Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 16 April 2012

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Journalism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello. I am the mediator who has responded to the request for mediation by User:Toure. I think that this situation is getting close to an edit war, but I hope that I can help settle things down and help both parties come to an agreement. First, I would like to establish my neutrality:

• I come from the UK, and have never read any of Toure's published work, in novel, newspaper, or magazine form.

• Neither have I ever seen Toure on TV.

• From the infomation in the article, I don't even have the same taste in music.

I hope that this helps to verify my neutrality.

Now then, I would like to draw both of your attention to WP:BLP, which is a policy on wikipedia which governs the rules about biographies of living people. If you look at the 'Presumption in favor of privacy' section on the page, the first line states,

• Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

It also goes on to say:

• Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources.

and

• ...editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.

May I ask, with this in mind, why, 84.100.38.28, you feel that adding Toure's last name is relevent or important to the article? Thε Halo 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This case is now closed, due to inactivity. I would suggest, as I ave written above, that adding Toure's last name is a violation of WP:BLP, and therefore not be put into the article. Thε Halo 11:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

• Oppose. Need reasons why that spelling should be used. Also, xomeone could help proposer of move by creating proper discussion section. Gene Nygaard 09:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd agree with Gene Nygaard on this one. There seems little reason for the move. Thε Halo 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)>

• Support if this is what Toure/é himself uses, presumably to indicate how his name is to be pronounced (assuming it is meant to be pronounced "Tour-ray" or the like!)  Regards, David Kernow 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral The personality is referred to as "Touré" through the entire article. Title must conform with content. However, I could not verify which one is the correct form (Google and Yahoo render virtually nil results for both forms +).--Húsönd 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, per Recury.--Húsönd 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, "Touré" is the form he uses on his website. Recury 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support "Touré and Toure are different names with different pronunciations. Omitting the accent makes as much a difference as omitting a letter. Touré is the proper spelling of Touré's given name. Toure is an incorrect spelling, though it occurs frequently because many people don't know how to add accents on a computer. At the time the page about Touré was written the Touré page seemed taken and out of respect to the larger Misplaced Pages mission, the page labelled Touré was not disrupted. However, the page about Touré is incorrect until the page is named Touré. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toure (talk • contribs)
• Support Seeing as Toure wants it to be called Touré... Thε Halo 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

Surname

I have removed Toure's surname from the article for now. Seeing as this falls under the BLP policy, we should take extra care in protecting people's personal information, especially when they have stated that they don't want that information known. I have raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard, so we should receive some feed back and community consensus as to what to do soon. Until that time, please, do not add Toure's last name to the article. Thanks. Thε Halo 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion on the BLP noticeboard, it is believed that Touré's last name is not relievent to his notability, so there is no need for it to be put into the article. Thε Halo 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cher, Beyonce and many others go by just 1 public name but their surnames are still in their wikipedia pages. So why is the rule different for Toure ? I think it should be this "Toure (born Toure Neblett in 1970 in Massachusestts) "in parentheses in the lead /intro sentence. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages will withhold certain personal information of biographical subjects in their articles, such as their real names, the names of their family members, dates of birth, and places of residence, if the subject requests it, out of concerns relating to things like privacy, identity theft, etc, even if that information is found within reliable sources cited in the article. There is much precedent for this, and I've been involved in a number of these matters, during which I've sought Jimmy Wales' counsel, and the prevailing wisdom has always been to respect these wishes if the subject requests it. Examples include Star Wars Kid, which does not mention that subject's real name, even though the sources cited in the article do so. Another example was Brian Peppers, whose entire article was deleted, for similar reasons. Touré has requested that his birth surname not be used in his article, and so we will respect that, as per this practice. Nightscream (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments. I find that disrespectful.
Did Toure say that it was a reason of identity theft or the other reasons that you gave? Or he just wants a one name moniker? Star Wars Kid isnt a good example as his name here is dangerous as he was bullied, ridiculed, and had to seek medical attention for mental health reasons. Brian Pepper to is not similiar at all. He had an article because of his grotesque face. Toure is a journalist, not a teen being made fun of, not a man with bulging eyes and a cranio facial disorder. I read this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources and it says take out the birthdate not the name. But since you say you have worked Jimbo, please direct me to that portion of WP BLP policy. with As with my previous exmaples, if Cher and Beyonce were to ask that Cher Sarkisian and Beyonce Knowles be removed, you are saying that Jimbo says to do so? What about Barack Obama ? Would WP remove his middle name, last name, birthdate, family names, even though all this information is traceable via website, geneology research, govt war records, govt census records, and more ? This is an encyclopedia of facts, not an encyclopediua of what they want us to know. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If in the public space, and if that space is a reliable space, then it can be represented here. If that information of his surname comes from insider info, then that is a problem. However, if his name is mentioned in a reliable source per wiki Bio policy I do not think it is wiki job to help Hollywood out and maintain secrets. We should even add a note that he has issue with his surname. Its not like Darth Vader revealing his surname is Skywalker.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I will note that there is an additional discussion on this topic going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Touré. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles and Barack Obama's surname are already widely known. Toure's is not. Cher's is not commonly known, but it's well-documented enough that I can't see the point of omitting it. In any event, what I understood from previous discussion with people like Jimmy Wales is that Misplaced Pages will respect such requests, but I now see that specifics and distinctions are employed in the matter. Nightscream (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

far more worrying than this name issue, which has low weight (either way) and can only really be used in his "bio section" is the unverifiable content which is backup by no R.S. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a problem, and unless some sources can be found that section needs to go. Getting back to the name thing, I don't see any good reason not to include his name. It seems to me that a person's birth name is part of the historical record. It's not "negative information" in any real sense. Many many people adopt pen names or stage names, sometimes to seem more sporty or interesting or sexy or edgy, sometimes to hide their ethnicity or origins or just be more pronounceable, sometimes for political or religious reasons. It seems to me likely that Touré Neblet is one of these cases. From Cary Grant to Alice Cooper to Connie Mack to Bono to Sting and on and on. Probably the majority of rap musicians. This is fine, but the fact that they've done so becomes part of record, and I'm sure that all those people have their birth names in their articles.

The examples of B. P. and the Star Wars Kid aren't germane at all. I was one of the people who's was very adamant about not having an article on B. P., and I don't like it that this is being used to justify the Touré Neblet case. It's entirely different.

For one thing, Touré Neblet has chosen to be in the public eye. If you do that, basic non-controversial and non-negative biographical information, such as your birthplace and where you went to school and so forth are going to become part of the historical record.

Jimbo often has a good take on these things, and he says: "Thoughtful editorial judgment to balance valid competing concerns is, as almost always, the right way forward... I could be swayed towards omission if: there is a physical danger to family members, there is doubt about the sourcing, there is a sense that notability happened to the person rather than being sought, etc. I could be swayed towards inclusion if: there are plenty of reliable sources, there is no obvious safety or privacy issue, the person has deliberately sought fame". That's just his opinion, but I think that's about right.

If someone can up with a good reason not include the person's name, fine. I haven't seen any. Absent that, I'm restoring the name. If someone wants to revert this, fine, but then, absent any new information or argument, the best next step would be an RfC, I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much inclined to agree with Herostratus on this myself; we don't hide pertinent information just because the subject doesn't like it, and the subject's real name is certainly pertinent to the subject. I think Herostratus hit the nail on the head; his post pretty much echoes my thoughts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I'm all for supporting reasonable requests for the protection of privacy, but that's not what we're dealing with here. A quote from the author: "As previously stated that name is not part of the Toure story." This is a company, Touré Inc., trying to enforce its brand. Well, they can do that somewhere else. I support the inclusion of the name. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk), Toure's name is on the internet from various RS not from a insider info. This is an encyclopedia so why is a notation that toure wants his surname kept off the article neccesary? 173.79.75.65 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Herostratus, I agree that his name is part of his historical record. I very much agree about Star Wars Kid and Brian P not being good examples as they became infamous and are not famous, there is a HUGE difference. Toure is a media personality on tv, on radio, writing books, speeches, commentaries, etc. Those two shouldnt be used to justify hiding Toure's surname. You PERFECTLY said this :

For one thing, Touré Neblet has chosen to be in the public eye. If you do that, basic non-controversial and non-negative biographical information, such as your birthplace and where you went to school and so forth are going to become part of the historical record.

There are reliable sources for his surname so it should be included in the article. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree. But. It's really a very minor matter. And the person has requested Jimbo to consider it, and let's how that goes. There are times to stand on principle, but this isn't one of them. And besides, "Don't cause an unoffending person genuine distress for very small benefit" is also a good principle -- not only on Misplaced Pages, but in life. Herostratus (talk)

Hello Herostratus, Is it a small matter? If people are able to influence articles based on emailing jimbo heartfelt emails & using keywords like "genuine distress", we have a huge problem. It is a small matter. WP doesnt want to go back to the days when it was called not reputable, not legit, so all info should be the best. It is a fact what his name is, from vital statistics... so how is that a small minor matter? I dont want to make Toure mad but his name is mentioned only briefly as a statement of fact. We re not going into detail of his family history. This is an encyclopedia and it has to have full information. Why he is distressed over his name is hiw own problem. I dont think it is a small benefit, this encyclopedia being accurate is a big benefit. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, it is a small matter, 173.79.75.65. It would be a problem if 1) this was a constant, regular occurrence or 2) it was in any way important. Neither of these is true, so I'd recommend not worrying about it. I really don't think this is going to send us spinning down into a living hell of being considered illegitimate. Not all slopes are slippery, and not every tiny thing has to be an occasion for standing on principle. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you happen to know why exactly it is bad for people to know Toure's surname? Considering what Jimbo wrote below, it seems to be a catastrophe on par of revealing someone's social security number or bank password or something. Why does he care if people know his surname? Just wondering if you or anyone knows. Silverseren 06:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I asked a couple of days ago on Jimmy's talk page if he had any follow up comments or remarks; he hasn't replied, but I can try pinging him again—he noted at the time of the original discussion that he was going to be busy for a week or so, and I think it's fair to say that he has a number of demands on his time. Jimbo rightly points out that you can't put toothpaste back in the tube, and there's no urgent rush here.

Nevertheless, absent any clarification, I would have some difficulty with permanently redacting this individual's surname. Persuant to the previous discussion on Jimbo's talk page, it appears that – however the name might have gotten 'into the wild' in the first place – it has since been included in press releases promoting Touré, and remains on the website of the company that distributes one of his television programs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why it is important to include it? Press releases aren't usually considered reliable sources, and the subject has indicated that the press release went out in error and that he objected to it. The name only became public, if I understand the story, as a matter of theft of information.

His reasons for not wanting the name known are personal and, to put it in my own words, spiritual and historic. The name is not "real" as it was assigned to his slave forefathers, and he has rejected it at a deep personal level. I think as a matter of human dignity we need a good reason to include it under these circumstances.

I am still in conversation with him (though slowly, due to both being quite busy) about alternatives in case we can't come to consensus here not to include it. So far I don't think I have any good ideas. But one thing I hope we don't have is a general attitude to "stick it to him" because we have access to sources. One of his arguments, which is surely valid, is that whatever is in Misplaced Pages will be repeated by journalists in the future. I think including it without explanation in the lede would be a really really bad idea - but I feel personally more comfortable (he doesn't, as far as I can tell) with it in the body of the article with a full explanation of why he doesn't use the name and doesn't like it to be used.

I think the most important principle here should be one of moving slowly and thoughtfully. There's no deadline. Let's have a reflective and thoughtful conversation about it for awhile, and I'll keep talking to Touré.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has advocated for including the full name (above), I accept this. I accept this for various technical reasons (e.g. it's not very important, consider spirit of BLP, arguably iffy sources) but also for internal procedural reasons: I think it is a Very Good Thing if we have an ombudsman whom people are able to contact for relief, and who has moral authority to grant relief, and we should not undermine that absent a very compelling reason. We're anarchic enough as it is. That the person respectfully advanced a cogent argument rather than engaging in threats and posturing is good also, we should reward such behavior. If the person ever become very notable (in which case better sources will probably become available) we can revisit the matter. Herostratus (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope it wouldn't be overly simplistic to draw at least a rough parallel to the sitation with Malcolm X. In what ways is this situation different, and how should that guide our decision here? In particular, are the differences between those cases sufficient to cause us to treat the two individuals substantially differently?

I am reluctant to engage with arguments phrased in terms of the relative "importance" of facts. The loss of any one sentence, citation, or fact is trivial in any grand scheme of things. In an encyclopedia with millions of articles, we could completely delete our entry on Touré and not perceptibly degrade the quality of our work. (This is not intended as a slur on Touré; we could equally easily do the same with Jimmy Wales.) And yet—erasing reliable information runs counter to the deepest aims of this project. It's a very delicate line that we're being asked to draw, and I'm not sure that we ought to. The "importance" of this information is that a person's name – or names – are widely accepted as essential elements of a comprehensive biography. The very fact that Touré has changed his name is an interesting and potentially (encyclopedically) relevant aspect of his character. In the case of porn stars (one of our few exceptions to this guiding principle), we avoid publishing real names because these individuals would be exposed to particular danger and discrimination. Those considerations don't apply to this case; Touré is asking for use to expunge his birth name not to protect his safety but because of a personal distaste for the history (generally) associated with it. The name change is about his public and his private image of himself, and something reasonably addressed in the biography of someone who has chosen to make himself a public figure.

While we are rightly reluctant to rely on press releases for most purposes, the provisions regarding self-published sources would seem to apply. There isn't any genuine doubt about the provenance or accuracy of the document. As a matter of policy and Misplaced Pages philosophy, trying to play the 'it's not a reliable source' card would be ruleslawyering, rather than engaging the real question. In any case, the contents of the press release appear to have been reproduced fairly widely, particularly in the Australian press: . Elements from it appear on MTV's Australian web site: . Touré's former surname is used by a Huffington Post blogger/columnist: . While the original public release of Touré's former surname may have been the result of incompetence or even of malice (...on the part of his television distributor?) I find it difficult to reach any conclusion but that the name is 'in the wild' now, however much he might prefer it not be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean, you make cogent points. I guess it's essentially a matter of philosophical difference. I am OK with arguments based on the relative importance of facts vis-a-vis other considerations. The Malcolm X case occurred to me, and my feeling is that it's different because Malcolm is very notable. He just is, and it matters, and it makes sense not to pretend it doesn't matter. There are certain principles that need to be followed rigidly. For instance, we should never knowingly and deliberately put false information in an article regardless of any other considerations, I wouldn't think. I just don't think this is one of those cases. It's a matter of not having a fact in the Misplaced Pages, and there are literally millions of more important facts that we don't have (not deliberately but because we just haven't added them yet) and we should worry about those first I guess. Though I do find the situation mildly annoying because I do suspect a possible "branding" motive here, at least in part. Mildly annoying, but ultimately trivial and not worth making a unoffending person unhappy. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for respectful delay

The subject of this article has written me a very kind and thoughtful and poignant email about the surname issue, and we are discussing the issue. As a matter of good WP:BLP practice and courtesy and human dignity, I have removed the alleged surname from the article, possibly temporarily. I've let him know that due to various other work and personal commitments, I won't be able to look at this in detail until next week. I hope that everyone will give me time to work with the subject and to study the situation in more detail.

One point that he makes is absolutely true: Misplaced Pages is influential, and if we have the name, it will randomly start to pop up in press accounts. You can't unscramble an egg. So my view is that while we take the time to explore the issue fully, we should err on the side of caution and not publish the name in the article. He's worked very hard to distance himself from his surname, and it seems that it only leaked into the public through an act of maliciousness and information theft.

I don't have all the information yet, and probably wouldn't feel comfortable speaking publicly about all the details if I did, but I'm persuaded by his kind and thoughtful letter, and by the fact that nothing important *at all* from a Misplaced Pages perspective hinges on this, that we should take this slowly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this, Jimmy. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Jimmy, this is absurd. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic site, not a PR site. His birth name is a fact and a factual site like this should report it, regardless of what he wants. Furthermore, I hate to throw the race AND politics card simultaneously, but the fact that he is a black liberal seems awfully suspicious with regards to how seriously this matter is being taken. My guess is that if he were a white conservative he would not be given the immense courtesy that you and many others are extending. Bottom line, it doesn't matter how much he wants this info left out. It is not his decision to make with regards to an encyclopedic site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.186.167 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

N.B.: User 31.185.188.17 made some edits to this page indicating he's opposed to the last-name redaction. User 31.185.188.17 doesn't like Mr Touré very much and expressed this opinion rather vehemently, violating WP:BLP and for this reason the comments were redacted (but not oversighted, since they were mostly mere vulgar abuse), causing User 31.185.188.17 to claim censorship. So in the interests of being certain to be fair, I'll note here that User 31.185.188.17 wishes to be counted among those who feel that Mr Touré's birth name ought to be included. Let's leave it at that, OK? Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I cam to Misplaced Pages for the express purpose of finding out whether he has a last name, and if so, what the story on its non-use might be. That seems like a reasonable thing for an encyclopedia. What I find is Misplaced Pages assisting this public figure with his marketing strategy. That does not seem like a reasonable thing for an encyclopedia. It's not that big a deal, but actually, it's not such a small deal either. Do corporations that are non-biological people get editorial control over their articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.30.46 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To the above poster: you too can get creative/marketing control over your page when you become a black liberal. Do you think Rush Limbaugh could change his name to just "rush" and Misplaced Pages would respect his wish to scrub Limbaugh from the page completely? Doesn't even have to be someone that famous. A person of similar stature to Mr. Neblett, if they were a conservative, would not have their wish respected by Misplaced Pages and Jimmy Wales. This is just a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.79.145 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's your opinion.

And your analogy is false. Rush Limbaugh's full name is already well-known. The same does not hold true for Toure. In any event, omitting his surname has nothing to do with "marketing".

Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Nightscream (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Toure's last name should be added to this page for completeness. His last name is "Neblett" Here's at least one source to confirm this-- http://bigjournalism.com/tag/toure-neblett/ Thanks, Patrick Podge80525 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Touré objects to the recent re-addition of his birth surname to the article, saying, "The last discussion concluded with Jimmy Wales asking for calm, patient deliberation and moving slowly so as to not cause harm if unnecessary. That edict has been broken by someone adding my name while ignoring the ongoing discussion."

Well, we had a calm, patient deliberation right here, where everyone aired their arguments. The last extension of this discussion lasted from October 6 to November 10 of last year. After that, nothing else was said on the matter, so someone added the name two days ago on March 30. A month-long discussion following over four months of silence, and then the reintroduction of that information after those four months sounds fairly "patient and calm" to me, so nothing was "broken" by re-adding the name, since the discussion was no longer ongoing on March 30. It's only just been reignited now following the recent re-addition of the surname. "Calm, patient deliberation" isn't the same thing as "do nothing", or "it's resolved not to have that surname in the article". There's a difference between moving slowly and not at all. How is a total of five months on the matter not slow or patient enough?

Touré also says, "My last name is not part of any facet of my life." But the article doesn't indicate that it is, it merely notes that it was his birth name. The first manner in which it identifies him in the opening sentence (and for the most part throughout the article) is with his given name only. The birth surname is merely in a parenthetical right after that, and appears nowhere else afterwards, which hardly implies that it's a facet of his life. It's merely the notation of a historical fact, and I while I generally favor giving some consideration to biographical subjects' feelings, I also feel that some modicum of reason and rationality has to be factored into it. If, for example, Malcolm X were still alive, and I addressed him or referred to him as "Mr. Little", then that would certainly be disrespectful. But it is not disrespectful for his article to state what his slave name was, and indeed, his article does do so. Why would it be painful to merely note a prior historical fact? If noting a historical fact that occurred as a consequence of slavery were disrespectful, then by that logic, wouldn't we have to censor all articles dealing with slavery? I just don't see noting a fact has to be seen as something negative. Should we remove Malcolm X's birth name from his article? Should we remove the date of birth of every actress or female BLP subject over the age of 30 who requests it, because a public fact of their birth is in someway uncomfortable for them? That would seem to be the role of a subject's publicist, or other handlers who wish to control information about them, but not an encyclopedia.

While omitting some information for reasons like identity theft or privacy is sometimes done here, encyclopedias are not about omitting key information in order to put forward a narrative that a biographical article's subject considers more ideologically or personally positive. Built into their mission is the inclusion of salient information. If that name is no longer his surname, how would it be a problem to merely state that it was at one time? It seems that Touré's position constitutes a desire to deny facts or to deny history, and that seems antithetical to the very role of an encyclopedia. When we start removing information because it conjures up painful histories, then we're no longer a neutral, formal, dispassionate encyclopedia, we're just a tool for sociological propaganda. He has every right to deny or ignore facts of his past he doesn't like in the course of his day-to-day life. But I don't think it's reasonable for him to obligate others to, especially institutions whose goal or mission is scholarly, academic or encyclopedic. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article include Touré's surname, or omit, as per his wishes? Nightscream (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Because of the recent reverts (, , ), and the fact that Touré has now emailed me to again request having his surname removed from the article, I think we need to have a consensus discussion on the matter of whether to include Touré's surname, one that will hopefully yield a final, binding resolution. If you're new to this discussion, please familiarize yourself with the arguments for and against inclusion of the surname above. Jimbo Wales touches upon his discussions with Toure, and Toure's personal reasons for wanting it left out, in Jimbo's October 25, 2011 message above. I will try to invite others into the discussion by posting notices elsewhere, such as the BLP noticeboard. My respectful suggestion is, rather than rehash everything said above, is to keep the comments brief, and begin them with Keep or Omit to make it easier to gauge consensus. Is that acceptable to everyone? Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Omit, to respect the subject's personal feelings, and for reasons indicated by Jimbo Wales here and here. Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Omit As I have said to Jimmy Wales (in an email I'm happy to share with you) my last name is a slave name that I dropped from my life 22 years ago. It has never been part of my public life and most of my friends don't even know it. It's hurtful to have Misplaced Pages force me to use my slave name when most of the rest of the media world has been respectful of my decision not to use a slave name. When old school media publications write about me they use just one name. When I go on TV people refer to me with just one name. It's not part of my life because using a slave name is painful to me. Why must Wiki force it onto my back? — Preceding Toure comment added by Toure (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This choice to reject my slave name isn't about "branding." This is my life. I don't share my last name with people in my private life. My friends know better than to ask. New friends ask and are told I don't use my last name, period, and that ends the conversation about it. They know me as Toure and that's it. For Wiki to force it into the conversation about me does grave harm to me as I can no longer force people to not address me by my slave name. What small gain accrues to Wiki at the cost of a great pain to me? Toure

Retain Sorry, but Misplaced Pages will be showing double standards if we bow to this request. We have just gone through a very long and arduous AfD relating to a BBC radio presenter who wished his article to be deleted. It was argued that "real life requests" should always be heeded. Well in that case it wasn't, and in this case (which has similar aims and wishes) it should not be requested either. We are not censored: this project is supposed to be as broad and deep as it possibly can. There is no justification for omitting the real surnames of many famous people who are only known by one stage name: there is no different here. Wiki would be damaged if we followed this request. The surname must remain doktorb _words 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain This is an encyclopaedia, and we record relevant material irrespective of the wishes of the subject. It is indisputable that a subject's full name is relevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain Considering that the omitting of the surname is being done under the pretenses of something that I guess I would call spiritual, I don't see any reason to actually omit it. Toure's full name is recorded in multiple reliable sources, so regardless of us using it or not using it, it is very easily found just from a search of his first name, so this is yet another reason for us not to omit it. I'm sorry, Mr. Toure, but if we submitted to every spiritual or religious request for content change on Misplaced Pages, we would not longer be able to call ourselves an encyclopedia, because we would be adding in POV changes according to the whims of such subjects, which violates multiple policies of ours. Silverseren 18:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain. As a matter of clarification, it is not Misplaced Pages's policy or intention to 'force' anyone to use any version of their name, whether it is given to them at birth, acquired through marriage, or adopted by personal choice. In general, our articles strive to reflect the most popular or widespread usage of a notable individual's name; in the case of this article, that would be (just) Touré, and when we refer to this biography's subject by name, that is the form that we should continue use. This is our usual practice; see for example Madonna, Prince, Malcolm X, and Marilyn Monroe.

However, what we also do is include the birth names – and any other names by which the individual has been known, publicly or privately – of these individuals. (Madonna was born Madonna Louise Ciccone, Marilyn Monroe was born Norma Jeane Mortenson, Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little.) This is basic biographical information. We don't tell people which names to use, or make any judgements about them, but we don't suppress the fact that those names existed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain as birth name, not current name I was under the impression that the opening sentence gave the surname as his current one, but I now see that it initially gives only his given name, and merely mentions his birth surname in the subsequent parenthetical. This is reasonable, and I apologize for my error. I give more detail on my current position above, in the Respectful Delay section discussion. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - as it stands now, it's a problem. If you read the article, you simply see "Touré (born..." with no further information - or supporting sources. Unsourced material in a BLP can be summarily deleted, especially if it proves contentious. So right away, we'd need a BLP-compliant RS. More important is the issue of WP:WEIGHT - the current wording makes it look like he has simply chosen to go by one name - and there is no information in the article to disabuse the reader of this notion. There are, of course, ways to deal with this sort of thing: "was born to...", or "Touré was born...but rejected his slave name" or "what he has described as his slave name". The fact of the matter is that we are under no obligation to include a former name for a person - it's an editorial decision. If we can't find a supporting source for the bit of information, if we can't source an appropriate discussion of how he went from T.N. to T. - then we probably have no business including the information in the article. If we do think it germane, then we're sort of obliged to provide proper context, given the nature of that context. Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't seem to be an issue. In addition to the HuffPost story, there are press releases from the distributor of his television programs and several mentions in the Australian media (including on MTV's website); these are noted above and in the original discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I'm also made more than a little bit twitchy by the notion that we should be using WP:BLP to suppress article content (however weakly sourced) whose basic factual correctness isn't disputed by anyone, including the article's subject. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't think source reliability is the issue here; This story from The Huffington Post is one such rs for his birth surname.

As for the argument that we're under no obligation to include a subject's former name, I'm sorry, but that's backwards: We are under no obligation to omit such information. Including it, on the other hand, is a given, since birth names obviously one of the most obvious pieces of information that is found in biographies of notable people. It's an inherent part of Misplaced Pages's goal as an encyclopedia on notable topics, including people. Nightscream (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain – An encyclopedic article should contain something as basic as a subject's actual name whenever it's available. I agree with Cusop that its relevance is not subject to dispute; it seems sourcing is not properly in dispute either. Within the prose, the subject should be referred to as Touré, not because he prefers it, but because that's how he's usually called. This, I think, is an appropriate balance, actually. As an encyclopedia, we don't participate in furthering the subject's wishes; as editors writing about living human beings, we don't harm them with undue weight or discussion within the prose. JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain – This is a comprehensive encyclopedia. To omit the surname due to Touré's wishes would set a precedent that could undermine many of the other policies of Misplaced Pages.Thriley (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - while the consensus seems to be swinging towards inclusion, it was included in the article without a source. Furthermore, I checked all of the sources of this article and did not see the name in any of the sources. One thing that is important to remember in our deliberations here: it is likely that the only reason there are sources for the name at all is that the name appeared in Misplaced Pages (unsourced!). This kind of circular sourcing is problematic, of course. Notice as well that it is possible to find someone (stalkers? haters?) angrily posting this name in news story comments, so it is likely that some of this is POV driven. I'm not arguing definitively that we should not include the name but rather that if we include it, we should do so only upon genuine reliable sourcing. Furthermore, including it without comment in the lede strikes me as unnecessary and misleading to the reader (including journalists who will go on to write about Toure!). The name, if introduced at all, should be both well-sourced and introduced in an appropriate context, i.e. in the context of a statement about his views about why the name should not be used.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure said journalists would just assume it was a name change (which it pretty much is, I don't know if he officially did it or not). And we can't include any sort of statement on his views unless we have a reliable source on it. Which seems counter-productive, since he wouldn't want the news reporting on him changing his name, even if they're reporting his views on it. Silverseren 08:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Journalists would assume that it's a standard name change of a celebrity, and would report blindly on it without understanding the hurt it could cause. That's why us simply saying it in the usual way (parenthetically in the first sentence without explanation) is misleading. It isn't just a standard name change, it's something pretty important to his personal identity and belief system.

Your second point is also valid. It's unclear to me that we really do have reliable sources for the name (the HuffPo piece, for example, is an extremely negative blog rant, not journalism) but it is even less clear to me that we have reliable sources for his views about it. I don't know the solution to that. I fear that people being fixated on WP:NOTCENSORED, which has nothing to do with this case, is clouding judgement about human dignity and proper sourcing and good writing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Jimbo Wales's puzzlement. We go by what independent reliable sources say. If they report his views about his name or the reason for the name change, we can report what they say. If they say nothing, we say nothing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a dramatic oversimplification of what we do. We are not transcription monkeys.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's a clear rendition of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." If there are no such sources, then we cannot say anything. It was you who insisted on that here: "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources" Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, when this issue came up the first time around on your talk page, I took quite a bit of time to first prepare a thoughtful and reasoned exploration of the issues involved, and then to do some research into the sources for this information. I know that it happened a while ago and that you're busy, but I would appreciate it greatly if you could go back and read that discussion again; I've already linked it in this discussion and further up on this talk page. Among other sources, the distributor for his television shows has promoted him using the long form of his name, and contents from their press releases have appeared in the wider media; it seems unlikely that they would have done so maliciously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

retain - for the reasons explained above by TenOfAllTrades and others, just as we do with people from Malcolm X to Joseph Stalin. We are not forcing the name on anybody; merely reporting a well-attested fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Omit, per Touré and Jimbo Wales. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. WP's purpose is not to cause distress for no good reason. This biographical article has more pressing issues, such as its messed-up chronology. Draco 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain as birth name. We mention it once in the opening sentence (with a reliable source), and then that's it. No harm, no foul. Buddy431 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain. People like Cher, Madonna, Gerald Ford, and Malcolm X are or were all known by their preferred pseudonyms, but their birth names are all listed in their articles, as this is information that might reasonably be searched for by someone wondering, for example, if Cher really only ever had one name. I don't know why Touré thinks himself entitled to special treatment in this regard. The fact that he would be listed as "Touré" before his birth name is enough to satisfy his desire to be known publicly by a single name, but his real name is a matter of public record because he is a public figure. Rcnj (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Since birth certificates in the United States require first and last names, anyone going by a single name automatically begs the question of what their legal birth name is. The same applies for a name like Malcolm X where you would naturally assume that "X" was not his birth name. It's automatically relevant. In Toure's case, I don't see the need to go into any detail for why he goes by a single name, and of course any such description would need independent reliable sources. Ironically, his efforts to squelch his last name have probably only brought more attention to it. Fnordware (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain This is, above all, an encyclopedic website. Subjects of the encyclopedia DO NOT get to decide what goes in their entries. In fact quite the contrary if we are upholding journalistic standards. The bottom line is this: if he is famous enough to warrant an active page then he is famous enough to have his true biography listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.188.202 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Regarding journalistic standards, here's an excerpt from the SPJ’s Code of Ethics:

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.
…
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
…
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

From Misplaced Pages: Orlan – internationally renowned artist known only by her chosen name. Even on this here project. Draco 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Orlan, as an article, isn't yet an example of Misplaced Pages's finest work. A lot of it is big blocks of cut and paste listings of exhibits and works from her website. Biographical details are sparse, and much of what is there is still unsourced. I would be very reluctant to use that article – as it stands today – as a standard to guide our work in other articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the overall quality of Orlan’s WP biography is roughly on a par with that of Touré’s. Which is why it makes sense to compare his article to the one on Orlan rather than the one on Malcolm X which underwent the featured article review process. People with an interest in pop culture and current affairs will probably be as familiar with Touré as they are with Orlan. Orlan’s biography has been on WP since August 11, 2005. Yet none of WP’s regulars ever considered it necessary to include her birth name, given that it has nothing to do with her achievements as an artist. The same goes for Touré. If anybody ever felt like digging up this very much irrelevant factoid, I’m sure they would know just where to look. WP’s purpose should be somewhat loftier than making it easier for stalkers and people who disagree with a biographical subject’s political position to find information they can then use to cause this person harm. Claiming that emotional harm doesn’t count or is being used by the subject to further "his marketing strategy" says more about the people making such statements than about the subject. Guettarda is right in stating that we are under no obligation to include Touré’s birth name. It’s an editorial decision, and in this case, we could do worse than err on the side of empathy. Draco 17:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with empathy is that it can't be proved or disproved, so it can't be debated or regulated. Really, there are two issues here: 1) is mentioning his birth name relevant and not undue weight and 2) can it be verified with reliable sources? I think it's clear from all other biographical articles that it is relevant, and adding Orlan’s birth name would be relevant in her article as well. But I don't think we have any reliable sources to add the birth name for either of these people yet. All the evidence I've seen so far is from primary sources, which are not allowed (WP:PRIMARY) because that means we're doing original research. So even though we are all very confident that this is his birth name, we need to wait for someone to publish an article about his name before we can use it here. Fnordware (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We've had this source for a while now. So then we're good. Silverseren 18:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's labelled as a blog post, and thus isn't a reliable source for a BLP. HuffPo is a hybrid - it includes paid contributors (which have editorial oversight) and unpaid bloggers (which generally do not). So no, I don't think it is an acceptable source. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain but make it clear, right next to the use of the "birth name", that he does not use the surname, and why. I think that would fit better in a section after the introduction, meaning that the intro would not have his former surname at all. I think that's a reasonable compromise. It might even make the subject less unhappy with the mention of his surname than he is now, not that that's the determining factor here. Neutron (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? Other articles have already set the precedent for how this should appear. Malcolm X's article is probably the best example to follow for Toure. It mentions his birth name in the very first sentence and then explains his name change in the biography section. In the case of Toure, talking about his name might be undue weight, and I don't think there are any independent reliable sources for that information anyway. Fnordware (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there are significant differences between the situations of Toure and Malcolm X, some of which have been discussed previously on this page. Some of the differences are: Malcolm X is much more famous; Malcolm X is deceased, and therefore WP:BLP does not apply, while it does apply to Toure; and I guess we can add the fact that we really don't know whether Malcolm X would have objected to his "birth name" being included. But it also seems to me that the fundamental issue here is whether the subject's wishes regarding information in his article are to be given any weight at all. Some people think they are, some think they're not. If not, then you're correct, we just treat Toure like Malcolm X or any of the other examples and include his birth name in the lede. If we do give the subject's wishes any weight, then what I have suggested is a compromise meant to balance the competing interests. Those participating in this discussion can take or leave my suggestion as they see fit. Neutron (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the suggestion of recording that he does not use the surname, because that is encyclopaedic information about the person (provided of course that the statement about non-usage is indeed correct and can be verified by reference to reliable sources) rather than as a direct result of his personal preference as put in his request. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain, and please allow me to make the following points, in no particular order: 1. Prior to the most recent discussion and as soon as a few months ago, Toure's primary concern was that someone doing a news piece on him might use his last name in that piece, despite the fact that he does not want them to. Now the issue has turned into one of "slave names," and I suspect that this is a calculated move on Toure's part designed to inject feeling and emotion into a situation where none is required. Regarding the "slave name" issue for a moment, however, Toure states on his talk page that he has not yet legally changed his name. So Toure's name is still legally Toure Neblett as I am writing this. If the "slave name" is so hurtful and so horrible, and he has been battling for years to strike it from memory, why is it still his legal name? On his talk page he states the following: "I am in the very beginning of the process of changing my name legally but it takes a lot of time and money." Now, I have actually changed my name and it was both quick and inexpensive. Ask any divorced woman who has gone back to her maiden name how easy the process was. It cost me less than $150 and took 4 weeks total with one appearance in front of a judge lasting 5 minutes. Now, let me be clear, even if Toure had legally changed his name by this point it would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In my opinion his birth name would still be relevant on his wiki page. I bring this up only to show his lack of credibility on this issue. He claims that his surname causes a deep psychic level of pain and has so for years yet he refuses to spend $150 and a 4 week waiting period to legally remove it. There are many famous people who changed their names because of a desire to strike a "slave name." Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, are just a couple of examples. Despite the pain the slave name may have caused them they don't get to strike their previous names from the public record simply because they decide to. If a famous transgendered woman did not want anyone to know that they were born a man they would not and/or should not be able to govern Misplaced Pages's coverage accordingly. Furthermore, it is worth noting that we are arguing about what his name currently is. We are not arguing about including his birth name. His birth name and current name are the same right now! Again, his birth name is his current name. He is not Toure who used to be Toure Neblett. he is Toure Neblett who wants to be called Toure.

2. Most importantly I think is the need to address the issue of "causing harm" that Jimmy and others have brought up. In my opinion this rule is being stretched beyond all credulity in this case. The rule was made primarily for situations like the Star Wars kid. Situations where someone was in physical harm due to information being mde public. Toure is in no physical danger whatsoever. He claims to be in emotional danger--which I am not sure the rule is meant to cover--but I addressed the seriousness of this claim in point #1. Again regarding the Star wars kid example, the Star Wars kid is not a public figure. Toure is a public figure. If public figures can decide that information that causes emotional harm to themselves should be stricken from Misplaced Pages then Robert Downey Jr. can have his drug arrests removed from the page and Hugh Grant can have his prostitution sting arrest removed from his page. the fact that Toure claims emotional harm does not satisfy the "do no harm" rule. Again if it did every celebrity could self-edit their pages.

3. Others have said this but it is worth repeating: the subjects of Misplaced Pages articles should not retain journalistic control over their own articles just as they do not control what the New York Times writes about them. This is both common sense and a commonly agreed upon ethical standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyScotland (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

This seems to be a pattern of his: claiming personal anguish as a reason for other people not to do things that he doesn't like. He used the same argument during the Piers Morgan interview, saying that Piers should not have had Robert Zimmerman on because of the "depth of the pain" surrounding the issue. The beauty of this argument is that nobody can refute it. Fnordware (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to write the article, specifically in this section whether to include his full name or not. It is not for criticising his personal behaviour. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more, Cusop Dingle. Toure has framed this issue as an emotional one. He is asking a fact-based website to consider emotions when making editorial decisions. Therefore the discussion of personal issues is totally appropriate. He can't have it both ways. If this is an emotional/personal issue then people are free to address those issues within this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyScotland (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

But the way he frames, or wants to frame, the debate does not control how we frame it. For us it is a discussion about how best to write the encyclopaedia. His activities are relevant to us only as far as they affect what we write. His comments on some chat show would be relevant only is there was some move to document them in the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But the way he frames his argument is effecting how we write this article. It's the whole reason this discussion is taking place. So it's completely valid to point out the nature of his claim. Fnordware (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Merely noting what a subject's birth surname was does not cause any harm, nor does it constitute a lack of compassion or good taste, much less arrogance. As for discomfort, if a subject makes a claim on this basis, then we have to assess whether the claim is reasonable or not. Addressing Toure or referring to him by his slave birth surname might cause discomfort. Merely noting what it was should not, and this is why this claim should be rejected. There's a big difference between addressing or referring to someone as they prefer, and trying to censor what his former name was so that no one else can know it, even when it's in sources. That's not discomfort. That's an attempt to control information based on personal whims, and does not fall into the same category of material that should be removed upon the subject's request, such as info pertaining to privacy, identity theft, safety of their children, etc. Nightscream 02:39, April 4, 2012‎

Retain. A person's birth name is an important piece of biographical information, witness its inclusion (when known) in virtually every other such article. That the person chooses for whatever reason not to use his birth name is his business, but it should not stop Misplaced Pages from reporting this fact. Favonian (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain: I visited Toure Neblett's Misplaced Pages entry last week, but now notice his surname removed only a few days later. The explanations offered thus far seem vacuous and completely self-serving. Mr. Neblett's mission to obfuscate his surname as a public figure is solely a marketing ploy. His legal name remains Toure Neblett, and his claims of cost/money and time are laughable Legal name-changes have minimal cost, and take little effort or time. Misplaced Pages does not, nor should not shy away from truthful information, regardless of the subject's "state of mind." My research has so far shown that, at no time has Mr. Neblett ever been a slave. His argument about his "slave-name" is vapid - no more germane than my Germanic ancestry somehow "afflicts" my identity with Nazism. I would offer that Mr. Neblett's surname remain a part of his Misplaced Pages entry. Historical accuracy is reason enough. I am a total newbie when it comes to Misplaced Pages entries and posting; I trust I followed convention and did this correctly. ToureSyndrome (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Comment: Thanks for sharing the link. This is a good link for future use when the issue of documentation comes up again. Even though Toure himself has never disputed that his last name is Neblett, and the name is used in a wide variety of pieces online written about him, some users insist that proper documentation must be included in future versions of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyScotland (talk) 0:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

You did this correctly, but your username is a concern, because it implies a personal interest in the subject, which would also imply a in regards to this topic. Silverseren 04:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for my username - it was a lame attempt at humor; it was an attempt at a comedic play-on-words: TOUREtte's Syndrome... I have no "personal" interest per se - as noted, when I noticed the change with his entry, I did some research for verification, then noticed Mr. Neblett's excuses for exemption, which I just felt compelled to set the (public) record straight. Toure G. Neblett has an interesting biography - apparently his immediate family has no problem with their surname; My guess is, I cannot change my username, but if it helps to dissuade any notion of conflict of interest, I'll gladly comply. As mentioned, it was an attempt only as humor/play-on-words. ToureSyndrome (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

If you'd like, you can change your username here: Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Simple. Silverseren 06:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've redacted some material in line with BLP policy. Please observe WP:BLPPRIMARY, which applies to talk pages as well. Thanks, --JN466 20:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

--JN466 20:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain: Whether the motivation is branding or a sensitivity to slave history, once we set the precedent of giving the subjects of articles editorial control, this ceases to be an encyclopedia. The subject is not merely asking for his chosen name to be the primary heading -- that seems to me reasonable -- but rather, he wants to actively disappear information. Make that policy here? I can't imagine where that stops, or how we adjudicate cases from that point forward. He's a public figure. The artist formerly known as "Prince," Malcolm X, Muhammed Ali & Kareem Abdul Jabbar all have their birth names there. 108.70.30.46 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Note to closing admin There are three new accounts—User:98.92.188.202, User:JohnnyScotland, and User:ToureSyndrome— commenting and voting in this discussion that have not yet made any contributions to WP’s article space. I have now tagged them as single-purpose accounts. The now thankfully redacted link posted by ToureSyndrome and reposted by JohnnyScotland suggests that both new contributors share a worrying obsession with the subject’s private affairs. User:108.70.30.46 currently has a total of 10 edits, two of which were made to this talk page. Draco 17:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow this is really ridiculous. I thought people weren't supposed to make personal/ad hominem attacks against other users? I can't speak for User:98.92.188.202 or User:ToureSyndrome but I just started using Misplaced Pages (as an editor) a short time ago. The whole reason i even thought to get involved was this issue. I came to Toure's page expecting to find out more about him and was surprised that no last name was listed. This is what sparked my recent involvement as an editor. I plan on editing more articles in the future, but I think it is pretty ridiculous that new users can't even edit (or get involved with) an article without being branded as a "single issue" person. Everyone has to start somewhere, right? I just registered a few days ago because I had been using an IP address but I thought I should register if I was going to get more involved. Thanks for making me feel so unwelcome because I had the gall to start in the same place and not get involved with 5 articles simultaneously. I guess someone could have accused you of being single issue person right after you finished editing your first article. So I guess I would like to make a note to the closing admin, too, (whoever/whatever that is BTW) that I don't appreciate the ad hominem attacks from Draco. JohnnyScotland (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As long as this article lacks a full name for the subject, it comes accross as a rather affectatious and effete publicity piece (e.g., Prince) for a member of the arts industry. It is embarassing to this institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcvillar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel the same way for the articles on Eminem, Prince, Madonna, Sting, Common, Penny, or Ishi? Nightscream (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the OP would not feel the same way about those articles; they include real names. JFHJr (㊟) 18:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It really makes no sense that his last name is not included in this article. Why can't you just say, "I was born as Toure ________ but just go by Toure now because _______?" Is it that difficult? Everyone in the country has a legal last name, and in the case of those with a public mononym, their last names are still publicly available if that person chooses to be in public life. Unless it actively puts you in danger, your last name should be posted on this page. It is really bizarre that for some reason the Misplaced Pages founder seems to be on your side of this clearly cut-and-dry issue. 158.130.14.20 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The real issue is why is he alone of virtually ANY living person allowed to dictate his wikipedia article? That is the real issue. 2 sets of rules: 1 for him, one for everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Retain WP:V and WP:RS both support retention. A last name which has not been legally changed is not a "contentious claim." And even "legally changed names" may not be applicable as a reason - a person who has legally changed his name to "Elvis" is still going to end up with his birth name in an article. All the rest is pure publicity sideshow at this point. Collect (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Which RS? I don't recall seeing a BLP-appropriate source. Guettarda (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • was using full name as late as 2003. RS source for sure. Self-identification it appears for the publication he worked for. HuffPo column also seems to be sufficiently reliable from here. Collect (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I've never heard of Benn's Media - can you attest to their editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking? And what exactly does the source say? I'm not even getting a fragment of a quote on Google books. Can you provide a quote? As for the HuffPo link - it's a blog post, not a column. HuffPo, as I mentioned higher up the page is a hybrid source - paid contributors + unpaid bloggers. Since the Lewis page is clearly marked as a blog post, I don't see how it can be used as a source for material that is clearly contentious. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Have you read the preceding discussion? The production company distributing his television programs has issued press releases with his full name, and that material has been reprinted in the wider media. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I've read the discussion. And Touré clearly says "that's not my name". You're familiar with the concept of a slave name? Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Benn's Media" is a well-known established reliable source for listings of publicantions and their staffs, contacts etc. And "Benn's Media" is not a "contentious" source at all. Also used as a source in several WP articles, by the way. Collect (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's contention information. Not the source, the content. The only reason we're having this discussion is to determine whether we get to say what name the man should be called by, or whether he does. We're only having this discussion because we want to decide whether to include contentious material. Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain with mention as birth name. An article on an individual notable enough to have an article(slightly circular but you get the point) is about someone who is in the public eye at some level. They have put themselves out there. Unless he is in actual danger(emotional or physical), which he doesn't seem to be, there is no reason to withhold his name since his name is known. Ayzmo (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain While I understand his desire to not be known by his "slave name," I fail to see why it would matter at all for this information to be listed. I came to this page trying to figure out why he was only known by a single name, and had to go to the talk page to find out -- doesn't seem as though the Misplaced Pages community is doing its job. Adding the information that he was born as "Toure _____" does not mean he MUST be known by this in all interactions going forward, simply that his biography page has widely known, accurate information about his past. The comparisons raised to the Star Wars kid are utter nonsense -- divulging his name would mean exposing himself to cyberbullying against his will and really would be an act of cyberbullying in and of itself. Toure is a public figure who chooses to be in the spotlight. He should not be given special treatment and I'm really shocked and disgusted that he is being given special treatment. 158.130.14.20 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Omit. I am shocked that this is even an issue. We have had an extremely polite, well articulated request to remove some information that is entirely incidental to the subject in hand. We should remember that, as editors here, we have the power to write things that will very quickly become a resource highly linked to around the internet, and part of the permanent record of a subject. When a person wishes certain things to be kept off the record, I believe we must have a very strong reason not to comply with those wishes. I do not see such a reason in this case. Instead, I see people trying to make a point. The biography of a real person, with real feelings, is not the place to do that. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the feelings of the article's subject can't be taken into account because that would violate our need for a neutral point of view. What is relevant to the discussion is the WP:BLP principle "do no harm," elaborated in the avoiding harm essay. But harm in this case is not defined as what Touré claims hurts his feelings, but things that will damage the subject's reputation, invade their privacy, etc. If his birth name passes the inclusion test, then it should be included. Is it widely known through its mention in reliable sources? At this point I don't think we have the sources and that is the reason to leave it out, not Touré's feelings. Fnordware (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. That's precisely the point of WP:BLP - and WP:BDP, for that matter. Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, source reliability is not an issue. We sources: a press release from his production company and a record of his campaign contributions at CampaignMoney.com. Nightscream (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And you have evidence that these are high-quality reliable source with editorial oversight and a history of fact-checking? Touré has said, "that's not my name". What you're saying is "yes it is!" Quite frankly, if we want to say "you have no rights here, you MUST use your slave name, if you want to claim the slave master's role in imposing names on people...at the very least, you've got to have some damn good source. After all, if describing someone as "retired" is not just unacceptable but is even grounds for a topic ban, we can't simply throw disputed phrases into a BLP which aren't supported by precisely the wording we use, in a high-quality source. Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The campaign contribution site is a primary source, so its inclusion would mean we were doing original research. I had not seen the press release, which could be used if we follow the rules. It's interesting to me that this press release is only a year old. What we'd really like is something that actually states "Touré was born Touré Neblett on..." so we are making no logical leaps on our own. Given what we have, an objective statement would be, "While generally known by his mononym, Touré is occasionally referred to by his full name, Touré Neblett." We should not mention that he does not like his last name to be used, because we don't have any Reliable Sources for that as far as I know. Fnordware (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that still OR - to say "is occasionally referred to...". The press release may not be a primary source for the name, but if we use it to draw conclusions about usage then it's OR. Per policy, we should say "is referred to as Touré Neblett in "...which makes the notability of the sources the issue. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is not completely clean and would be better if that sentence would come from an independent source. That's the real idea behind WP:BLP: to exercise higher standards of accuracy and verifiability. But for any given citation, the editor has to make the logical leap that the person mentioned in the source matches the person in the Misplaced Pages article. Since we already mention On the Record in the article, that leap is OK here. But putting that in the article would be describing the citation itself, not using the citation to back up something said in the article. Maybe I agree that is it not good enough then. Fnordware (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Touré has said, 'that's not my name'." When has he said this? I've been following this matter closely for months, and am unfamiliar with such an instance. His position has been that it is indeed the surname he was born with, but that he wants that fact censored from his article because it is "painful" for him. The veracity of that surname, therefore, is not "disputed".

"The campaign contribution site is a primary source, so its inclusion would mean we were doing original research." Wrong on both counts. First, Primary sources those that are very close to the information in question, often providing insider accounts written by people who are directly involved. CampaignMoney.com is a secondary source.

Second, original research is material that lacks sources, not material that cites primary ones. Primary sources in fact, may be used in a limited matter in articles; that does not mean that material found in articles that is supported by them is "original research". Nightscream (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he has specifically said that Neblett is his last name, but also that it is his "slave name", so he doesn't want to be associated with it. I'm still not sure at all what that means, but he said it was something spiritual. *shrugs* Silverseren 18:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the WP:NOR article you link to, original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." That applies to the campaign site. You can say someone named Touré Neblett made a contribution, but you can't say Touré's legal name is Touré Neblett. And even if CampaignMoney.com isn't itself a primary source, isn't it just repeating another primary source? From the BLP: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Fnordware (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quote from a New York Times article on Touré's wedding, published in 2005: "... said Touré, 34, who uses only one name." I'd call that a reputable secondary source. And here are two more notable people with names of their choosing whose WP biographies, like the one for Orlan, contain no mention of their birth names: Lonely Christopher and William Pope.L. It's not like we'd be breaking new ground by respecting Touré's wish. Draco 01:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if you can establish that the real names of those other notables were kept out of their articles as a result of deliberatel decision by the editing community, rather than due to lack of sources. Those articles appear to be only moderately developed (especially the Lonely Christopher one), so it's possible that their real names merely haven't been added to those articles yet. Can you say that it was a deliberate response to requests on the part of those notables? If not, then pointing to them isn't a valid argument. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And I believe that is the reason the first names aren't in those articles. If there was a source, there would be no reason to keep their birth names out. Regarding the NY Times article, it seems ridiculous but I think a strict reading of the WP:BLP would still say that is not good enough. All it says it that he only uses one name, which is self-evident. Other sources say there is a person named Touré Neblett, who has the same job as the Touré described here. But there is no source that says Touré's real name is Touré Neblett. The information we have would probably be good enough for a journalist to make the conclusion, but until they do we can not say as much in Misplaced Pages. Fnordware (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"If there was a source, there would be no reason to keep their birth names out." Um, no, that's an assumption. That's certainly one possibility, but another is the one I just gave you above: That no one has added the names to those articles yet, because those articles have not been fully developed. You cannot conclude that the absence of a particular bit of information in an article automatically means that it doesn't exist in sources, especially when the article's are only moderately or poorly developed.

In addition, your argument above was that we wouldn't be breaking new ground by respecting Touré's wish, not by merely lacking sources. Again, can you establish that the subjects of those articles made a specific request to omit their names, and that this is the reason that those articles do so? If you cannot, then your argument is false. An assumption is not conclusive evidence.

"Other sources say there is a person named Touré Neblett, who has the same job as the Touré described here." And it is perverse to argue that that Touré Neblett is not the subject of this article. It is obviously him, and no policy or guideline is violated for Misplaced Pages to acknowledge as much. Nightscream (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream, could you please point me to the relevant passage supporting your claim ("Only if you can establish that the real names of those other notables were kept out of their articles as a result of deliberatel decision by the editing community, rather than due to lack of sources.") in WP:BLP? Regarding the "editing community" voting in this poll, let's just say that the IPs seem to be having quite a party. At the time of writing, 22 registered editors have voted and/or commented here. 25 if you include Touré, the tastefully named ToureSyndrome (2 contributions), and the JohnnyScotland SPA. Among this "community" is a user who is currently displaying the Ku Klux Klan logo on his WP page and another user with a total of 76 edits since joining the project in 2004. Who knows what a bunch of journalists with time on their hands would find in the edit histories of some of the other registered contributors voting and participating in this discussion. The term juicy PR disaster comes to mind. Incidentally, the prospect of that rather than a willingness to do the decent thing seems to be the motivation behind a user's recent Omit vote. Draco 04:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make a claim about WP:BLP. I was responding to your argument that articles like Orlan, Lonely Christopher and William Pope.L provide a precedent for respecting a BLP subject's wishes, as you well know. You have not established that the subjects of those articles made any requests about their articles. Don't pretend now that you've forgotten the train of the exchange by claiming that you and I were referencing WP:BLP, when you know full well that we were not.

You don't like the consensus that has been revealed, and you're using flimsy, intellectually dishonest arguments to dismiss it. Now you're trying to cast aspersions on those who have voiced their viewpoints here, which is pretty low of you. One user has only made 76 edits? So what? Another user displays the KKK logo on his user page? So what? That userbox makes clear that User:Buddy431 "supports the rights of those who hold unpopular views, however distasteful they may be", which you conveniently omitted was the reason he displays that logo. What does that have to do with this discussion? How does supporting freedom of expression of people with unpopular views delegitimize his stated viewpoint here about retaining a BLP subject's sourced surname? Casting such aspersions on other editors like this isn't just a subtle violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF; it's the sort of slimy smear tactic worthy of a politician running for election.

In light of the fact that you yourself only began editing here last February, and have racked up only 663 edits in that time, I think I speak with some authority, as someone who has accumulated over 65,000 edits since March 2005, when I say, kindly knock it off. Focus on arguments, evidence and reason, and not on the editor. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I’m sorry you chose to interpret my comments as an invitation for a slap fight. I never said that the WP biographies for Orlan, William Pope.L and Lonely Christopher are examples of WP editors respecting a subject's wishes to have their birth names removed. What these articles show is that the WP “community” and our readers are perfectly fine with the current versions of these articles, and have been for years as far as Orlan and William Pope.L are concerned. These BLPs contain information relevant to their subject’s achievements, and that’s what a reputable encyclopedia should focus on. The fact that in Touré’s case, the subject made a polite request to have something as irrelevant as a name that is in no way connected to what he has achieved removed rather strengthens that line of reasoning. To make it even clearer, if you were notable, would I want to know whether you were known as Farty Pants in second grade? Not really.

Wrt casting aspersions, I merely pointed out a few things that outside observers will find interesting. By linking to them. You chose to name one of the contributors I mentioned. Stating one’s support for the rights of people with unpopular views is fine and dandy, but if a user emphasises that by flying the KKK flag on their WP page, don’t blame people for concluding that this may not be the best person to vote on an issue concerning a notable black writer.

Also, please get your facts right. I did not join last February, but in February 2010. I have a job and I’m a mother, which goes some way toward explaining why my edit count is low. The other reason is that I shelved a number of biographies of living people I had been working on after becoming aware what a raw deal this project is giving its notable “subjects” when put to the test. I arrived here after finding out that User:Tarc had taken a proposal I made here somewhat further and invited people to vote on Jimbo Wales’s talk page where this discussion was eventually mentioned. In my case, WP will have to do without biographies for asha bandele, DJ Beverly Bond, Leith Mullings, and Lisa Teasley. In fact, I’m quite pleased to see that some other WP editors decided to delete the biography for DJ Diamond Kuts because they considered her “Totally non-notable, no celebrity, posting up their wiki-CV, to get their page hits up with their FB account and so on.” In the current climate, she dodged a bullet for sure.

Now, could you please show me where it says in WP:BLP that we are obligated to include a notable person's birth name? Draco 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of you could do with dialling back the heat a bit. Both of you are experienced enough editors to be able to discuss article content without resorting to back and forth bickering about who has the most edits or who really cares more about Misplaced Pages policy. Draco, Nightscream makes a valid point about Orlan, William Pope.L and Lonely Christopher in that there has never been any discussion at any of those articles about whether or not the subject's birth name should be included. None of the articles is yet an example of Misplaced Pages's most thorough, comprehensive, detailed work. (Lonely Christopher's article in particular has only had two editors adding any appreciable content, and has yet to see any edits on its talk page.) We can't say whether or not the omission is due to careful editorial judgement, due to respect for the artist's expressed preference, due to a lack of sources, or due simply to the articles still being incomplete. (While I realize that no article on Misplaced Pages is ever 'complete' in an absolute sense, successful passage through the Featured Article process comes close. Peer Review would also be a good place to get a read on whether or not the community thinks the articles include sufficient relevant information.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"'Slimy'? Nice." If you engage in slimy tactics because you think it'll help you win an argument, you don't get to misdirect attention on the person who pointed out that you did so. Stop pretending that the term with which I accurately characterized your behavior is more questionable than that behavior itself. It isn't.

"What these articles show is that the WP “community” and our readers are perfectly fine with the current versions of these articles, and have been for years as far as Orlan and William Pope.L are concerned." No, they do not. As I stated before, this is assumption on your part. I'll ask you again, do you have any evidence that specific requests were made both those subjects to omit their birth names, and that a consensus decided to comply with those requests, and not that the articles merely omit the names yet because they haven't been developed? Links to discussions, for example? As it stands, two of those articles have only a single, one-line message on their talk pages, and the third has no talk page yet at all, so I'm guessing your don't. Stop pretending that stating something dogmatically makes it true. It doesn't.

"These BLPs contain information relevant to their subject’s achievements, and that’s what a reputable encyclopedia should focus on." We're not talking about what articles focus on. We're talking about whether an biographical article should mention the subject's birth name. Obviously it should, since it's an inherent part of biographical work. Tom Cruise's article certainly focuses on his work and his public image. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't mention his birth surname. What an article should mention and what it should focus on are two different things. Mentioning a subject's birth name and focusing on what he or she is known for are not mutually exclusive points on an Either/Or spectrum. Please stop pretending that they are.

"The fact that in Touré’s case, the subject made a polite request to have something as irrelevant as a name that is in no way connected to what he has achieved removed rather strengthens that line of reasoning. To make it even clearer, if you were notable, would I want to know whether you were known as Farty Pants in second grade?" The fact that Touré made a request to have his name removed strengthens the line of reasoning that encyclopedias should only focus on subject's work? How do you figure this? This is a non sequitur. Do you even know what you're saying? The fact that one of these statements follows the other in your syllogism isn't the same thing as saying that it strengthens it.

Second, the birth name of a subject is not "irrelevant" in a biography about them, and to say that it is preposterous. A person's birth name is one of the first things a biography mentions. Pretending it isn't means you have to ignore just about every biography ever written, and the practices of biographical scholarship itself. By contrast, grade school epithets are irrelevant. Comparing the two is silly. This is an ideological statement, and not one based on biographical practices.

"Wrt casting aspersions, I merely pointed out a few things that outside observers will find interesting." You cast aspersions on other editors by mocking their edit count, and making ad hominem remarks about them, which had nothing to do with this discussion, or with falsifying the reasoning they gave for their positions. The fact that you refer to this with different, euphemistic wording does not change this.

"By linking to them. You chose to name one of the contributors I mentioned." So what? Is it your position that others reading this discussion would not have learned the identity of the editor in question from your link? Didn't your link go right to his user page? If so, then in way was my referring to him by name relevant? For that matter, what makes you think he even cares that others name him? Do you really think he's trying to hide, given that he chose to put that logo on his user page?

"Stating one’s support for the rights of people with unpopular views is fine and dandy, but if a user emphasises that by flying the KKK flag on their WP page, don’t blame people for concluding that this may not be the best person to vote on an issue concerning a notable black writer." I can easily blame such people for being incapable of forming coherent logic, since this is a ad hominem argument. Again, Buddy made clear that he displays that logo in order to make a statement about unpopular speech. What type of aesthetic reaction your or I have to that decision has jack-all to do with whether the reasoning he provided for his position is valid or not. If his position, or the reasoning he offered for it, was invalid, then you could've falsified it by arguing how. Instead, you restored to a lazy logical fallacy. Nice try.

In any event, you and I both know that you don't really think Buddy's user page is relevant to this discussion, because you also mocked other editors for other reasons, namely their edit count, which has nothing to do with race. You simply don't like the consensus that has developed here, and you're reacting to it by lashing out at some of the editors who generated that consensus with cheap shots.

"Also, please get your facts right. I did not join last February, but in February 2010." So your edit rate is actually half of what I initially understood it to be? And still you mocked other's edit counts? Gee, thanks for bolstering my original refutation!

"I have a job and I’m a mother, which goes some way toward explaining why my edit count is low." But somehow the same does not hold true of the editors whose edit counts you mocked? Why is this? So you're a mother. So what? Everyone here has family, jobs, other obligations, including myself, and presumably those other editors. But somehow this excuses your low edit count, but not that of others? Can you please explain how this is not hypocrisy?

"Now, could you please show me where it says in WP:BLP that we are obligated to include a notable person's birth name?" I didn't say it did. But omitting the documented birth name of an encyclopedic subject from an encyclopedia is completely out of phase with the role of encyclopedias, a point I've articulated and explained further in various messages in this discussion. The little booklet that comes with a set of knives doesn't say, "Don't take one of these and stick it in your eye, cuz that'll really hurt!" It doesn't have to, because it's obvious. Similarly, including the birth name of a BLP subject is obvious.

But if you really want to pretend that it has to be explicitly mentioned, it does so right here. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain - This is an encyclopedia, and, as long as the information here isn't libelous, noting someone's birthname is not wrong, "slave name" or not. (Remember, almost nobody gets to pick their name, fore or sur. In fact, noting why he dropped his surname in the article might initiate the very discussions about history and race that Touré would like to encourage.) TuckerResearch (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RETAIN RETAIN RETAIN. No one else gets to control the content of their wikipedia entry -- and when others do attempt to shape theirs, tehy are ridiculed. Unless, of course, we believe that somehow this dude is by nature inherently superior to the rest of humanity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Omit, mainly for meta-reasons involving the health of the organization. We need, badly, to have an obudsman. We have someone, Jimbo Wales, who is willing to do this job and who has the fame (outside the organization) and the moral authority (inside the organization) such that outside people know to go to him and inside people listen to him. For goodness' sake let's treasure that. We are plenty anarchic enough without having to override every shred of any structure that militates against pure mob rule. It's not that Jimbo Wales is necessarily wiser than anyone else or is necessarily right this time. It's that we need to have and respect the de facto position and office of ombudsman, such as it it. It is, overall, healthy and good for the organization to do so in the long term. It is, overall, also good for society if we have an effective ombudsman. So let's do. The man went to Jimbo in a proper and respectful manner seeking relief. Jimbo is inclined to rule in his favor. I'm inclined to honor that, not withstanding the technical merit or lack of merit of the case. (Now, if Jimbo was a cretin or madman, or if his decision (or suggestion if you prefer) in this case was egregiously stupid or insane, that'd be different. But that's not the case. Even opponents of the decision must grant that it's defensible.) Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope Jimmy would disagree with you. I hope he would advocate only that we follow established Misplaced Pages guidelines, not that we bend them as a favor for any one person, including him. Fnordware (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We do not need an ombudsman when the normal tool of consensus (which is entirely a valid aspect of the "structure" you mention) has worked perfectly well to illustrate what the general feelings of the community are. Jimbo is not inclined to "rule" in his favor, since that isn't what Jimbo does. What Jimbo has done has made his feelings on the question, which is not a "ruling" decision. The general consensus here is that we retain the surname. Just because you don't like what the consensus is doesn't make it "anarchy", and it's a bit insulting to the community here for you to dismiss it as such. Nightscream (talk)

Why is this article even here?

Edit request on 1 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Piers Morgan did not interview George Zimmerman. He interviewed Robert Zimmerman, the brother of George Zimmerman. 67.164.122.140 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Content rectified. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View / Close Connection

I'm surprised there has been no talk here about the WP:COI banner that has been on this article for nearly a year. The entire career section of this article is mostly un-cited, with the exception of the Piers Morgan stuff. Furthermore, much of the the content was written by a User:Toure and other edits by different users/IPs may have been him also, including User:General Kizza, who created the article and who has mostly just contributed to the Touré article. Touré is notable enough to warrant an article, since he has now had at least one book published by a prominent publisher and the Piers Morgan incident has been covered. But the bulk of this article should be cleaned out if there are no reliable sources for it. Fnordware (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the subject (sometimes as user: Toure, sometimes via sockpuppets, is constantly editting the article and talk page. THAT is a major violation of wikipedia policies (at least as it exists for the rest of humanity) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment