feed before making his own posts on the subject. At any rate, I protected the article, and I think that was the right course of action to take given the recent vandalism. Acalamari 17:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Style Correction

This sentence makes little sense: "As a “director of creative innovation”, will.i.am is responsible to improve the sales in the company."

should be: "As a “director of creative innovation”, will.i.am is responsible for improving company sales."

Please could someone change this? Thanks Duncan Fermor (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, also removed a dead link.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Info!

Will.iam is now a T.V judge on The Voice UK

Please Update, Also please take note of Wiki's Copyright Violation

81.156143.115 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He is referred to as voice coach in the WP:LEAD, and in various sourcing, eg here from the BBC. Not sure what is meant by the copyright violation, this would need to be more specific.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Will.i.am

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Will.i.am's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Breakup":

  • From The Black Eyed Peas: "Black Eyed Peas Take Indefinite Break". MTV UK. July 9, 2011. Retrieved July 9, 2011.
  • From Apl.de.ap: "Black Eyed Peas Take Indefinite Break". MTV UK. July 9, 2011. Retrieved July 9, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[[[Zuper Blaquh]]]

Should there be a seperate article for [[[Zuper Blaquh]]], he's will.i.am's alter ego and he is a completely different style, mind you there isn't a separate article for Slim Shady is there? 87.254.67.181 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ACTUALLY THERE IS! 87.254.67.181 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Intro too long

The intro to this article is far too long, and also contains paragraphs that are far too long. Ben Finn (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The intro should establish notability. At the moment it is a confused mix of disparate info and trivial tangents. Ashmoo (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, is the factual accuracy of this article still disputed

Or do we no longer run the risk of provoking further angry tweets by removing the tag? Ilov90210 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

Please insert that the group initially included background singer Kim Hill who was replaced with Fergie in the sentence, "He came to prominence in the late 1990s as a member of the hip hop group The Black Eyed Peas. The group initially consisted of rappers will.i.am, apl.de.ap, and Taboo, and later added singer Fergie." t 75.82.108.239 (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012 regarding Kim Hill

"The group initially consisted of rappers will.i.am, apl.de.ap, and Taboo, and later added singer Fergie." Please replace with "The group initially consisted of rappers will.i.am, apl.de.ap, Taboo, and singer Kim Hill (soul musician) who was later replaced by singer Fergie." 75.82.108.239 (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction of naming error

Yesterday, I was speaking at Clinton Global Initiative in New York. Backstage, I ran into Will.i.am, whom I had met once before at a Clinton event in New York. He's a big fan of Wikipedia, and quite a geeky guy. He told me that he and his friends like to have "search parties" where they sit around on their laptops and google for random facts. That's irrelevant to what I'm saying here, but I thought people might find it interesting.

He told me a story that he'd heard that his Wikipedia entry once had him as one million years old for a minute or two. But then he went on to explain that we also have his name wrong. He explained a bit about his life story - nothing that isn't already covered in reliable sources. He was born in the ghetto (his words) and his biological father was long since gone when he was born. He never met his father. He was not named after his father, and if I understood him correctly, his name on his birth certificate is not "William James Adams, Jr." nor is that what it says on his driver's license. (He was reaching for his wallet to show me, but I said that would not be necessary!) The error started, I believe, when the press found out that his father was "William James Adams" and they made assumptions which were then repeated multiple times.

This part is relevant as well: he says that the name "William James Adams, Jr" is hurtful to his mother. This is therefore a BLP issue. We must not repeat errors which are causing hurt to people. The point is that she did not name him after his biological father, and the suggestion that she did gives a false impression of what their relationship was like at the time.

Finally, our only source for this at the present time is a casually written blog post. I'll be removing that reference in a moment.

This provides a good opportunity for some philosophical reflection on the now-discredited dogma of "verifiability, not truth". While there is much of value in that phrase, and verifiability remains critically important, it has been recognized for some time now that there are cases in which the consensus of thoughtful editors can come to the conclusion that reliable sources to date are wrong. This does not mean that anyone can put anything they want in Wikipedia at any time! This does not mean that "Jimbo has a special status and can put anything he wants in Wikipedia at any time". But it does mean that we can find situations in which trusted, long term editing colleagues realize that there is a significant error in reliable sources, and set the record straight.

Such situations can always be challenged on the basis of further investigation into the facts. We should be thoughtful and respectful when we receive a complaint from the subject of a biography, and we should tend to believe them - particularly about uncontroversial details. But this does not mean that they have the absolute last word. Perhaps someone who cares enough could source his original birth certificate, or find some other evidence that he's ever used the name "William James Adams, Jr" in any official or unofficial context. But lacking that (which I think is going to be the case), we should appreciate that he's a better source, and that I'm one of many trusted editors who can be listened to about a situation like this, and we can improve Wikipedia by having it reflect the facts of reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have readded the full name. I have replaced the blog source with two rather solid-looking sources. Are they correct and Will.i.Am incorrect? I have no way of knowing this. Perhaps he is right or perhaps his real full name is hurtful to his mother, or ... What a person tells about himself is not always the truth, and we have no way of checking it. We rely on what reliable independent sources note. Perhaps the article can be somewhat rewritten to incorporate his claims/complaint (genre "X is his name in reliable sources (cite 1, cite 2), but will.i.am states that his name actually is Y (cite ?)"). Fram (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Fram, I am trying to be sympathic and understand your position. Are you saying that if he blogged or tweeted this, you would still reject it, on the grounds that "What a person tells about himself is not always the truth"? That's a rather stronger claim than merely wishing that we had a print source for this. And a rather bizarre position, I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
If he had blogged or something similar, we would include both positions, like I suggested at the end of the post above yours. We don't decide whichever is right, but we don't simply believe people on their say-so (or we certainly shouldn't be doing this). This flies right into our core policies and the fundamentals of our sourcing and verification policies. Of course, if all sources bar one would give name X and one source gave name Y, we wouldn't need to include them both, we can use editorial judgment. But editorial judgment is not the same as blindly accepting the word of a subject of an article on what is true and what isn't. Fram (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will.i.am&diff=514483524&oldid=514482584 Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I'd accept an official birth certificate, if it's really that important to someone, but until then the subject's word for his name is a more reliable source than those that were cited. (The media do get stuff like this wrong all the time; just look at the current coverage on Wikipedia. Let's have some common sense here: not everything that appears in print is gospel.) JN466 13:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we want Wikipedia to write biographies, or "authorized" biographies? This is not the way we shouid be heading at all. Fram (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
We want Wikipedia to write good, high quality biographies. We should use thoughtful editorial judgment to write the best possible biography, and one of the things that implies is that we should not insert falsehoods into articles. Please don't do it again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I have not done such thing, I can't do it "again". Please refrain from making personal attacks. Fram (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And I have re-readded it: it was removed with the reason "exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and these sources do not meet that standard. A birth certificate will do in this case, nowt else.": however, a full name, reported by multiple solid reliable sources, is not an "exceptional claim": the exceptional claim is that the reliable independent sources are wrong, and that is the part that needs stronger evidence than a second-hand report from a reliable Wikipedian. Fram (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Re , it is an exceptional claim to claim that someone would not know his correct name, or would lie about it, without having evidence to back that up. It is not an exceptional claim to say that the media got it wrong; precedents abound. --''JN466 13:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying that he doesn't know his name or is lying about it; I am saying that we don't know, and we should follow the reliable secondary sources, not the primary sources, in case of doubt. Yes, they may well be wrong: but the opposite happens often enough as well, e.g. actresses claiming a different birth year than their actual one. People are not necessarily trustworthy when it comes to personal information (without claiming that this is necessarily the case here). Fram (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
God help us if Jimbo had tea with the Tichborne claimant.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you are able to see and understand the obvious dissimilarities. Will.i.am is not claiming to have inherited a baronetcy and there have been no court cases to establish whether or not his middle name is "James". If you can find a court case to that effect, then I will be happy to thoughtfully consider the possibility that he lied to me. But you and I both know that isn't the case, and that your comparison is unpersuasive in the extreme.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Surely you are capable of understanding an analogy. I gave an example of a situation where someone lied (almost certainly) about his identity, and you come back with the fact that Mr. .iam is not seeking a baronetcy and the matter has not been settled in court? People lie about their histories, their pasts, and their sex lives, as well as just about anything else of a personal nature. I doubt this dispute will stay out of the article. More than likely there will be comments in print (or pixels) comparing this to Roth. If Mr. .iam had simply tweeted at your suggestion, we would have taken his word for it, this would not have been controversial, and the article would have been free of comments doubting his name. I wonder if the solid references that print his name that others have mentioned were hurtful to his mother, and if so, what, if anything, he did about it. We await, with bated breath, the next celebrity to approach you and say "You know, my Wikipedia article says I was in rehab, that wasn't true at all. The twelve references--jealousy, that's all I can think of. Can you do something about it?" The proper rendition of names is relatively unimportant, but there's a larger principle at stake: Don't hand down content on stone tablets.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This is now a BLP matter, and in BLP matters, disputed info stays out until there is a consensus to include it. --JN466 13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is of course that what Jimbo Wales (and others following his lead) did, blatantly violates WP:BLP. To use that same policy to defend these actions is rather bizarre. The current page violates Wikipedia:No original research (e.g. [[Wp:PRIMARY: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."). What else does WP:BLP state: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Such sources are available for the long name, not for the short one. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." The short name is challenged, and no such source is available. An edit like this (especially the note, not the removal of the blog site) is a much worse WP:BLP violation than the edits you object to. Fram (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The note says: "Some sources give "William James Adams, Jr" but this is in error. He was not named after his biological father, whom he never met." In what way is that a BLP violation? It is exactly true and exactly what he told me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
You are adding "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Such material should be removed from BLPs immediately. Fram (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Arrant nonsense. I removed questionably sourced information that we have been credibly assured is in error, and is doing harm. You don't need a source to remove poorly sourced information. (We currently have lots of sources saying that Roger Bamkin was a Wikipedian in Residence and/or chair of WMUK until last week. Neither is true. We are not building an alternative universe here.) On top of it, the name as it is now is neither wrong, nor unsourced: there are dozens of sources out there saying he was born William Adams, more than say anything else. If you're going to tell a man what his name is, over his objections, you had better have a cast-iron source, don't you think? Otherwise you come across rather badly. --JN466 15:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Way forward

Perhaps the article can be somewhat rewritten to incorporate his claims/complaint (genre "His full name is often given as X (cite 1, cite 2), but will.i.am states that his name actually is Y (cite ?)"). Fram (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less what I attempted to do in the footnote. This question does not seem significant enough in his life story to warrant discussion in the article, but it is a service to the reader to both acknowledge what older and incorrect sources say, and explain that they are wrong. Those in the camp of believing that he may have been lying to me may not be satisfied with any formulation that doesn't vaguely imply that we don't believe him, but I think that's not the right answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law, this sets a very bad precedent. The way this should be fixed is: will.i.am should publish something convincing on some sort of media he unequivocally controls (maybe a scan of his driver's license with unnecessary parts redacted uploaded to a page on his personal website), and we can update the article referencing it per WP:SELFSOURCE. Zad68 14:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking a note: " It has been reported by ___ and ___ that the will.i.ams name is _____ or ____, but in a conversation with Jimmy Wales addressing this article the singer said ______ [diff to the first comment above]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem with such a note, I think. We don't explain that the sources are wrong, we present the two different versions and let people make their own judgment, per WP:NPOV. Fram (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we can uncontroversially note that the sources are wrong. A failure to do so would be incomplete.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Uncontroversially? Then why do we have this discussion and the article reverts and so on? Why do you want to impose one version of the truth here, instead of abiding by our policies? Fram (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
We could if we have a source to cite that directly says the sources are wrong; we can't if we don't have a source to cite that says they are wrong and we have to make clear why we are accepting that source -- using the name in the article with a note does all that. This is still a tertiary source, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


(Copoypaste from Jimbo talk page) Is there a reason why a [note 1] cannot be added to the will.i.am article referencing the source(s) and the Jimbo talk page comment explaining the discrepancy. This is the service wiki readers' need: 'this is what this source writes and this is what that source says.' In that way, it's at least clear, whose word we have taken, and why, and from what source. Without a note, the reader is left with 'but I read somewhere that his name is ____ this says ____, what do they base that on?' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That can be done, but I would suggest, that as there is an ongoing conversation at the article talk, to discuss that there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This is basically what I suggested here at the end of my comment: "Perhaps the article can be somewhat rewritten to incorporate his claims/complaint (genre "X is his name in reliable sources (cite 1, cite 2), but will.i.am states that his name actually is Y (cite ?)")." Fram (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Be bold. The reader is better of with all the truth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
No, don't be bold. The article is fully protected. Get consensus first, then the change can be made.--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(end copy paste) -Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Go with what the man says, until and unless you (or a reporter out there) have incontrovertible proof to the contrary. And note that the majority of sources say exactly what we are saying now, and what he is saying: that he was born William Adams. The information is certainly not wrong, but by trying to make it more complete, you may well make it wrong, as well as hurtful. That is a bad cost-benefit ratio. JN466 16:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
How is more complete information "made wrong"? It's just made more complete. The sources apparently agree on William and Adams and disagree on James and Jr.; so, in a note explain to the reader the sources of the discrepancy and go with the agreement/weight of sources in the article. But just ignoring it does not educate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Some errors are are not worth dignifying with a rebuttal. Again, taking Roger as an example, would you insist on adding to the Gibraltarpedia article that most sources falsely described him as the Wikimedia chair, even though he was only a trustee and had stepped down as chair months ago? I wouldn't. I would describe him as WMUK trustee (and perhaps former chair), but I would not put in a footnote listing all the ways in which he was misdescribed. And that applies generally. In a medicine article e.g. you do not put in all the junk from sources that are wrong (the finding of a cure for cancer has been reported innumerable times in nominally RS), but stick with the authoritative sources. JN466 14:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No. Denials need to be sourced; that's what we are sourceing, here, a denial.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This book is rather authoritative regarding this man. Page 53 is interesting because it introduces him as William Adams. This is from his time in the dance outfit "Tribal Nation" which was before "Atban Klann" and well before "The BEP" 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I am finding some pretty good sources that show will.i.am was referred to as William Adams or Will Adams throughout his early career. After 2005 when Vibe also referenced him as William Adams; there emerged a machination of his name, and it appears WP:RS choose to repeat the incarnation; with consistent pride. Interestingly, This article was written in 2005 and may have spawned the deviation. I will compile a list of sources and a timeline shortly. I am pressed for time this minute, but I think it is prudent to consider these facts. Also look at the publishing credits where Adams was a writer; They are attributed to "Adams, Will" I'm thinking the man was honest with Mr. Wales and to speculate otherwise, in light of wp:rs, is a discredit to anyone who would prefer that he might lie. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
"Machination", "choose to repeat the incarnation with consistent pride": yeah, it's a conspiracy of the NPR, Billboard, the Inquirer, PC World, ... who are all out to harm will.i.am. I would have loved to see the board meetings where this was decided. Fram (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Me too! You can review the minutes however; in Job 1:6-12. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I sincerily hope that was some kind of joke. Fram (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On a scale of 1 to 10 - how critical is this? I have known several people who did not even know the correct actual name on their birth certificate until they were adults. A lot of time, a child with the same first name as his dad gets called "junior" whether the middle names match or not, and, absent any pressing need to prove something, I think that we can use the name the person historically has used as an individual (i.e. not a nom de plume or the like, but one they actually used in real life). If the person only used "William Adams" then that is good enough for me. If he has used the middle name - then that is also ok. "Jr." is not actually a part of most names. Collect (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with Collect. --John (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Collect, too. I'd like to note that my name on my birth certificate is wrong: "Jimmie Donal Wales" it says. None of my other official documents repeats this error. In this case, Mr. Adams does know what his birth certificate says, and it does not say "James" and it does not say "Jr". He's never used the name. It looks like from My76Strat's research that as far as we can tell so far, the error first appeared in 2005 in Vibe, and has been uncritically repeated since then. I hope others will continue such research to see if we can track it down definitively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
"He was born William Adams and was raised single-handedly by his mom, Debra." Fallin' Up: My Story By Taboo page 56 "For their efforts, Goldring, will.i.am (who was William Adams when he attended Palisades High in the early 1990s) and other executive producers ..." Palisadian-Post By Sue Pascoe, Staff Writer 2010-02-25 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That many sources give his birth name as "William Adams" is not evidence that his full name isn't the longer one. You can find the same for many other people using a pseudonym: e.g. Sting (musician), full name "Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner", is often referred to in books as "born Gordon Sumner"or "born Gordon Matthew Sumner"; Bono was born Paul David Hewson; but sources often state that he was born "Paul Hewson". Of course this doesn't prove that the supposed longer version of will.i.am's name is correct; but it shows that sources giving the short version of his name as his birthname are not evidence of the opposite either. Fram (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like you only want to accept sources that give your preferred answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No, you are reading things that aren't there. I just want to point out incorrect logic; that that logic supports your position is a coincidence. Or do you claim that we should remove Sting's and Bono's middle names as well, since reliable sources give a shorter version? Why does the logic counts here, and not in other cases? Fram (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no bias for either version, I just think we need to rest them on sources, that is my objection to Jimbo's actions. Exactly what does the fact that a source does not use a middle name prove? I doubt one in 10,000 news articles refers to "Barack Hussein Obama", unquestionably his full name (except on FoxNews, no doubt!).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
There's an orange in your bushels of apples Wehwalt. I doubt one of the 9,999 articles that might mention Obama without his middle name would in fact publish him as being "born Barack Obama" (including FoxNews, I suspect). The fact is, there are reliable sources that say "will.i.am (born William Adams)". 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You may doubt, but a simple search would show you wrong: this one has "He was born Barack Obama in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961". But of course, we should compare people with pen names, not people generally known by their real name. Fram (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong source for his long name

Please read this, especially the paragraph starting "William Adams and his older brother were raised in the projects by his single-parent mum". It obviously isn't just taken from the Wikipedia article, but seems to be a well-researched article. If so, then it seems to me to be solid evidence (in the Wikipedia - verifiability - tradition) for the long name version. Fram (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That does look like a good source: now we're talking. Perhaps Jimbo could get back to Will.i.am. JN466 14:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That source initially looks good but a closer review shows it contradicts itself; at the bottom the name is presented in "medium form" (with middle name but no Jr.). In many ways it's a perfect source; for it references the name in whichever manner you prefer to cite. I am not convinced a New Zealand paper is more credible than the locally published Palisadian-Post. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
And again I suggest my position is quite tenable - he did not know his "full name", never used his "full name" and if the birth certificate had given him "Addams" as his last name (example), that would still not make it a proper last name on Wikipedia when it was never used as his name. Names are what we use in life, not what a never-seen piece of paper says. where the person specifically states it is not his name as far as he is concerned. My wife has a birth certificate saying her mother was born in South Carolina <g> because someone at a desk never heard of Scotland. So that makes her birth certificate "right"? I had two uncles with identical names on their birth certificates - what am I to make of that? Cheers - this is one case where Will.i.am is correct about his name. Collect (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
re Names are what we use in life, not what a never-seen piece of paper says. - Hear hear! NickCT (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
But the full name has been used in many sources, and the situation around it has been discussed in a reliable source (prior to and independent from the discussion here). It is not as if the birth certificate is an error by a clerk, it is apprently something that happened but that his mother afterwards regretted or wanted to ignore. It's part of his life, and has as such been recorded. That doesn't mean that it has to be the first thing one sees in the article, far from it, but simply acting as if it doesn't exist is not fruitful either, if only because well-meaning editors will inevitably try to add it to the article again. Fram (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep time to add "born William James Adam Jr." to the article. Sorry Jimbo and sorry Will. :( --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That conclusion does not even remotely follow!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like what we should do is this: In the lede of the article we should refer to him as simply "William Adams" with a footnote. The footnote should cite the source that Fram said, explaining the situation. We absolutely should not take the bizarre position that whatever is written on his birth certificate must be his "real" name - if so, you'd better go change my name to "Jimmie Donal Wales" - since that's what my birth certificate says. He goes by "William Adams" professionally, it is what is printed on his driver's license and passport, and he denies the validity of the name. If I understand what he told me - and I have an email in to clarify - his mother left the 'father' section blank on his birth certificate and an assumption was made by someone further along the line. But when I get clarification on the exact circumstances, I'll let you know - although I don't think it has much relevance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a related problem here is Wikipedia's influence. If Wikipedia decides "that must count as his real name", whether because of birth certificate or any other reasons, news sources are going to pick up on it. It is also guaranteed that most of those news sources are going to ignore any nuance involved in Wikipedia's description and treat the name as though it's his real name for all purposes regardless of any details that may make that inappropriate. (In fact there is some sign that that may have already happened.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The linked article is intelligent and well written but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the journalist cribbed "basic" stuff like birth name from us. I'm not saying that is the case here, but we're in danger in becoming a victim of our own success in that the more established and accepted as a credible source we become, the more likely it is that reputable journalists garnish their copy with facts gleaned from us. That be-gets the possibility that the print sources that we use to support our entries effectively become mirrors and a self-reinforcing feedback loop is created. In cases like this it's maybe worth using a primary source to excise potentially erroneous details before they become encased in concrete that we were complicit in mixing. danno_uk 19:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What's in a name?

This might be slightly off point, but reading through this discussion I find myself asking "What is a person's name?". In other words, is your name what people commonly call you? Is your name what's written on your birth certificate (if it is, what happens if you don't have a birth certificate)? Is your name what a majority of reliable sources refer to you as? In asking this question I think back to some discussions that were had over at WP:BLPCAT. Huge fights constantly erupt over what exactly a "Catholic" constitutes, or what exactly "Gay" constitutes. After a while, a I think a lot of folks accepted that there is no ultimate reliable source on determining who these labels apply to. A concept of "self-identification" arose. That is, if John Smith can verifiably be shown to have said "I am Catholic", then John Smith is Catholic, regardless of what other sources might have to say on the matter.

I wonder if we might extend that reasoning to naming. I'd be willing to argue that if I say "May name is Nick", then WP should grant me some deference, and call me Nick.

In other words, I really don't think a birth certificate is an end all and be all. I'd respectfully suggest that those who'd would argue that a person's name is what's on their birth certificate without exception, are legalistic sticklers.

I'd like to see William Adams used here, possibly referencing that to some "self-identification" source. Perhaps we can mention the full name somewhere in the article. Maybe bury it in a note? Would that be a reasonable resolution? NickCT (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Completely ignoring the longer name seems not fruitful (if only because inevitably people will come along and add it to the article in an attempt to be helpful); not mentioning it as the first bold words one encounters when reading the article is the friendly thing to do. Adding a footnote after his name (in the lead, the body, and/or the infobox) indicating that while his full name appears to be X (with the source above), he is usually called and prefers to be called short name Y (with a reference to some sources as well) seems the optimal compromise. Fram (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this, and this has been my essential position all along. A footnote which explains the situation will help readers and potentially helpful editors who think they are correcting a mistake, not realizing that we've analyzed this in great detail. My only caveat is that we should avoid language which privileges what his birth certificate may say in error - i.e. we should not say that his "full name" or "real name" is the longer version. My birth certificate gives my name as "Jimmie Donal Wales" - that's fully and completely in error, it is not my "real name", it is not my "full name" - it is not my name at all. (I am named after my father, whose name is Jimmy as well, not Jimmie. No one in my family ever knew that my birth certificate contains an error until I was an adult. It seems that my story and Mr. Adams story are similar in this respect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't Mr. Adams arguing that he no longer wants the name printed on his b.c.? That's different from a clerical error like your b.c. has, or like on my husband's, which gives his birth date one day off--a simple typo. Yopienso (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Fram and Jimbo, pending any further info. JN466 11:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Great. I can get with that. Is anyone against that resolution? NickCT (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I find it reasonable. But let us make sure that this is open long enough to get everyone's views. Some may be taking the day off for religious reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
re open long enough to get everyone's views - Yeah Ok. Second that. Thinking a bit more technically; re a footnote after his name (in the lead, the body, and/or the infobox) I'd be for putting it in the infobox. What's the actual coding for this? Would it be <ref group="note"> or perhaps {{cite news |quote="xxxx"}}? NickCT (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
100% support William Adams in the lead and a later mention in "Early life" of the long version, with sourcing. Yopienso (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. As I have mentioned the short name in the article, a sourced [note] in the early life is fine. It's just not informative to not mention the discrepency, especially if there is a possibility that the Wiki is the source -- it has to source the denial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to move it down to another section. We can always put it in the parenthesis immediately following the name he traditionally uses i.e. "William Adams (born William James Adams Jr. March 15, 1975), professionally known by his stage name will.i.am, is . . . " since it is a very commonly-noted name in reliable sources, even if he prefers the shorter name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
So far there's one good source for the long name, right? Is that enough? If so, The DA's suggestion is great. Yopienso (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No, there is one good source discussing the name on his birth certificate, and there are many good sources simply using the long name as if it was an established or commonly known fact. It would be strange to find many sources discussing the name on his birth certificate, I was amazed to find even one. Fram (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken. My "birth name" is not "Jimmie Donal Wales" despite the error on my birth certificate. My birth name is "Jimmy Donal Wales" and there was a clerical error which was not discovered until years later. Anyone who thinks we should say this is his "real name" or "birth name" has to grapple with why you wouldn't say the same thing for my name.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice find. From the man himself right there. SilverserenC 22:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah yeah, I think that means either he was lying to the Star, that the Star was mistaken (at about the lawsuit level), or that he was lying to Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
"Such reticence is unusual for the attention-seeking will.i.am, 37, born plain William Adams in one of the poorest parts of Los Angeles." 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I am seeing that as commenting on the fancy punctuation filled name, contrasting with the plain William Adams, not saying that this was his full birth name.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides, I thought we were all saying that it's the subject's statements themselves that are more important? And we have will.i.am stating in the above news source that his name includes James in it. SilverserenC 23:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In fact we have a blog, "the Daily Dish", promising: "Hot celebrity gossip served fresh Monday - Friday"; citing Britain’s "Daily Star". IAW wp:say where you got it, it would be wrong to attribute the quote to will.i.am or even the Daily Star; but instead a "gossip blog". On the other hand, Jimbo's account is properly attributed to will.i.am. Given the choice between a gossip blog or will.i.am's own quote, I still lean towards the primary source. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually trust the veracity of a gossip blog attached to a major news sources quoting an interview from another major news source that corroborates information we have from another major news source over someone saying they were told something different in polite conversation when said conversation is not conceivably available to any of us, unless Jimbo recorded the conversation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I trust a blog enough to seek the major source cited. In this example I have yet to find the Daily Star's account. In keeping with the finest gossip, it is tenable that the hearsay can not be produced; because it may not exist. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you really going with the "link or it didn't happen" argument?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Whoa! I wouldn't say anybody's lying. Did you read the 3rd paragraph of that report? He also rejected the simpler name, "William Adams," and even "William," with "It might say that on the paperwork but that ain’t me." People don't always go by what their birth certificate says, and that's OK. Yopienso (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your view, but I don't see how that article and what Jimbo said .iam said can be reconciled.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't presume maliciousness when mere incompetence will suffice. People make mistakes and I think it is far more conceivable that Jimbo simply misinterpreted or misheard will.i.am, or will.i.am misspoke, as opposed to someone lying. No one honestly believes Obama ever thought there were 57 states, for instance (except maybe when he was like five).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I am seeking clarification for what he meant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest we do the following:

    1. Begin the article as suggested by The Devil's Advocate in his comment of 20:20 on 26 September in the thread just above, "William Adams (born William James Adams Jr. March 15, 1975), professionally known by his stage name will.i.am, is . . . "
    2. Have the birthname field in the infobox say "William James Adams Jr."
    3. Source as appropriate, and have a note explaining the dispute. If the change by Jimbo was picked up by reliable sources, that would be a useful link.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I pointed you to that story yesterday, Silver.
(edit conflict)News report less than 3 hours ago. Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with suggestion. Yopienso (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmmmm.... I don't like it! We started this conversation trying to figure out how to make the full name less obvious. The proposed solution doesn't do that. I'm for "William Adams[1][2][note], professionally known by his stage name will.i.am, is . . . ". Or for simply putting a [note] next to the name in the infobox. NickCT (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
That was my initial thought, too, but I've been convinced a WP BLP can't be owned by the subject. It should respect the subject, which I think this suggestion does. Vital Statistics didn't make a mistake on the original birth certificate; Wm. Jas. Adams, Jr. later changed his name publicly and in practice, but apparently not legally. Yopienso (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. This is standard procedure. See Dale Evans (and click from there to Roy Rogers) or John Wayne or Eminem.
  • I agree with NickCT. The birth name is contested, the sources are split, and we are not obligated to present his so-called "full" birth name. I would even consider using "William "will.i.am" Adams (born March 15, 1975) is a ...". A footnote should be used describing the contention, and an <!-- Appropriate comment --> placed by the name. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Both good points. I withdraw my suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
We actually are obligated to use his full birth name, if we're actually trying to write an encyclopedic biographical article here. SilverserenC 02:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It is only "contested" because Jimbo says will.i.am told him something different. We don't know what will.i.am actually said so we don't know if Jimbo is right or not. The reason "something someone told me" is not taken as a reliable source is because we can't document that in a way where someone could conceivably check its veracity. Unless Jimbo had the foresight to record the conversation or one of you has a time machine we can't go back and find out what really happened. Should there be some additional information that is actually documented then it becomes a different issue, but I don't see how we can honestly act like Jimbo's word that "he really said it" is even remotely equivalent to two documented news reports where one has a quote from will.i.am himself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is safely assumed that will.i.am told Jimbo something resembling this will.i.am tweet. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
He also says we were "so wrong" about nicknames, but as far as I can tell the ones listed at that time all belong to him. It seems he tries to literally mask his connection with one of those nicknames by putting on a ski mask and goggles, but after just a few seconds of listening to the voice of "Zuper Blahq" it was blatantly obvious that it was him and plenty of news sources have already figured that out. Therefore I am calling shenanigans on Mr. Adams. Seems by "wrong" he means "revealing shit I don't want people to know" as opposed to the more common understanding of the term as referring to things that are not true.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I am very much afraid he punked Jimbo, and that wasn't my thought on this at first. But we are required to treat BLP in a respectful way, and I'm somewhat torn.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference, at least in my mind, between being respectful and hiding that which is reported in reliable sources. I agree with Silver above that we are under obligation as an encyclopedia to use the most complete name known and referenced. That such appears to be against the wishes of the subject is unfortunate, but this is not a web host or personal web site. --Nouniquenames 20:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

An important consideration

I appreciate the reasonable efforts put forth by each colleague in this discussion. With uniform candor and faith, the thoughtful discourse above is certainly poised to achieve a best resolution. There is however, an important aside; requiring consideration. In short; I think fully protecting this article was a wrong direction; in shear terms of best practice. Nevertheless, I think it should be modified to semi. I spoke to Floquenbeam and now I ask for a consensus here. Thank you. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Best to first achieve a consensus here, and only then to edit the article again. Otherwise we'll only have a back-and-forth on the article. While I feel that the full name needs somehow to be included, there is no rush, no need to have this done now. A few more hours or days won't do any more harm. Fram (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo has requested, um, clarification from the subject of the article. Let us see what transpires.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that the issue of name presentation is resolved. I simply do not understand why the article should remain fully protected. I have participated in several RfC's where an issue was under discussion yet the article remained unprotected. I see no indication that this article is significantly more vulnerable. Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel like I am blocked from this article to prevent someone else from being blocked; and it doesn't sit well. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't get why it's full protected either. SilverserenC 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's because Müdigkeit reported Jimbo for edit warring. Yopienso (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's protected because people were edit warring about the name. It's fully protected because all the people doing the reverting were autoconfirmed; semi-protection would make no sense. That's actually a pretty common way to handle edit warring by multiple people. If you (My76strat) want to make an edit, you can use {{editrequest}}; you can get agreement from people here that they agree not to mess with the name until there's a consensus for the name, and I'll lift the protection; you can find an admin that disagrees and they can lift the protection whenever; or you can wait until it expires. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    I don't mind waiting three days, I was actually confused by the notice atop the article because it indicates the protection will remain "until disputes have been resolved". My bad. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Solution?

So, we are faced basically with a few choices: either using the long name in the lead and the infobox, or the short name in the lead but the long one in the infobox, or both using the short name. In any case, a note has to be added where the two are given with sources and with the indication that he prefers the short name.

WP:FULLNAME requires the full name to be included in the lead. WP:BLPPRIVACY on the other hand is not really clear for this case. Taking it into consideration, it may be better to leave the name out of the lead, but I can see the merit in arguments for or against both options.

Which solution do people prefer? Fram (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What about starting the article "Will.i.am (aka William Adams) is ..." and then mention the full name and put a footnote on the dispute in the first paragraph of the body. Additionally, simply put his professional name in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer--simply follow one of these precedents:
Marshall Bruce Mathers III (born October 17, 1972),[1] better known by his stage name Eminem (often stylized as EMINƎM) and by his alter ego Slim Shady,
Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone etc.)
Infobox:
Birth name Madonna Louise Ciccone
Also known as
Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone (Catholic Confirmation name)
Esther (Kabbalah name)
Yopienso (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
See the MoS on stage names. Yopienso (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I know the MOS well. I am trying to craft a compromise that avoids saying "his name is" or implying it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Easy: will.i.am (born William Adams) if we don't have RSs for "William James Adams Jr." Yopienso (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we can produce wp:rs for "born William James Adams Jr." but we can also produce wp:rs for "born William Adams", and we have an authentic tweet from will.i.am himself saying William James Adams Jr. is wrong. wp:fullname says to use the full name "if known", but we can not authoritatively say it is known. It is clearly disputed so we should not present it as an absolute form; until it is known. Instead we should be truthful vague; as in:

William Adams, (born March 15, 1975 in East Los Angeles) professionally known as will.i.am is a singer, song writer, and record producer who gained prominence as a founding member of the award wining ensemble, The Black Eyed Peas.

There should be a footnote immediately after William Adams, and an <!-- Internal comment -->. Inside the infobox the birth name parameter should also have an <!-- Internal comment -->. Redirects should be created from William James Adams Jr, William James Adams Jr., William James Adams, William J. Adams Jr., William J Adams Jr, William J Adams, William J. Adams, William Adams Jr, William Adams Jr., and William Adams to prevent any good faith attempts to move the article to any of these titles as well. It should remain this way until and if ever we can definitively state a "known reality". IMO - 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you ignoring the fact that we also have an RS of will.i.am saying that his middle name is James? SilverserenC 23:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. Link the source; but please, don't let it be the author-less "gossip blog" that will never be a reliable source no matter how many times people call it one. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that an article by Lauren Parvizi, an official member of the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial staff, on the said newspaper's official news website is not a reliable source? SilverserenC 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course not, and would not call such a source "author-less". If you link it, I'll gladly have a look. Or you can reproduce a faithful quote and I'll take your word, but I'm not ignoring it or downplaying it; I simply haven't seen it. Notwithstanding, it would have to be very clear and authoritative before I could suggest its strength is sufficient to supersede the numerous wp:rs's which I have seen, and selectively linked within this thread. If not, we are simply left with the content dispute that I've acknowledged exists. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate already linked it up above. It's here. Will.i.am was, apparently, continually getting confused with another William James Adams who is flagged at the airport. SilverserenC 23:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
And if it wasn't his name, he would not be tagged at the airport. William Adams is a common name, it is his middle name which gives him grief with the TSA. How is that not determinative? His name is William James Adams. In some way, while preserving his dignity and all the other good stuff we are told to do, we need to make that available to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

That is the author-less source, that quotes the source that sourced the quote; though the source of the quote nor the source, said to quote the source, can ever be found; in spite of due diligence.

I commented directly to you, regarding this; above. I reminded you that WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT requires attribution to the Daily Dish, a celebrity blog (from anonymous editors) promising "Hot celebrity gossip served fresh". And I said, which I will say once again; this is not sufficient to supersede the numerous wp:rs's which I have seen, and selectively linked.

Therefor, no, I'm not ignoring a source, or a thing said in this discussion; I reasonably expected the same of you. Nevertheless, ignore me if you like, but please, don't ask me the same question twice in the same thread. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Ive just seen where there is a link to the person who posted this "gossip" so I retract the author-less part. I doubt much else has change in my regards. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can be found. And without much effort either. Here it is. The author of the piece is Kim Dawson, the official editor of the Playlist section of The Daily Star. She previously worked at the Aberdeen Evening Express before joining the Star. SilverserenC 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's debate suggestions of sloth some other day. That source is significant. Why until now only the Daily Dish has been linked is also an issue aside; for I did ask several times, in different ways. This is the source I suggest using to support the name as William James Adams; and opposed to presenting this as his birth name, I would remain consistent with the source and say that this is the name on his passport. And I suggest this source supersedes the many wp:rs who call him Jr. as well. Cheers - 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The Jr. may have just been the method that newspapers were using to differentiate him from his father, also named William James Adams. Or he may have used Jr. himself as a differentiating factor when he was younger and his father was still alive, which, I am sad to say, isn't true anymore. And I don't see why we have to specify that it is his passport name. It seems quite clear that that IS his name. SilverserenC 07:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to call it his passport name, you could just as rightfully call it his full name, or legal name, or full legal name. But you couldn't use that source to call it his birth name, or born as. Very few sources stipulate prose that specifically suggest the form of his name at birth; and the only one that I have yet seen which does, says he was born as William Adams. Furthermore, that source is comparing his humble origins by contrasting it with the simplicity of his given name at birth. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
If it is on his passport, it is his name. If it is not his name, his quarrel is with the Department of State for issuing him a passport not in his name. The Federal Government accordingly recognizes "William James Adams" as his name, and that should end the matter there. I'm afraid, My76Strat, that your logic is becoming a bit strained.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't read what I just said. I agree that the passport indicates his legal name. I just don't agree that it qualifies, in itself, to say this is his birth name. Additionally, as I recollect, it was the Jr. designation that will.i.am specifically objected to. But if you must, you can declare his birth name as you like. hell, you can even slap Jr. back on if it matters that much to you. Does that make any more sense? 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection to losing the Jr, which forms no part of the name. The James though ... I do not plan to edit the article on this point, however the discussion interests me (as it does you) and so we discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me, we are in the same church, sitting in the same pew; despite entering through different doors. BTW, I'm not 100% sure what is implied about Jr. not being part of a name, but FWIW I am a Jr., says so on my BC so I was born with that name, and my passport also says Jr. It may not mean a thing, but it is true. I'm tempted to drop Jr. when I renew, just to see if they will issue it that way. With that, I bid thee adieu. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I still favor my proposal, which evades the question for purposes of the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Collapse offtrack comments to prevent obfuscating the relevant discussion points 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strat, I really don't appreciate the comment about "sloth" as I had no reason to believe that a blog of the San Francisco Chronicle would lie about the contents of an interview with a famous celebrity in a major British paper. Now as to this unusual debate about whether it is his "birth name", the quote is pretty clear: “I’m never hostile and I ain’t ashamed of the name on my birth certificate."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize to you and anyone else who found offense with any comment I posted to this thread, and elsewhere; ever! I used to be proud of my scarlet letter, but today I've become ashamed. The "sloth" remark was penned in an attempt to reduce tension, with some clever self-deprecation. But I'd forgotten, I am not clever at all! I don't know how I read that source without seeing the clear connection to the birth certificate; but I did. Wehwalt's comment about strained logic is now clear. And so is the magnitude of my dysfunction.

I believe I am incapable of contributing to this project, without disrupting it. Therefor, I pray for strength to make this my last contribution. It is the best gift I can give, to a community I so adore. I am thankful, for the collective will of my peers, to endure my affliction; long-suffering, far too long. May prosperity abound and peace blossom from the tracks of my exodus, as I impart the full measure of my love, in leaving. Thanks to all - 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Um...wow....I....there is so much drama in your comment that I don't even know how to respond. SilverserenC 20:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I was feeling bad and having a bad day; but I'm a bit better now. I'm kinda pissed at myself for writing the way I do; for communicating so poorly. I try very hard not to, but consistently fail. I have to fix this, and I really don't know what to do. I could use a lot of help, or even a little, but I'm getting nowhere on my own. You all have been great, so again thanks, and I'm sorry. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
...is everything okay? You seem to be taking the above discussions a little too seriously. What do you mean that you've been communicating poorly? SilverserenC 05:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I responded on your talk page 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012

Can an admin add {{pp-dispute}} to the top of the page please? And remove the {{pp-blp}} too. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 14:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm usually lazy and let User:DumbBOT do it, but OK, sure, I'll change it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! LegoKontribsTalkM 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:LAME

Would someone consider adding this to that? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibicdlcod (talk • contribs) 08:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't think it's lame; it's a complicated collision of WP:BLP meets WP:V meets WP:COMMONSENSE meets WP:JIMBO meets WP:ARTICLESUBJECTSSHOULDNTHAVETOJUMPTHRUHOOPSTOFIXTHEIRARTICLE (yeah, I figured that last one would be red). I don't think there's an obvious answer, and I don't think it's unimportant how we handle it. It's not like an argument about how to spell yhoghurht - this one matters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
A while back I wanted to create an RfC about making a process that is much easier for the subjects of BLP's to correct information. I never got around to it, and don't have time now, but I really think something needs to be put in place. We should have a way of confirming the identity of a BLP. Then the subject should be able to call, email, or skype with someone to change something simple like their date of birth, height, etc. Ryan Vesey 20:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This one was tried, but failed. It's a good place to start and with modified prose, perhaps its time is closer to now. I think this should be done as well. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong release date

It says that #willpower will be released on December 7, 2012, but it's correct release date is February 1, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.7.210 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong

"Since the incident, will.i.am has received support from other celebrities including Josh Duhamel, John Mayer, Kelly Clarkson, LMFAO, Zac Efron, Breckin Meyer and Jimmy Kimmel.[53][54][55][56][57]"

should be

"Since the incident, will.i.am has received back shots from other celebrities including Josh Duhamel, John Mayer, Kelly Clarkson, LMFAO, Zac Efron, Breckin Meyer and Jimmy Kimmel.[53][54][55][56][57]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.134.125 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How did we get to this point? (middle name situation)

So we had a wide-ranging and mostly productive discussion about his middle name in which it was conclusively established, at the very least, that there is a problem with his middle name. Various solutions were proposed about how to handle this. And where we got to is.... to do nothing about it at all, and call him by a name that he doesn't accept? I'm going to see him today so I've just re-read everything here to make sure I'm up to speed (I never heard back from his manager when I inquired before) and I was very surprised to see this resolution.

I'm not suggesting any changes for the next few hours. I'm just interested in thinking about why we didn't go with any of the compromise suggestions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it was established quite conclusively that the current situation is the correct situation, and that we don't take the second-hand say-so of a BLP as gospel when good reliable sources contradict them? Why would we compromise between what is correct and what isn't correct? And perhaps because your high-and-mighty appraoch rather backfired? "I'm going to see the subject of this BLP today" should have "no" impact whatsoever on articles on that BLP, certainly not when last time their reported statements were wrong (whether that was due to them or to the one reporting them is of course impossible for us to determine). Do we really have no more urgent problems with Wikipedia/Wikimedia than the established middle name of one BLP subject? I believe people are still waiting for your RfA proposals, a solution for the Turkish Wikipedia, a resolution for the AfT, some follow-up for Pending Changes, ... Fram (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it was not established quite conclusively at all. Indeed, you seem to be the only person arguing for the extreme view that we should uncontroversially not mention the situation with his name, despite multiple published high-quality sources which discuss the issue. I will make some edits now to fix the situation, and I advise you to consider WP:BLP and the above discussion before reverting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: I made some changes yesterday, but I'm not entirely happy with them. I find it highly irregular and unusual to say "in a conversation with Jimmy Wales" even in a footnote. I am wondering whether it might not be sufficient to simply call him Will Adams (per his personal preference and his writing credits) and in the footnote point out the controversy with his birth certificate including the quote that he didn't even know what it said until he applied for a passport. The only piece missing from the public record is apparently (as far as we have been able to find) that the birth certificate was in error.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I've undone your changes, per WP:SELFREF, WP:RS, WP:COI, and the fact that you seem to be the only editor here unhappy with the version that stood for a long time since the previous discussion. His birth certificate was in error? And that error just happened to be the inclusion of his biological father's name? What a coincidence... Fram (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Why does that seem odd? His father's name was listed on the birth certificate and so it is natural that someone assumed that since his name was William, he was being named after his father and filled in the middle name to match. My birth certificate misspells my name as "Jimmie" - I dare you to go change my entry to reflect that as my "real" name, it's absurd. I'm not going to revert you again now, and please leave it alone until we have a full discussion with people other than you and me. I think your position here is untenable in the extreme, and several others weighed in during the previous discussion with a very different view from yours.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Really, he should be referred to as William Adams in the intro though, not Will Adams. This is at least one common element which can be reconciled with WP:RS, WP:FULLNAME, and the subject per WP:BLP . "In a conversation with Jimmy Wales" obviously can never be accommodated though, because conversations are not published and by definition fall foul of WP:V. However, it's a totally moot point because it's already made self-evident in the The Independent article that will.i.am wasn't previously aware what was on his birth certificate.
I don't think anyone could have any prejudice against a sentence or two which explains the situation as per, say The Independent, but it is editorially ridiculous to assert the subject's name this way when it's a name he rejects, and spent most of his life being oblivious to. Just because we endeavour to be a reflection of reliable secondary sources does not mean we can't use a bit of common sense with how we use them. WilliamH (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
As a follow-up, it's occured to me that there's more to it than just common sense. The fundamental difference is that although The Independent article does indeed report his long name, it puts it into context. Putting the birth certificate name in the lead - in other words, asserting something controversial/disputed in a way in which our ability to explain it or put it into context is diminished or non-existent - is poor editorial judgement. WilliamH (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why? Why is it "poor editorial judgment"? It's standard practice, go with the reliable sources, not with the preferences of the subject. Jimbo Wales' explanation above may be correct, but is pure speculation. He has been proven wrong over and over in this discussion, but still maintains that my position is untenable in the extreme, despite that "position" being the stable version of the article since 1 October 2012, and despite that "my extreme untenable position" wasn't created by me, but by Mystrat76. The only reason we are having this discussion is because Jimbo met him at a celebrity event and because Jimbo claims " I'm one of many trusted editors who can be listened to about a situation like this", which turned out to be false, despite his many strong claims that he was always correct and that people claiming otherwise were inserting or defending falsehoods. The only one with an untenable position in this discussion was Jimbo Wales, but instead of accepting that consensus and reality didn't agree with him, he decided to start it all over again, despite there being no new reason to do so. Very poor behaviour. Fram (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What? I've been right all along and I'm still right now. You are making up a "consensus" when none exists. No one agrees with your extreme and nonsensical position, in conflict with both reliable sources and the subject, as far as I can tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Have you read anything in the above discussions, never mind the post you have just replied to? "No one agrees with my extreme and nonsensical position", but the version I reverted to, and which had stayed stable for quite a while, wasn't even written by me... Please, which reliable sources support your position? Which reliable sources have you even provided in this discussion? Have you made any effort "at all" to find out what is reality here besides talking to will.i.am and ignoring anything that doesn't support your pet position? You are still as "right" now as you were at the start, but at the start you had the defense of ignorance. Fram (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"I'm never hostile and I ain't ashamed of the name on my birth certificate. I get stopped at the airport, and a ton of people are called William Adams, right? But there's one other William James Adams that the airport security always mistake me for. So I said: 'No, I'm not THAT William James Adams.' That story got flipped."[1]Fram (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I have no strong views on the name that is used on this article. However, from reading this talk page, I think it is clear that JimmyWales original comment suggests that he feels he is superior to other editors: "that I'm one of many trusted editors who can be listened to about a situation like this". I wrote my first article recently in an area which I am very knowledgeable about and have done my own research; however, I only included information that I could find my own sources for. I understand that Wikipedia can only use information that can be referenced to other sources? Staceydolxx (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts

Britney Spears is twice in the list. One should remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone5drop (talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New part in short film

What Most Schools Don't Teach - Short Film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU1xS07N-FA

Indie film by code.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.27.194 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Educator?

I don't think he should be credited as an educator. I don't see any references to his teaching career in this article. It seems he doesn't even have a post secondary education. Creating a charity that sends kids to school does not qualify one as an educator. The word is typically used to describe professionals such as teachers, professors, school principals, etc... not musicians, regardless of which charities they're involved with. Using this logic, he should also be credited as an astronaut for the Mars rover streaming event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.38.135 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I've removed it from the article. SQGibbon (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Will.i.am co-writer for Samurai Jack animated series

Ive looked on Will.i.am's page and noticed that his work with George Pajon on the them for the 2001 animated tv series, Samurai Jack.

Surely this needs to be corrected.

Jack037907 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)jack037907Jack037907 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming issue

I have revisited the naming issue and reviewed all the discussion on this page, much of which embodied a tone that was unfortunate. I think that with the benefit of some distance from the controversy, that we do have to mention the longer form of the name as given on the birth certificate, but that we don't have to posit that this is indisputably the person's name. This, I suggest "William Adams" for the lead, and saving the longer name (with the references and footnotes) for the first sentence of the article body. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Yopienso (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I edited the article to say "William (Will) Adams" in the lead at one point given that it is his name and it explains his stage-name but that was reverted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I see this has gone back to "William James Adams" per a British tabloid source saying that this is the name on his passport. This is probably getting too "meta" here, but the piece on Jimbo in this Sunday's NY Times magazine section here was just published online, and it portrays Jimbo's run-in with Will.i.am: "[T]he hip-hop artist Will.i.am stopped Wales to complain about an error on his Wikipedia page. 'Everyone thinks he’s William James Adams Jr., but it’s not James and it’s not junior,' Wales told me as he opened his MacBook and corrected the entry."So here we have a NY Times reporter who was with Jimbo when Will.i.am approached Jimbo, and who has reported in the NY Times magazine what Will.i.am said to Jimbo. I would think that trumps the aforementioned tabloid, but given the brou-ha-ha this whole business has generated, I'll leave it to braver souls to edit. Jhw57 (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this a British tabloid source or an acceptable source? The NYTimes article is a good source to reference that at one point, he claimed that his name isn't William James Adams, but we have reliable sources that clearly contradict this. Fram (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
On rereading the NYTimes article, it still isn't clear that the author was present at the meeting between Will.i.am and Jimbo, just that Jimbo stated that "“Everyone thinks he’s William James Adams Jr., but it’s not James and it’s not junior,” Wales told me as he opened his MacBook and corrected the entry."; otherwise it would have been "verybody's think I'm William James Adams Jr.". It is still a second-hand account by Jimbo Wales of what will.i.am said, but at least it's better than what we had before. Fram (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No idea how reliable it is, but note that this 2012 unauthorized biography also gives his name as William James Adams jr. . Fram (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Will.i.am is of Jamaican ancestry, not African American.

and it says so on just about every site that has his background. so who made that stupid mistake? fix it, or i will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizainfini (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

#willpower release date requested edit

article needs to be updated to reflect the release of #willpower, which in rhe article is set in the future tense. 31.54.144.215 (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Blatant theft of music...

How come there is no mention on either this page or the Black Eyed Peas' page about the lawsuit with Daft Punk over the theft of the sample from 'Around the World' from 2007 and the one from 2010, stolen from Boys Noize.

Original Track: "Yeah" by Boys Noize Copy Track: "Dance" by Zuper Blahq (AKA Will.i.am)

And all the others a quick google search brings up.

Here is additional information on songs he has stolen from: http://soundisstyle.com/2013/04/will-i-steal-a-timeline-of-tracks-stolen-by-will-i-am.html http://soundisstyle.com/2013/04/will-i-am-samples-arty-mat-zos-rebound-for-new-song-lets-go-featuring-chris-brown.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2310351/Will-Chris-Brown-accused-stealing-house-track-Lets-Go.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/william-song-stealing-denied-rapper_n_3169233.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.188 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2013

I want to add X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) to Will.i.am page Filmopraphy.


Moreza (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. In other words, please indicate which subcategory (film or video game) it belongs in and what should go in the role field, and provide a reliable source to verify Will.i.am's participation. Rivertorch (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone confirm whether this is true or not?

This article says that will.i.am is an MIT student. I can't find anywhere online whether this is true or not. Is it true? If so, is it possible to add it to the article? http://money.cnn.com/gallery/magazines/fortune/2013/09/19/40-under-40.fortune/21.html?iid=40Under13_lp_arrow2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.52.87 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Change is Now

There is an entire section of this article dedicated to talking about the Change is Now album. It is mostly incorrect because none of the songs it mentions as singles were on the album. This incorrect information was added to all of the will.i.am articles by the user BSBOfficialEditor back in 2011. The songs themselves are notable, but the long lists of celebrities featured in the videos are probably not important to this article.--Cartman005 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Name

The BBC Media Centre has included this note at the end of an article concerning will.i.am's involvement in The Voice UK:

If your outlet requires that you list his full name, will.i.am’s full legal name is William Adams. Please note that names listed in online encyclopaedias are incorrect.

I think the BBC is a pretty reliable source. 86.162.127.42 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the other three sources listed for his middle name are also reliable sources.--Launchballer 07:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
One of those is the Daily Star, not a source I would call reliable. In any case, the BBC page specifically refers to his legal name, and is much less likely to be regurgitated considering that he is working on a BBC show, and will have been involved in having that line inserted. 86.162.127.42 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Under most circumstances I would agree with you regarding the Faily Star but the New Zealand Herald and MSN both seem to have quoted it. If you read the articles in question, you will find that he hates it hence why he doesn't want it listed.--Launchballer 08:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
And of course, your legal name and your birth name don't have to be the same, he can have had his name changed (but that's speculation). Fram (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Very possibly, but where is that in a reliable source? He was clearly born William James Adams, because that's the name held on his passport, but he probably changed it to remove the middle name since.--Launchballer 09:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
But isn't that the important point? It doesn't matter if he's changed his name or that was always his name; if a more recent, reliable source says William Adams, then that should take precedence. 86.167.171.238 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No. We have reliable sources saying that his birth name was William James Adams, and a reliable source saying that his legal name is William Adams. One doesn't take precedence over the other, both can be reflected in the article. Fram (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
To account for the BBC source, we should go with William Adams in the lead, and if absolutely necessary for consensus (born, William James Adams) or we can leave the birth name to the early life section. According to the BBC source, whoever he is, his name now is William Adams. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems fair (one can dispute whether the BBC is an independent source, now that Will.i.am works for them as a judge on the Voice, but that is nitpicking). Fram (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2014

Will.I.am and Kylie Minogue are judges on The Voice UK 2014 109.148.111.68 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The Voice UK is already discussed fairly extensively in this article - I'm not sure what else you'd like to see added. Please make a specific request to change the article in the form "Change X to Y". --ElHef (Meep?) 00:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Voice

I can't edit his page, but just letting you know he's now a judge on The Voice Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nequam1 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

In 2013, Will.i.am appeared on The X Factor Australia as a guest mentor for LMFAO's Redfoo. This information isn't currently listed in the following chart.

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKsKv4RWAmA


TV series

Year Title Role Notes
2005 Joan of Arcadia Three Card Monte Guy God Episode: "Independence Day"
2007 Cane Himself Episode: "A New Legacy"
2010 The X Factor UK Himself Cheryl Cole's guest mentor and performed with her act Cher Lloyd
2011 The Cleveland Show Bernard Voice
2012 — present The Voice UK Himself Coach or "judge" and mentor for artists, Seasons 1, 2 & 3
2012 The X Factor (U.S.) Himself Britney Spears guest mentor
2012 American Idol Himself Top 12 guest mentor
2012 Top Gear Himself Celebrity guest
2014 The Voice Australia Himself Coach or "judge" and mentor for artists, Season 3

NZConnor (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was about to do this, but turns out it's  Already done --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

There should be a mention about the accusations of plagiarism. There are at least six songs which it is quite apparent he stole melodies from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks1994 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

The picture needs changing.. ShaurBudree (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The request is not specific enough. There are various images of Will.i.am on Commons, but Will.i.am in 2012.jpg is being used in a range of articles. WilliamJan10.jpg was used previously and personally I prefer this image, but he does look younger as it is now five years old.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

Will I Am did not play Elton John in Bouncing Cats. He played himself.

138.38.187.223 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Will.i.am. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Will.i.am. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Will.i.am. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Will.i.am. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Will.i.am/Archive_1&oldid=1151033652"