Misplaced Pages

Talk:Danah boyd: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:27, 18 September 2008 editBellagio99 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,524 edits →Changes: added sig← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:30, 14 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,504,832 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(464 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi|page=Danah boyd (2nd nomination)|date=2 November 2016|result='''keep'''}}
{{WPB
{{Old AfD multi|date=8 April 2006}}
|1={{WPBiography|living = yes|class = Start|priority = Low|a&e-work-group = yes|s&a-work-group = yes}}
|2={{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Boyd, Danah|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Low|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|person=yes}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=Low|computing-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women scientists|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Women in Red}}
{{WikiProject Women writers |importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Zephoria}}
{{oldafdfull|date=8 April 2006}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Zephoria|Boyd, Danah}}
{{archivebox|]}}


{{lowercase title}}
== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


{{Archive box|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
] → ] — This has gone back and forth a few times in the past, but the lower case is what she is published under, and is the most common usage. According to her it is also her actual legal name. We have done this in other articles, I don't see why we would be so intransigent when the actual person has an interest. ''']''' 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
===Survey===
== Why is her name not capitalized? ==
:''Add &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Support'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; or &nbsp;<tt><big><nowiki># '''Oppose'''</nowiki></big></tt>&nbsp; on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Please remember that this survey is ], and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.''
One lone woman can't change the English rules for capitalization of proper nouns. Capitalize it correctly. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Because her name is (lowercase) danah boyd, not uppercase. Proper nouns of sapients and collectives are the choice in capitalization of the sapient or collective, with title case being a default. Uppercase is only used if the platform doesn't suport lower. ] (]) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
====Survey - in support of the move====
# '''Strong Support''' ] says "We must get the article ''right''." This article should have accurate information that can be reliably sourced, and this question falls under that banner. ] is completely silent (and thus not at all clear, contrary to what Cyrus XIII says below) on what to do with personal names one or more words of which begin with a lowercase letter. This should be addressed in an update to the guideline. Additionally, to dismiss idiosyncratic orthography out of hand is to introduce a POV contention that idiosyncratic orthography is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is the height of NPOV to simply relay information as it is without making such judgments. —] 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' As nominator. I agree the policy is silent about idiosyncratic capitalization. It's not at all clear. I would also rather a general consensus occur about this, and have asked at that policy page. - ''']''' 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Per BLP as noted above. BLP trumpts MOS period. ] 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


== MoS ==
====Survey - in opposition to the move====
# '''Oppose.''' ] is clear on this and it brings up NPOV concerns to dismiss stylized typography when dealing with company names, groups of artists (i.e. bands) and published works (all which is done regularly, following the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style) and then give special treatment to articles about people who happen be notable for what they do on their own. - ] 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
#:It certainly is a violation of NPOV to treat one differently from the others, but that does not mean replacing two NPOV violations with one NPOV violations is better than replacing it with zero NPOV violations. Misplaced Pages should neutrally report all names as they are without forcing them to conform to someone's idea of orthodoxy. —] 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
#::Yes, I believe you have made it perfectly clear in previous discussions, that you strongly disapprove of any part of the Manual of Style which dismisses idiosyncratic capitalization. You also seem to have ceased most other activity on Misplaced Pages beside taking part in these discussions, which is a pity. - ] 23:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
#:::Isn't that a bit ad hominem and distracting? I'm not sure what my pattern of Misplaced Pages activity has to do with the discussion at hand, but I have been, and remain, a casual editor. I have always been primarily a reader of Misplaced Pages, and seek to improve it only when I find a lack of particular interest to me. If anything, my interest in this issue indicates an increase in my Misplaced Pages participation, not a cessation of other activity. However, I do not suspect that this increase will be sustained, since the experience has been disheartening, and that is indeed a pity. But what does that have to do with danah boyd's article title? Whether or not I have made my opinions known elsewhere, they are still relevant to this discussed move. I might as well say you have made your opinions known elsewhere, since you have, and the point would be...what, exactly? Better to just focus on the issue at hand. —] 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
#::::Oh, I absolutely agree that the focus of your activities has little to do with the discussion at hand, I merely sought to suggest that picking up a few mundane editing tasks in between of discussions helps to avoid Wikistress. Works for me at least, apologies if my remark was out of place. - ] 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
#:::::I appreciate the sentiment, and pretty much agree—but a location more appropriate for it and less distracting to this survey would have been my own talk page. (Oh, and my wife sitting next to me says I care far too much about this and that it's definitely causing me Wikistress, and she would have said a month ago "Misplaced Pages sucks, oh well." I don't think Misplaced Pages sucks, but certain things about it disappoint me, as I said at the bottom of the xxxHOLiC move discussion.) This is just more distraction though, so if you really want to continue it, my talk page is available. —] 06:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Strong oppose'''. ] is clear that proper names should be capitalized. ] also specifically covers the examples of what to do with a lower-case trademark -- On Misplaced Pages, our Manual of Style is to capitalize. Further, even if we had more discretion on this at Misplaced Pages, I'd say that regardless of how Boyd personally spells her name on her own blog, Misplaced Pages should follow the lead of ]. , , and all use the spelling of "Danah Boyd." --]]] 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
#:Silence is not clarity. And there are other references above on this talk page to reliable sources which do use lowercase letters. Also, the trademark discussion is a complete distraction and not relevant to a personal name. —] 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' per the manuals of style, and Elonka. ] 10:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
#:Again I must point out that the manual of style says nothing regarding this question. —] 21:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
#::"''As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized''" and "''Misplaced Pages articles should heed these guidelines''" are hardly "nothing". - ] 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
#:::Then you believe the guideline is meant to be interpreted to mean that the current usages of ], ], ], and ] are all incorrect? Clearly, the guideline has gaps. It says nothing about what to do with sections of names which are incorrect to capitalize. —] 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


This is your occasional reminder that the current Manual of Style would recommend this article use "danah boyd" (which has regular and established use in reliable third-party sources and is the subject's preference), and that the continued deviation from the guideline is a source of persistent surprise and confusion for anyone who isn't a Misplaced Pages admin. Anyone feel brave enough to propose the move? ] (]) 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:Per ], , ], ] etc. this would seem an obvious move. ] 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:Considering that the policy has been in place for close to three years now, and almost all of the objections above are objections to the policy and not to its application to this page, I would definitely offer my support. -- ] (]) 13:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:''Support.'' It seems a mountain over a molehill, but I would support the move. -- ] (]) 03:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
: ''Support'' but figger the old objectors are still around. ] (]) 15:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


: Personally, I think the decent thing to do would be to honor her name-formatting/capitalization preferences. However, from a sampling of the reliable sources used as references in the article, as well as a , it appears most of them don't honor it, and instead use "Danah Boyd". So the question is, which takes precedence: her preferences, or the reliable source usage? Is it sufficient that a decent minority (20–25%, if I had to guess) of the reliable sources ''do'' honor her preference? ] (]) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
::The standard, from ] is "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." It doesn´t need to be a majority. I would definitely say that a "decent minority" over the course of years constitutes regular and established use. -- ] (]) 18:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
''] covers contentious information about the subject, and by my reading of that page, capitalising someone's name according to the usual rules of grammar does not constitute a contentious stance. The subject would not win a libel case against a newspaper just because they wrote her name with capital letters, for instance. Given that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this facet of the article, the Manual of Style can, and does. We therefore follow other reliable sources (Elonka lists a few) and keep the name capitalised.'' {{notmoved}} --] 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with that perspective, but as Bellagio99 suggests below, it would be good to line up a comprehensive list of the RS references that use "danah boyd" prior to opening a move request. ] (]) 23:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


::Having gone thru this multiple times (without success), I urge Irn and Ubernostrum to post a bunch of reliable lower case sources, before continuing the debate. Otherwise, I fear, same old, same old.] (]) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
== Apr 8 RFC ==
:::I've been through this multiple times, too, and can attest that reliable sources make not a bit of difference -- the moment you bring up a respectable source, you get shouted down with "oh, obviously they've been influenced by her and aren't reliable anymore". ] (]) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


:::Yeah, Uber, I've been there with you. And I am not volunteering to do the work, altho Google Scholar would make it easy. But talking in an evidence vacuum doesn't make sense either. Those who are passionate about it, please put up or shut up as we used to say as a kid (in the nicest way). Assemble the evidence, svp. ] (]) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
* Coming in off of the RFC (posted on April 8), my opinion: danah boyd's name is frequently used in lowercase as well as in first-capped mixed case. Since both variants appear in the published record, danah boyd's own statements about her name are helpful; they're certainly not self-serving and they don't present verifiability/NOR problems since there is significant evidence in the published record that she goes by lowercase d-b. This is a BLP issue, since it is principally about identities. BLP makes clear that things which reflect on core identities (religious beliefs, sexual orientation) should rely on the individual's self-identification. For whatever reason danah boyd has chosen to lowercase her name, that should be respected as much as any other core identity issue -- there is little that is more core as an identity than one's name. (The "it's not defamatory" is not a good reason: religious faith is not defamatory, and sexual orientation is not necessarily defamatory either. So "defamation" is clearly not the threshold.) --] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Done. ] (]) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
*I think Boyd's printed name here should reflect her publications, and the media's representation of her name. K.d.lang has a long history both of performing and being billed as k.d.lang, and of the media referring to her as k.d.lang. Therefore her listing can rightly refer to her as k.d.lang. Such is not the case here. This is less a spelling issue and more of a typesetting one. If Boyd decided that she wanted her name written in green ink, she could make all the same arguments she has made earlier, and I still don't think Misplaced Pages should refer to her as <font color=green>danah boyd</font>. Her personal wishes should not come into play on this discussion. This has to do with previously published references, and currently accepted practices. She is published under the name "Danah Boyd" in several media sources. I don't think it violates any guidelines to capitalize her name according to the standards of published third-party sources. ] 10:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the body, but I think an admin needs to do the move? ] (]) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
:As there was no objections to your change, I've formalised it in the page title. ] 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:: There are most definitely objections to the change, and this should go through ]. --]]] 17:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::You waited through three months of discussion in favour of the change to pipe up for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, seriously? ] 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Calling "fixing spelling" is so disingenuously misleading I really question the spirit beyond these eleventh-hour reversions. ] 17:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: Using an edit summary of "obstructionist tactics" is not particularly ]. In any case, ] is pretty clear: "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." Or in other words, if there's a clear consensus, it'll show up in formal discussion. Why not give it a try? --]]] 17:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::::: I have to agree with Skomorokh that was an extremely misleading edit summary. Regardless, now that there's an objection, I'll go ahead and start a formal move request. ] (]) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::: Oh, Elonka, I wondered when you'd take notice. But since you're here: it's time to hear an argument for why this article should go against the grain of MoS, since the growing consensus appears to be that the article should be edited to conform. I await that argument, though not with bated breath -- one suspects that a flurry of edits is about to occur over at MoS instead. ] (]) 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Per ], sentences that begin with "Boyd" should use a capital letter. This does not fit the exceptions under "" for mathematical constants or "trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter, followed by a capitalized second letter." Therefore, standard English capitalization rules apply to those sentences. --] (]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
:I don't really care what we do about this but I will point out that the MOS page to which you linked contradicts itself. As you point out, one section says that we should capitalize boyd when it begins a sentence. Another section in that same page also says: "The initial letter in a sentence is capitalized. This does not apply if it begins with a letter which is always left uncapitalized." That, of course, contradicts the requirement to capitalize names when they begin a sentence. If this is important to you, I recommend taking this up on the Talk page of the MOS to have it resolved so this doesn't come up again in the future. ] (]) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


== Requested move ==
*if she legally changed her name to "danah boyd" then that should be the article's title. legal accuracy trumps MOS. ] 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
* The important references we have for her, the New York Times and the Financial Times, both use Danah Boyd. Therefore, it seems clear the mainstream media, and presumably the world, usually refers to her this way. So should we. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
**your subjective claims that it "seems clear" and "presumably the world" are not good grounds for policy decisions, IMO ] 16:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*** That's pretty much what ] is all about, actually. Note the part where it says "Misplaced Pages is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." So what that means is you can put a couple of sentences there that on her site she claims that she got some kind of papers (note that she doesn't specify it was a legal name change) that use the lower case form. But the article title should be the mixed case form. See, for example, ], which makes a big deal out of writing REALTOR all over the place - but we don't, because most people don't. See ], for a far more important person - his name is James, but since the world calls him Jimmy, so do we. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
****FWIW, she indicated that it is legally lower-case. And my point is that just becuase the NY Times uses upper case isn't sufficient evidence for you to claim that "presumably the world" does too. ] 17:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
***** Misplaced Pages should follow the lead of major published sources, per ]. Right now those sources use "Danah Boyd." If the majority of third-party sources start printing her name lowercase, then Misplaced Pages can follow that example. But so far I'm not seeing it. If there ''are'' third-party sources which use the lowercase version of her name, please provide them. --]]] 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
****** even if the living subject herself states those "leading" third party sources are incorrect? why must wikipedia perpetuate their error? ] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*******One might also argue that the editors of these sources merely decide to stick with basic grammar rules indiscriminately (in this case first letter capitalizing proper nouns), so that neither individual people, nor companies or brands get to stand out in any special way, as these publications write about them, not for them. I'd say this is the most ] compliant approach possible, when it comes to typesetting. - ] 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
********One might argue that (do you?), but I think they'd be wrong. The fact of the matter is "Danah Boyd" is not her name, "danah boyd" is. Do we need to ask her to produce the legal name-change documentation?? ] 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*********No, just as Sony does not have to provide us with the paperwork which says that they trademarked the name of ] in all-caps - apart from mentioning it, it's just not relevant to us a as mature, descriptive publication. - ] 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
**********Well, I wish you luck, then, getting ] and other articles renamed as well. ] 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
** This is danah. My birth certificate says DANAH MICHELE BOYD - all birth certificates and driver's licenses in the United States are fully capitalized. My signature on all official documents is lower-cased. My name on my diplomas is lower-cased. My name on all of my own publication is lower-cased. There are plenty of journalists who have chosen to capitalize my name and quite a few who have called me "Dana Boyd" (lacking the 'h' in my first name), but this does not reflect accuracy. I find it peculiar that it is desirable to reproduce inaccuracies from news media simply because they are common. If you look at any of my publications in print, you'll find that my name is always lower-cased. Why wouldn't you default to the capitalization of my articles and suggest that the New York Times chooses to capitalize her name rather than the other way around? Why is the NYTimes by default more accurate in the capitalization of my name than I am when I write my own articles? When my book comes out with my name in lower-case, will the press' capitalization still trump my own capitalization? - ] 21:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
***Capitalization is and always has been a style issue. '''D''' is the same letter as '''d'''. No matter how many publications one has, nor how many "documents" they can have produced with their desired spelling, no one can change the rules of English. If you want just the name of the article changed because of a "common name", I don't have a problem with that, but in practice that would only change the b since the D is required to be capital by technical limitation (at least in the URL) and I think that looks bad. Also, I don't know why we'd ever use signatures for spelling or capitalization; my signature doesn't even contain all the letters of my name. I could sign a triangle for all it matters, but it wouldn't mean I'd have a right to make Misplaced Pages refer to me as "Δ". -- ] (]) 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
**** The lowercased-spelling of the name is already in the lead paragraph of the article (danah boyd). I see no need to ''also'' change the page title. Misplaced Pages guidelines are clear that the page title should be that name which is in most common use. And yes, that means that if all newspapers routinely spelled Boyd's name as "Dana," then that's what we'd use on the Misplaced Pages article title. We go by the most common spelling that a user would type into a search engine, and as such, we follow the lead of outside sources. For examples of other cases where an article title name does not match an individual's precise legal name, see ]. --]]] 19:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
***** The title of this article should be the verifiably correct name of the subject of the article; the capitalized version is verifiably ''incorrect'', so I really wonder how there's an issue here. Style guidelines do not trump accuracy. ] 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
***** Additionally, the lead paragraph says the subject is "also known as" "danah boyd". It's inexcusable for a style guide to overrule factual accuracy to the extent that someone has to be "also known as" their own legal name. ] is the solution for the style guide's proscriptions here, because the style guide is getting in the way of the factual accuracy of the article. ] 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
**** That seems a bit extreme to me. I think anybody reasonable can see the theory behind the ''common names'' policy. If there is something to be disagreed upon, we use the most common argument. However, if something is ''factually'' verifiable, such as the spelling of a name, and many sources seem to get the spelling wrong (for whatever reason), then it would be ridiculously obsessive of us to ignore the fact. Again, this doesn't fall under "spelling" since the letters are the same, but that is what has landed us in this muddy water. -- ] (]) 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
***** I agree. It cannot be held against a publication (i.e. a newspaper) to do away with stylized typography in order to give each subject an equal ''weight'' (of sorts) within the typesetting. But the missing 'h' is just sloppy editing. - ] 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
****** I also recommend that we add a statement saying that the name change information is sourced from Boyd's website. That disclaimer was in an earlier version, but got removed somewhere along the line. In other words, say, "According to Boyd's website..." Personally, I'm inclined to take anything from Boyd's website with a grain of salt, as Boyd's area of research is social networking, and for all we know this is some grand experiment on how the rules can be pushed. Yes, I know we're supposed to ], but I'd also point out that Boyd's site indicates that she experimented with the last name of "Beard." ] is actually a slang term meaning "fake" or "hidden." We have no other source for that name than her own site. That, plus the fact that Boyd has used her blog to try and encourage her fans to pressure Misplaced Pages on this issue, make me encourage extreme caution as to how much we rely on Boyd's website as a source here. --]]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
******* Said disclaimer has now been re-implemented. Regarding good faith, well, I don't know about you guys, but my ability to assume good faith rarely reaches beyond my fellow editors and naturally, Zephoria does not register as such in the given context. Hence it all comes down to maintaining verifiability and a NPOV, coupled with a healthy dose of skepticism. - ] 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
******* Ouch. I did not "experiment" with the last name Beard. When my mother remarried, we changed our names to our stepfather's name; I was a child. You do not have to take my web documentation of this as "fact" - it is public record in York, Pennsylvania. While I cannot say many nice things about my ex-stepfather, I find it extremely offensive that you are suggesting that his family name is slang for fake or hidden. What value does that attack serve in this discussion? - ] 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Caps ==

Please note ]. ]. ]. ].

<nowiki>{{lowercase|title}}</nowiki> exists for a reason. ] 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, and that specific part of the MoS clearly states that the article title should reflect the majority of outside sources; that would be standard English capitalization in this case. Speaking of guidelines and policies, kindly take a look at ]. - ] 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:: I'm something of a newcomer to this particular debate, but as I see it other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines trump MoS in this case. If mainstream news sources are verifiably inaccurate, then Misplaced Pages should not propagate their inaccuracies; instead, Misplaced Pages should provide verifiably accurate information from reliable sources.

:: In this case, danah has indicated that her name is legally lower-cased, and writings on her site indicate that this is an issue that's important to her; that brings ] into play, both as an issue of respect for the subject of a living person and as an issue of verifiability -- when the information provided by an article's subject is not "unduly self-serving", it is permissible to use that person as a source for the article. Furthermore, academic sources (the University of California, and various papers authored by or citing danah) list her as "danah boyd", not "Danah Boyd", and danah has mentioned that capitalization is not the only mistake news sources have made in publishing her name, which casts further doubt on the accuracy and verifiability of the news sources which have been cited to support the capitalized name.

:: Given the above, I think a combination of BLP and ] (a rule -- in this case the MoS -- is getting in the way of improving Misplaced Pages) are sufficient to justify 1) moving this article to "Danah boyd", with a redirect from "Danah Boyd" to aid searching; 2) Adding a note that the title of the article is properly lower-cased; and 3) removing the "also known as danah boyd" and converting all mentions of her name in the article to lower-case. ] 03:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)



:Considering the articles uses "]" through, that is not eactly the most compelling example... ] 03:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, yeah. Cummings was a mistake on my part. However, consider the many proper names in <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Anyway, I interfered in this debate because the last few times I stepped in and overruled all debate, it worked out just fine. This time, it seems to be a bit more acrimonious, so I'm stepping back out. Settle it amongst yourselves. ] 13:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Try <nowiki>{{lowercase}}</nowiki>, maybe? (and really, I'm not coming back to this dispute.) ] 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: We've already discussed this extensively. Misplaced Pages follows the lead of outside reliable sources. If ''New York Times'' and television news spell the name "Danah Boyd", that's how we spell it too. If Boyd wants to get the Misplaced Pages article changed, talk to the ''Times'' and MSNBC first. If they change, we'll change. Misplaced Pages is ''not'' the place for ]. As it is, we've already got the alternate spelling of her name in the lead paragraph, which is plenty. I'm really having trouble understanding why people are so insistent that the article title be changed as well. --]]] 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: Elonka, I'd appreciate a reply to my concerns above about MoS being trumped by other Misplaced Pages policies. Additionally, the University of California and forty-odd academic citations I was able to find in a quick search use "danah boyd", so please avoid selectivity in your counting of the "majority" of sources. And please do not reference NOR when others are making reference to reliable sources; NOR does not apply to such situations.

::::: As for the "insistence", it's a simple case of accuracy: danah's name is verifiably lower-cased. Propagating an inaccurate version for sake of a style guide is a clear-cut violation of both ] and ]. ] 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: Especially since this is really close to a ] issue. The folks at REALTOR® know how they want to present their name, just as Ms. boyd knows how she wants to present hers. However, at Misplaced Pages, neither are shown favor, and we resort to a cultural-normal capitalization scheme. ] 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: At the risk of violating ]... Capitalizing the name is neither a ] violation nor a ] violation. See AnonEMouse's post above for links to articles in the ''New York Times'' and ''Financial Times'' which capitalized her name. That's plenty verifiable per ], and the ''New York Times'' is about as high quality a reference as you can get. As for WP:BLP, its main thrust is to prevent ''negative'' information from going into a biography of a living person. I see no reasoning that having Boyd's name capitalized is causing any negative impact, aside from the fact that She-who-is-also-known-as-Boyd doesn't like it. And again, the lowercase version of the name is included in the lead paragraph. I can't see as any reasonable reader of the Misplaced Pages article would be confused, and I can't see that changing the article title to lowercase would provide any benefit. --]]] 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::: The problem here is a conflict of sources: the NYT and FT spelled it "Danah Boyd", yes, as did other sources. But yet ''other'' sources which Misplaced Pages considers to be reliable (public institutions and academic citations) spell it "danah boyd". Now, one of these is right and one of these is wrong -- they can't both be "the" correct version. danah has indicated that her name is legally lower-cased, and pointed to other mistakes made by mainstream news sources in citing/identifying her; this calls the reliability of the NYT and FT articles into question. Furthermore, BLP states that the subject of the article can be used as a source when the information provided is not "unduly self-serving" and there is no reasonable doubt that the information truly is coming from the subject. Comments on the RFC above have already noted that this information is not "unduly self-serving", and there is no reasonable doubt as to whether danah is the one providing this information, which means that we can use danah herself as a source for this. I don't think anyone would argue that the New York Times -- in the matter of the correct spelling of the name of the person who is the subject of this article -- is a more reliable source than danah herself, which means that the most reliable source available to us (backed up by secondary sources in the form of the University of California and academic citations) verifies "danah boyd" as the correct version and refutes "Danah Boyd" as incorrect. Thus, per ], the article should be moved and edited to reflect that, as I've proposed above.

::::::: And I'll also say something about BLP here, because I believe there is a BLP issue: danah's gone to the trouble of explaining why she changed her name to lower-case, and used fairly strong terms: "that's exactly it - it's my name and i should be able to frame it as i see fit, as my adjective, not someone else's. Why must it follow some New York Times standard guide for naming? " This moves the issue squarely into BLP territory, both as a matter of "get the article ''right''" and as a matter of approaching article subjects "with compassion, grace and understanding". Right now we're doing neither: we're getting the article wrong, and there have been comments which have been arguably disrespectful of her -- for example, one revert message left by a Misplaced Pages editor took pains to dismiss the spelling issue as danah's "preference", with quotes for emphasis. If that's not a BLP problem (especially with Misplaced Pages's recent increase in attention given to the wishes of living persons covered by articles -- see the deletions of ] and ], for example), I don't know what is.

::::::: Also, please don't throw the "don't feed the troll" policy at me -- remember to assume good faith, even and especially when someone's disagreeing with you. ] 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: Can we please stop calling capitalization spelling? It is not, and it never will be. A ''D'' is a ''d'' is a ''d'' is a ''D'' is a ''D''. Repeat that if you need to. The point is, until ''many third party sources'' cite her with a different ''style'' (and places to which she submitted her own name such as educational institutions, for obvious reasons, don't count), we will not use that style. The End. A name is a proper noun. A name is also case insensitive. Proper nouns are thus capitalized, in English. That's just the way it is. -- ] (]) 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::: OK, let's call it capitalization. Let's also call me exasperated, because I've been saying now for days that this is not a matter of style, it's a matter of fact: there is a person who is the subject of this article, and whose name is verifiably either "Danah Boyd" or "danah boyd". Misplaced Pages should take steps to find the most reliable sources available in determining which version is correct, and then use that version, and I've presented arguments which try to do just that, but those arguments have been effectively dismissed out of hand. If there is truly not an issue of fact here, and it truly is only an issue of style, please show me why that is. Let's also be ''very'' careful about throwing out entire classes of sources in the heat of a debate: it's not at all obvious to me that we should throw out anything she's put her name on, because her work goes through peer-review processes which can and should catch errors, and because her university isn't likely to have accepted her without doing some checking up to make sure she was who she said she was (if nothing else, I imagine that universities like to be able to collect tuition and pay necessary employment taxes, two things which requires them to verify someone's legal identity). ] 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we all seem to be talking past each other here, I've posted a quick summary and link back here on the BLP noticeboard; perhaps fresh eyes will help resolve this. ] 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus dropped the BLP tag, but I'm still maintaining there's a BLP issue here if we view the name as a matter of fact. danah has indicated that her name is legally lower-cased; a person's legal name either is some string of characters or isn't that string of characters, so we've got a question of fact here. And BLP says to "get the article ''right''", not to "get the article right unless the facts are unconventional", not to "get the article right unless the facts disagree with Misplaced Pages's manual of style", etc. Either her legal name is "danah boyd", or it's not. If it ''is'' "danah boyd", then it should be verifiable -- and, indeed, we have a primary source and some secondary sources which say "danah boyd" is the name of the subject of this article. And if it's verifiable that "danah boyd" is the name of the subject of this article, then titling it "Danah Boyd", presenting the name throughout as "Danah Boyd" and giving her legal name as "also known as" would violate BLP's prescription to get the article right and to supply ''verifiable'' facts about the subject.

Also, in previous discussions, the response from some editors has been that danah (or perhaps someone else) should lobby the NYT, etc. to issue corrections, at which point Misplaced Pages might consider following their lead (though it's still not clear that these editors would -- the "get mainstream media to change" angle has been a minor thread). BLP places on ''Misplaced Pages'' the responsibility to get it right; it does not place on subjects the responsibility to obsessively police what others say about them.

And again I'll point back to ], which I brought up when I first dove into this issue: there's a very good argument that presenting the subject's legal name would improve Misplaced Pages by adding relevant verifiable information to the article. ] is getting in the way of that improvement, so even if it's decided that style would otherwise trump substance, the naming convention should be ignored for this article per IAR. ] 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And just for kicks: ] cites , and attributes it to "Danah Boyd", in contradiction to the cited article. Can we get a ] set up? ] 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Well, if you want to wikilawyer, she acknowledged that her legal name is DANAH MICHELE BOYD in caps on her license, birth certificate, etc; and danah boyd is how she chooses to present herself. REALTOR is how the real estate association chooses to present themselves, and ] is very clear on Misplaced Pages's stance on that stylistic issue. Governments (apparently?) take no stance towards capitalization (by listing everything in all-caps), and, it seems it is not an issue with the content, but with presentation. ] addresses content. The various manuals of style address presentation. ] 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:: OK, care to address the IAR concern while you're here? Does ] mean that we should ignore the subject of the article, published work from reliable academic sources, and a notable and reliable public institution which identifies the subject using lower case? Cyrus expressed a concern that BLP is becoming an "all-overriding policy"; is there room for a concern that the MoS is being allowed similar latitude? Also, note that "idiosyncratic" capitalization of a number of trademarks is preserved in their Misplaced Pages entries, and that the guideline for trademarks specifically calls them out to indicate this; you can't, in fairness, call out REALTOR/realtor without also calling out the counterexamples of iPod, eBay, etc. How far is MoS allowed to degrade an article? ] 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::The invocation of ] more and more strikes me as a Misplaced Pages-specific variant of ], that's probably why IAR is precisely the "rule" I've always chosen to ignore - in favor of ], since that little essay actually helps resolving disputes in cases where the guidelines are not specific enough. The issue we are discussing here however, is addressed fairly clearly by the Manual of Style, so this is not one of those fringe case, which may be solved by out-of-the-box thinking. In short, we may continue this ''discussion'' ("Is!"/"Is not!") or the party dissatisfied with the current set of rules we have may put in for changes to them on the relevant talk pages. - ] 10:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::As I said above, debating the case of a word is not debating the content; it is debating the style. Your other guidelines are all attuned to dealing with subject matter, and not the font/color/case/boldness of the words which make it up. Calling the iPod (which is explicitly noted as an exception in ]) an iPoop would be a POV content problem. Calling it the ipod would not be. By the same token, registering iPOd or IpoD as a trademark would not work, because again, it is not a new word, but just another way of presenting the already-registered word. While some sources may accede some of their editorial control to the whims of their subjects when it comes to the case of the words involved, the current Misplaced Pages policy is not one of those places. I agree wholeheartedly with Cyrus, and if the policies are changed, I will reassess my stance. But, today, it seems clear to me. ] 13:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::I'm inclined to agree with Cyrus and Neier. Most sources write about her with expected capital letters, so the Manual of Style is quite clear on this. There's no reason to Ignore All Rules with regards to the MoS, as using lowercase names throughout would reduce readability and not add anything to the article and thus not help Misplaced Pages. Its not like using normal capitalization takes anything away from the informative content of the article (I wholeheartedly disagree that using uppercase disrupts the factual accuracy of the article - the article would still say that she styles her name with lowercase letters after all). So, it seems to me its vs. . I don't think the article title at the top of the page is particularly important, but using lowercase letters throughout the article body would be obnoxious ''and'' against the MoS. ] 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I'm inclined to be extremely wary of the MoS in this case. And going by "media sources" is problematic -- it's easy to skew the debate by cherry-picking a couple of big sources and then relying on the fact that 10,000 newspapers syndicate those articles without even having a copyeditor look at them.

:::::: Meanwhile there's a notable body of reliable sources which identify her as "danah boyd", and we've had input from her directly and -- I assume since I linked it above -- we've read her essay on why she went through such a level of hassle to have her name changed. If this really is a case of "MoS applies and either overrules everything else, or nothing else applies", then I'd be inclined to take Neier's suggestion about lobbying to change the policy, but I'm concerned that it would be shrugged off. Misplaced Pages's policies on legally-registered names have some fairly glaring holes which haven't been patched, but there seems to be a fairly adamant group of users/admins who like things as they are, so there's not much encouragement to try to improve things.

:::::: I do feel strongly, though, that the current presentation of this article, even if it stays stuck with the MoS-mandated capitalization, is unnecessarily disrespecting its subject with the "also known as" line. She says it's her legal name, and there are plenty of reliable sources using the lowercase presentation, so Misplaced Pages shouldn't degrade that. Also, if (as some have argued above) lower-casing her on Misplaced Pages would be unduly confusing to people conducting searches and expecting capitalization, Misplaced Pages should avoid engendering similar confusion in people who read the article here and then see her essay on her name or see her cited/identified by a more respectful source. Would it at lest be acceptable to get info about the name change higher up in the article and write it a little more neutrally? ] 05:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I'd be okay on you going ahead and making an edit to show what you mean? Right now the lowercased-style is in the top line of the article, so I'm not sure how we could "move it up higher"? But if rewriting a couple sentences will lead to a compromise here, I'm open to seeing what you have in mind. --]]] 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: There's info further down on her dropping various bits of her birth name and picking up the "boyd"; condensing that out into a sentence or two at the beginning of the article might be a better approach. Ideally, the entire name issue would be covered in one sentence. Something like

::::::::: '''Danah Michele Boyd''' (born ] '''Danah Michele Mattas''', later changed to '''danah michele boyd''', most commonly identified in mainstream media as '''Danah Boyd'''),

:::::::: It's somewhat long, but has the advantage of covering the whole thing up-front and staying as neutral and encyclopedic as possible within the proscriptions of the naming conventions. I'm still thinking about proposing a change to ] to allow this sort of thing to be handled more gracefully, though; it's clear from repeated discussion that there are folks other than myself who feel the policy has problems in cases like this. ] 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I have removed the supposedly disrespectful "also knows as" phrasing, but I do not agree that there is any need to differentiate at length between the lowercase and uppercase variants and to point out the preference of the "mainstream media", as this has a slightly judgmental ''they got it wrong'' slant to it, that will subsequently fall back on the Misplaced Pages article. - ] 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::: Other than mainstream media sources, who's been cited as calling her "Danah Boyd"? Pretty much the entire MoS argument has rested on the assertion that mainstream media use "Danah Boyd", and I've repeatedly pointed out other reliable sources which use "danah boyd". Misplaced Pages needs to be honest about the fact that per policy it's simply repeating what the NYT and FT did, and that per policy it's choosing to ignore an array of sources which do not follow that lead. ] 02:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::(&larr;) It's not obvious in the least that one ''can'' change one's name to lower case, and the only source for this claim is Boyd's weblog entry, where she does not go into the legal details. She changed more than just the capitalization of her name, and I think it is much more likely that legally there is no difference between changing your name to ''danah michele boyd'' and changing it to ''Danah Michele Boyd''. Until some independent, reliable source explains the legal aspects of lower case names, we should use due caution in repeating her claims on the matter. We don't even have the name change paperwork from the court, although I suspect it is a public document. Perhaps someone who lives in CA can look it up? &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Neier and CBM/Carl are completely right. She is actually the only source that says her name ''is'' legally changed to lowercase. Definitely not a ], in this case. Ubernostrum, I find it strange that when it fits your arguments, you are "inclined to be extremely wary of the MoS in this case.", and inclined to disagree with the context of ] ("And going by "media sources" is problematic..."). These policies are in place ''for a reason''. You can't pick and choose when they help or hurt your case. As many editors have said, this is not a BLP issue. The policies and guidelines we have in place are clear. Let the issue rest. -- ] (]) 16:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: Please read ] carefully, specifically the sections regarding the use of the subject of the article as a source. Others have commented above that BLP's requirement that the information supplied by the subject not be "unduly self-serving" has been met, and there is no reasonable doubt that the information comes from the subject of the article, so BLP's guidelines would permit using danah as a source. ] 02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Boyd, or someone claiming to be her, says above "My birth certificate says DANAH MICHELE BOYD - all birth certificates and driver's licenses in the United States are fully capitalized." Given that this statement seems to contradict the claim that her name is legally lower case, and the lack of any other evidence that a name ''can'' be changed by law to lower case, it seems appropriate to explicitly attribute all claims about the capitalization directly to Boyd. Her weblog, which is clearly trying to persuade, can hardly be viewed on the same footing as a reliable external source. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::: Most legal forms uppercase everything. If you want to argue from that, legal forms are a reliable source and there are probably far more of them (birth certificates, tax documents, licensing, etc. etc.) with DANAH MICHELE BOYD than there are newspapers which have used "Danah Boyd" -- would you like to move this article to an all-uppercase title, to reflect the commonality (based on counting the number of reliable sources) of that usage? ;) ] 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Ubernostrum, I apologize for our difference of opinion here, but I feel that using Boyd's website as a source with respect to her claim regarding her name ''would be'' unduly self-serving. In fact, it's obvious, given the statements she has made ''on this talk page'' that this is the case. -- ] (]) 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::: I'm genuinely curious as to how it's self-serving. The vibe that I get from her essay is "I went through a ton of legal hassle to get this changed, and I still get a ton of hassle from people with style guides so I'm going to write this explanation and point people at it", not "I am promoting myself by doing this". ] 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: I'm just as curious as to ''why'' this is such a big deal for Boyd. I mean, if someone wants to always sign their name in lowercase (or, as an author uncle of mine did, in green ink), that's up to them on how they live their daily lives, but I honestly don't understand why it's an issue that they want to push with the press. I personally see these kinds of stylistic changes as an idiosyncrasy at best, or perhaps a type of fan worship (is Boyd a fan of ]?) like when fans get the name of their favorite artist tattooed on a part of their body. There's also the self-promotion aspect, as people will dye their hair a neon-bright color, just to make themselves more visible at a convention. Or actors will deliberately misspell their name with a "Y" instead of an "I" in order to make their names more memorable. And at worst, I see some of these style changes as a deliberate attempt at social ], a technique by some who wish to thumb their nose at convention, through a self-centered desire to make everyone else adapt to their view of the world -- it's a power game played by the ultra-vain. As for if any of these apply to Boyd, I really don't know. I'm curious, but the answer doesn't matter all that much -- even if I personally sympathized with Boyd's reasoning for lowercasing her name, I would still insist that the Misplaced Pages article title conform to ]. Which means the same style used by ''New York Times'', ''Newsweek'', and the other ], "Danah Boyd". For more info, see this essay, which has a good point. If someone wanted to give themselves a name that was hundreds of characters long, they could do so, and it might even be legal. But if such a person were notable, popular press would doubtless come up with a "shorthand" version of the name (maybe "The Alphabet Man"), and then that's the version of the name that we'd use here at the Misplaced Pages article. --]]] 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::: Personally, I thought the essay explained it rather well and didn't appear to be self-promotion at all. I don't personally know danah, so I can't speak to anything other than having read it and wondered why Misplaced Pages chose to ignore what is apparently a verifiable fact, other than to imitate "reliable" newspaper articles. And, again, I worry at the selective blindness with regard to sources -- look at the university's page listing her. Look at academic publications. Heck, look at the paper by danah that Misplaced Pages itself cites in the reliability article I mentioned above. These are reliable sources per Misplaced Pages policy and they use "danah boyd", but they've been either ignored or -- in one case above -- questioned as somehow suspect because danah might have had a hand in their adherence to the lower-case. Wikipedians have previously suggested that getting the "mainstream" media sources to correct themselves would be a productive way to get this changed, so it seems disengenuous to then follow up with "well, we may disregard anything that originated with her". If I hunted down wire articles that the paper I work for has run which use "Danah Boyd" and convinced our editors to issue a correction to "danah boyd", would that too be dismissed? ] 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::: Also, the blog post you cite is about the clearest example of ] I've ever seen ;) ] 10:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, folks. This has now come up at ]. Danah Boyd is a friend of friends, so I'll stay out of the substance, but are you folks really unable to sort this out amongst yourselves? If the answer to that question remains "yes", then might I suggest you jointly prepare a summary of the points involved? Any by summary, I mean something short, with bullet points. That will at least aid other people stopping by, and will certainly make it easier if you pursue ]. ] 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:The thread has already been archived due to lack of input ]. - ] 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a start on one side of it, trying to summarize everything that's been said above or that's popped into my head while discussing this:

* danah has an essay explaining that she went through a lot of hassle to get her name changed, and which criticizes style guides for imposing capitalization when it's not desired (this was part of why I felt it might be a BLP issue).
* Her university and respectable academic publications all list her as "danah boyd".
* danah herself gives her name as "danah boyd", and originally there seemed to be consensus that this didn't violate BLP guidelines on using the subject as a source.
* Newspapers which use "Danah Boyd" are likely doing so out of conformance to a style guide rather than researching verifiable information about the capitalization of the name.
* People who are conducting research on her will likely find the naming essay on her site and be startled that Misplaced Pages "gets it wrong", as evidenced by the number of times this has come up (that's how I ended up in this mess).
* The MoS doesn't appear to be intended as absolute; exceptions have been made in the past for "idiosyncratic" capitalization (e.g., iPod, eBay, etc.) when backed up (as in this case with reliable academic sources) by actual usage.

If anybody thinks I've missed any important points on this side of the discussion, please fill them in. ] 10:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:You should also add that you are the only one championing the cause of the lowercase spelling at this point, and even that is against any established policy or guideline on the matter. We have the concept of consensus for a reason; let's put it to work here. In addition, you point to the exceptions for "idiosyncratic" capitalization in the MoS (iPod, eBay). If you read the actual bullet points at ], those exceptions exist ''only'' for trademarks in which the second letter ''is'' capitalized. It explicity states that "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized". -- ] (]) 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:: So, again, are you arguing that MoS could conceivably trump any and all other policies on Misplaced Pages? If the NYT, FT, etc. all issued corrections tomorrow saying "our bad, her name's lowercase", would you still argue per MoS that Misplaced Pages couldn't lowercase the name? ] 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


The result of the move request was: '''page moved'''. ] (]) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
::: That depends. In that highly unlikely case that the NYT or another institution lowercases a name, I would probably review other similar cases. The MOS was made for a reason, though, and the first-letter/second-letter rule had consensus of dozens of editors (see ] talk or archives). -- ] (]) 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


----
:::: And that's one of the things that's bugging me here: if we get to a situation where capitalization is a matter of verifiable fact and not just an issue of style, it appears that many people would still want the MoS to trump ]. That's why in the discussion above I've repeatedly been harping on whether the capitalization of danah's name is a matter of fact, because this article is a very strong example of why that policy (style over substance, essentially) is problematic. ] 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


:::::The difficulty with your argument is that capitalization '''is''' just a matter of style, never a matter of fact. In certain Asian locations, Boyd's name would be written Danah BOYD. In most American style guides her name is written Danah Boyd. Neither of these is "factually" correct or incorrect. The idea that an individual can exert control on the capitalization of his or her own name is an extremely recent idea, apparently invented by marketing departments, which does not have widespread support among publishers. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|1=danah boyd}} – The article subject prefers ] to ], and a significant number of reliable source publications (though ''not'' the majority) use the lowercase spelling as well. ] offers the guidance that "when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (], ]), we follow common usage." Since reliable sources are divided on the capitalization of the name, I think it's fair to say that both ] and ] can reasonably be considered "common usage." Given that, and the article subject's preference, I propose moving the page to ]. ] (]) 18:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: I'd like to offer some insight on the first letter/second letter exception: It was recently narrowed down to only apply to ''separable'' one-letter prefixes, in order to prevent abuse. As such, its reasoning is not only "this sort of typesetting does not hurt readability too much" but also "that prefix signifies a meaning". Well, in any case, it does not apply to an all-lowercased name. - ] 08:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


:* I '''Support''' the move. For months (years?) this article has been out of line with MoS and out of line with general sanity. See history of this talk page for the various times I've brought up reliable sources ranging from academic journals to major newspapers. Then move it and then let's all move on with our lives, hm? ] (]) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::::: Having other sources which produce the name in lower-case should do absolutely nothing to change the status here at Misplaced Pages. As I have said above more than once, it is not a matter of content, but of the presentation style. An iPod is an ipod is an IPod. Until Misplaced Pages policy regarding capital letters changes, it doesn't matter if the NYT calls her Danah, danah, or daNah. If they start calling her Dana, and it catches on, then, we have an issue for the common names; but, it would still be capitalized. ] 14:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose'''. The concept of a lower-cased spelling in an article title is a major stylistic choice, and should not be made lightly. It can be jarring to readers, and look like an error. We should only move a page to such a title if there is a clear preference for this spelling in third-party reliable sources. However, the majority of reputable third-party sources are still using normal capitalization (Danah Boyd): , , , , , and many others. Misplaced Pages follows the prevailing usage in outside sources that are independent of the subject. If outside sources were to use "danah boyd" as a common spelling, then Misplaced Pages could adapt to match. But that does not appear to be the case at this time, so the article should stay at "Danah Boyd". --]]] 19:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::It's already been conceded that the majority of sources use the uppercase spelling, but, again, there are many reputable third-party sources that use the lowercase spelling, such as , , , , , , , , , and . I understand that your argument is that the subject's preferences should be ignored, but given that all of these media outlets (and many others) do ''not'' ignore her preferences, but rather respect them, I think we ought to respect them too. ] (]) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: 28bytes, thank you for the links, but they seem to be somewhat cherry-picked since most of them are years old, with the exception of the ABC News entry. Could you please provide more current links? --]]] 17:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
::::: Sure, I'll be happy to. Here are some from the last couple of years:
:::::* , November 4, 2010
:::::* , November 13, 2010
:::::* , July 25, 2010
:::::* , January 12, 2011
:::::* , February 14, 2010
:::::* , March 9, 2010. This one is especially interesting, as it's an article ''about'' Misplaced Pages's reluctance to spell boyd's name the way she prefers: ''"Some of Misplaced Pages's denizens don't like the way academic researcher and well-known blogger danah boyd (legally) spells her name - without caps. 'Why is it OK for her to impose her nonstandard styling and the costs that come with it on the rest of us?' said R27182818 on the subject's discussion page. The argument continues to this day, and the Misplaced Pages article on danah boyd is still titled 'Danah Boyd'."''
:::::* , May 20, 2010
:::::* , November 12, 2010
::::: Now, this is not to say you couldn't find more examples from that time period that use the uppercase spelling; indeed, there are plenty. This is simply to show that the subject's preferred usage is indeed used by a significant number of independent reliable sources, enough to qualify (in my opinion) as "common usage" as laid out in the MOS. ] (]) 17:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I haven't reviewed all your links yet, but thank you for the effort in compiling it. To be most persuasive though, it's best to only use sources that Misplaced Pages regards as ]. Specifically, please try to avoid blogs and other opinion pieces or first-person accounts. For example, your first "Wired" link might be regarded as a bit misleading, since it says Wired, but is in fact simply a Wired-associated blog. The TechRadar article is also pretty obviously an opinion piece, rather than "a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If Misplaced Pages were to start changing articles based on every opinion piece out there, we'd be in a pretty sorry state. Anyway, I don't want this to degenerate into a discussion about what is and isn't a reliable source, but could you please doublecheck all links? It's definitely food for thought, but please ensure that you're making your strongest arguments. Thanks, --]]] 19:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::: I consider , , , and to be top-notch sources, especially as compared to, for example, the Huffington Post, but I agree with you that there's probably little to be gained in quibbling over where each individual source ranks on the reliability scale. ] (]) 20:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
:::''Misplaced Pages follows the prevailing usage in outside sources that are independent of the subject.'' That's not true. According to the ]: "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources" is the standard for using a person's preference. This is a much lower threshold, one which "danah boyd" certainly meets. -- ] (]) 23:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' Numerous reliable sources use the lower case spelling and it accords with the subject's own usage. I also think this is a ] issue given that the subject has a widely-respected and well-known preference for HER OWN NAME. This is a trivial issue and it's downright disrespectful that we behave in this manner. ] (]) 21:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:*I'd '''support''' the move. It ''is'' jarring, and looks quite narcissistic to boot, but if it's the image she insists on presenting, and a significant percentage of reliable sources goes along with it per the MoS's dictum, we might as well be consistent in applying the MoS. ] (]) 23:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' See above, "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources" -- ] (]) 23:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


:*'''Support''' as per ElKevbo and Fran Rogers and Irn arguments. ] (]) 02:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Ubernostrum, as CBM says, '''facts are not the same as style'''. Feel ''free'' to ''add to the article'' that Danah says her name is legally changed to "danah boyd". Add the source as herself. I don't care. As for how Misplaced Pages ''writes'' that name, we are free to do whatever our style guide says we do; that's why the style guide exists. Again, the point here is: '''] is for ''facts'' (content), ] is for how the writing appears (style)'''. Capitalization is style, not content. -- ] (]) 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:* I '''Support''' the move, per MoS. ] (]) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


*<s>'''Comment''' this is a technically impossible request. Misplaced Pages does not support lower case first letters in article names. An article name trick to modify the title doesn't need a requested move. </s> ] (]) 05:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
**You would be correct if she only had one name, like ]. But changing "Boyd" to "boyd" does require a page move, as you can see in the . ] (]) 11:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
***'''I stand corrected''' I missed that. sorry. ] (]) 12:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Due to ], the only thing that a page move can do is change "Boyd" to "boyd". As the first word in the article title, changing "Danah" to "danah" will instead require the addition of {{tl|lowercase title}} in the article. ] (]) 20:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
**Agreed. That was actually the state of affairs, albeit briefly, after ] moved the page following the 6-week discussion ], before ] reverted the move. ] (]) 20:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


So we should change the capitalization throughout the article to ensure consistency with the title, right? ] (]) 18:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
== A Related Philosophical Issue ==
:Yep. ] (]) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the controversy as to whether people should be referred to as they wish to be referred to or
::Done. I didn't touch the capitalization in the citations as I haven't gone through them to see which ones are capitalized and which ones aren't. Someone should do that; I don't have time right now. ] (]) 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
by some external "objective" standard, does Misplaced Pages have a policy on how to refer to transgendered persons?
:::Thanks. The name should be capitalized at the beginning of sentences, though, and as you say, any quotes and reference info should retain the source's formatting. See ] for some usage examples. ] (]) 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Do we simply say "this person wants to be referred to as (female/male), so let's respect their wishes,"
or do we ask them to disrobe so we can check specific anatomic features?
(See Stacy Horn's book Cyberville for a fun discussion of how complicated this issue gets!)


== @ nyu ==
For what it's worth, for both capitalization and gender I would
suggest that we let the subject themselves choose how they wish to be referred to.
YMMV. ] 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


:I think the right answer both to capitalization and gender pronouns is that Misplaced Pages, as a tertiary source, should follow the conventions used by prominent secondary sources. We don't need to "decide" which gender pronoun to use, we can follow the published usage of others. But I think that gender identity is a much more important issue for us to worry about than "capitalization identity". &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


==Summary==
My own summary of the above discussion is this: ] such as the , , , , , , and others capitalize Boyd's name normally: "Danah Boyd". However, Boyd herself, {{user|Zephoria}}, says both here in the discussion and on her webpage, that her name is legally lower-cased. The lowercased spelling has indeed been included in the lead of the Misplaced Pages article, but this does not appear sufficient to satisfy Boyd, who also wants the article title changed, and all references to her name throughout the article to be listed as lowercase. Ubernostrum agrees with Boyd, and argues that it's a ] violation to "misspell" the name, and Ubernostrum has posted as much on the BLP Noticeboard. Everyone else in the recent discussion (myself, Renesis, Cyrus XIII, CBM/CBM2, Wickethewok, Neier), says that the name should stay "Danah Boyd" per the reliable sources and ]. A drive-by admin, DragonflySixtyseven, tried to change the article title to lower case about a week or two ago, but was rapidly reverted, and has backed out, saying it's up to us to settle.


What do you think about this as documentation of boyd's non-trivial affiliation with NYU?
From my read, the clear ] is to keep the name at uppercase, "Danah Boyd", but Ubernostrum refuses to acknowledge the consensus, and continues to argue. It is my opinion that Ubernostrum's arguments have been listened to with great patience, civility, and good faith, carefully weighed, but ultimately rejected, and that several editors including myself have put in an enormous amount of time to patiently argue each of Ubernostrum's points. I would also like to say that I greatly appreciate that Ubernostrum has continued arguing in good faith and with great civility. He has presented his case in a thorough and articulate manner. However, I also believe that at this point Ubernostrum has presented no new substantive arguments, but basically just refuses to let things go, and refuses to acknowledge consensus. That is why we have asked at ], twice, for a third-party admin to come in and make a formal determination, but both threads seem to have scrolled out of WP:AN without substantial assistance. If we cannot get an admin that way, and Ubernostrum still refuses to acknowledge consensus, I recommend that we proceed to mediation, and request a neutral mediator from ] to see if we can put the issue to rest that way. --]]] 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/2011/9/23/danah_boyd_Joins_MCC_as_Research_Assistant_Professor
:Myself, Wickethewok, and CBM are administrators, however, I agree with William Pietri (below) that "administrator status" isn't the solution to this issue. If we can't come to a final agreement, we may need to go through ]; however, I believe we have come to consensus already. It will be disappointing if this needs to go further. -- ] (]) 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
: I can go a long way with you here, but... I'm questioning whether there's a consensus. There are two other previous discussions on this topic still on this page, and I'm far from the only one who's agreed that the article title should be lowercase (or at least that there are grounds for considering it). On the other side... well, there's you, Cyrus and Renesis consistently presenting the same argument over and over again, with little or no substantive change, while others question whether that's the correct way to go. Who's the consensus and who's refusing to acknowledge it? ;) ] 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


== New style guide discussion. ==
: And just to be clear, I'm not saying there ''is'' a consensus for "danah boyd" or that anyone's ignoring it, just pointing out that a history of inconclusive discussions, with people on both sides presenting good cases, does not a consensus make -- it feels like this article has ended up not with consensus, but with one side or another always just walking away exasperated after making no progress. I've got the energy to see this through as needed, so I'm trying to avoid having that happen again; a real resolution (and, if necessary, me wandering off to propose and argue for changes to MoS for a while) is what's needed here. ] 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


As a lot of other related edits have also been done, hold-off reverting until the concise points raised in the style guide are addressed, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Caps_.22Items_that_require_initial_lower_case.22_.28partially.29_scrap_or_edit.3F ] (]) 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the summaries Elonka and Ubernostrum. That will make it a lot easier for others to sort through this. Personally, my opinion is that administrators are just editors who have access to a couple of special tools that they use on behalf of the community as a whole. Thus, I think ] isn't the right place to resolve content disputes; it's ]. -- ] 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:No, you've made a bunch of edits and are trying to change the MOS to support your edits. It doesn't work like that and you don't get to bully others and edit war to keep your edits while you change the MOS. Change the MOS and then make your edits. ] (]) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


== Uppercase for earlier names? ==
:I strongly agree that administrator status is not relevant here, and would be glad to comment in any disput resolution process. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


{{ping|HelicopterLlama}} I set some uppercase aliases in Wikidata and made the change on this page based on the uppercase name at . Should we defer to the subject's own usage? Or is this already covered in a past discussion? --] (]) 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
:Also, wanted to leave an edit summary but was still learning how to use the new app and missed how to do so. --] (]) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::There has been extensive discussion of this issue. Just scroll up on this Talk page and check its archives. ] (]) 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
:::I read some of the earlier discussion above before making the change in question. I'm not aware of anywhere that covers this particular variant of her name. Please quote or link to a diff or something if I missed it. (or is the argument that we have existing consensus that she should be referenced in lowercase for all variants regardless of what her own preference is? if clarification is needed beyond '''the ref I already linked''' we could just ask her…) Thanks. --] (]) 00:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Sorry but I'm not following you. What is the point of contention and how does it differ from the several discussions previously held here? ] (]) 03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Well, did you look at http://www.danah.org/name.html ? It has some (earlier, obsolete) variants in uppercase. What do you think about that? Should we uppercase those older variants that the subject herself chooses to uppercase? --] (]) 03:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Only if for some reason we're discussing historical names and spellings in this article. It's a bit obscure to get into for this (or nearly any other) biography. ] (]) 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
:uh i based it on the source in the statement itsself?? http://www.danah.org/aboutme.html ?fj it lists quotation here as undercase and so thats why i reverted :^)( <b>''] ]''</b> 14:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
::The issue may be that the two sources contradict one another with respect to whether the name has uppercase letters. doesn't use uppercase letters ("My birth name was "danah michele mattas") but does use capital letters ("Born: 'Danah Michele Mattas'."). ] (]) 16:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
* '''Indicated name as "styled lowercase" & explained:''' I have moved the related cite footnote into "{Reflist|...refs=..}" to explain when she noted her mother added lowercase 'h' in her birth name "danah" for typographical balance in reflecting the lowercase first letter 'd' similar to "d-b" reflection. Her webpage seems to emphasize the lowercase birthname was "danah" because capital "Danah" would not reflect uppercase 'D' as 'h'. Her interim names may have used "Danah...Beard Boyd" but birthname as lowercase "danah" seems likely, unless rejected by other specific sources. -] (]) 20:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


===Further Discussion===
==Mediation==
It looks very unprofessional to have a name in lowercases like this. Not to mention goes against English writing convention.Reverted.--] (]) <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Mediation of this dispute has been requested at ]. I have listed the recent participants from the discussion at this talkpage. If anyone else watching this page would like to participate in the mediation, you are welcome to add your name as well. Or if you have questions about the mediation process, you can read up on it at ], or ask here and we'll do our best to answer. :) --]]] 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:This has been extensively discussed many times over the past several years. Do you have any new information? If not, why do you believe that your opinion should override the consensus that has been achieved on this topic? ] (]) 23:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:After seeing the "progress" so far, I'm wondering what was the point of requesting mediation? It seems like issues only go there to die. I'd like to see this get resolved. -- ] (]) 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I looked at other cases that Daniel has mediated. The way that Daniel he seems to work, is that he accepts a case, reads up on it for a few days, and then requests everyone to post a statement on the mediation talkpage. To his credit, he did accept the case very rapidly (he could have waited out the entire week). If we want to push things along a bit, it probably couldn't hurt for each of us to post a statement at talk. I'd recommend something brief, 500 words or less, giving your "from the ground up" summary of the current dispute. --]]] 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::: (followup) It appears that a new mediator has been suggested, to help with the backlog. All parties are required to agree to the addition, before the case can proceed. Please check the mediation page when you get a chance, thanks. --]]] 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Just to clarify: I never actually said I'd be mediating this case. What I did was ''accept''ed it for the Mediation Committee, because it met all the requirements we require, and it was then added to the ] in the "Unassigned" section. There's something written about this ]. If you have any further questions or comments, feel free to ask on my talk page or via email, and I wish you and Riana all the best! ''']''' 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Elonka's summary above fails to mention the reliable sources which ''do'' use her name with lowercase letters. Whoever mediates this should see the archives, where they are cited. I was involved in this discussion, and hope for the correct outcome, but it became too disgusting and stressful for me to continue. —] 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Pfahlstrom, if you would like, you are welcome to join the mediation. We are currently each presenting a statement of our thoughts at ]. --]]] 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I appreciate the welcome, but I find I'm unable to discuss subjects I'm passionate about without becoming overly stressed. I wish that weren't the case, but I don't feel this is a good time to try to acclimate myself. Perhaps in a few years. Until then, best wishes. —] 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Corrections ==


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
The article on me currently states: "According to her website, she experimented with different methods of spelling and capitalization for her name, and during college was known as "Danah Michele Mattas Beard", but after her mother's divorce, she chose her maternal grandfather's name, Boyd, as her own last name and eventually settled on giving her name as "danah boyd"." This is inaccurate and does not reflect the cited reference. My mother was divorced when I was a child; I added the name "Beard" then (dropping Mattas but that's not clear on my site since I breezed through that section). Starting in high school, I petitioned to change my name to "Boyd" along with the rest of my family; this was completed during college. This did not take place right after my mother's divorce, but years later. Also, the webpage cited does not say anything about experimenting with spelling or capitalization. ] 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120604185643/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/27/technology/circuits/27frie.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/27/technology/circuits/27frie.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:As far as I can see, the quote from this article has the same name as the source, "Danah Michele Mattas Beard" (and above it seems like you are saying there was no "Mattas") Did you at some point drop just the Mattas ("Danah Michele Beard"?) and would you like the article to state such? I'm not quite sure I understand what change you'd like reflected, though I've removed the spelling and capitalization bit. -- ] (]) 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
Another thing... I don't think that Jonathan Abrams would say that I was acquainted with the people starting the Friendster service - I don't think that he liked me so much. I became acquainted with a lot of people involved in Web2.0 but not the folks behind Friendster. -] 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 23:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
== Somewhat futile at this point, but ==


== External links modified ==
According to the Boston Globe, "danah boyd": http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/02/18/techs_feminine_side/?page=2 ] (]) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:With time to reflect on things, it appears to me that the capitalization issue is a completely stylistic matter. Everyone has his own style guide, which tells him how to properly capitalize a name. Misplaced Pages has its own. There is no outside authority on style (except Tim Gunn). ] (]) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:: I'd agree with Andy here. Further, in the five Boston Globe articles where she is mentioned, they have it as "Danah Boyd" in four of them, so that article is not the strongest piece of evidence for the "danah boyd" rendering. ] (]) 01:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::: And yet, the fact that even mainstream sources can't seem to agree on this, or even come to a consensus within their own organizations (witness "danah boyd" and "Danah Boyd" in stories from the same organizations), probably indicates that there's room for debate here. Sadly, no-one seems much interested in "debate" about how to handle this sort of thing; absolute proscription, backed by a clique of admins, FTW. ] (]) 06:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Let's dial back the drama here. We've had the debate. Both sides have made their cases known. Everyone has been heard. The reason no one is still talking is that there is nothing new to add. ] (]) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::: No drama, really. I came back and looked over the whole thing again, and it's pretty obvious what goes on: somebody comes in and proposes the lower-case usage, backs it up and maybe gets a little support. Then a clique of very specific admins descends, puts up a fight (often with no variation, just repeating an argument again and again on the assumption that maybe we didn't hear it right the first fifty times it was responded to) and/or threatens to ban people (hi, Elonka!) until the opposition gives up. Then they declare a consensus in their favor and that's that. It's been a very instructive example of how to win at Misplaced Pages, and I thank you all for the educational opportunity. ] (]) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Is your "No drama" statement meant to be ironic? You went on to describe your perspective of events in what seems to be the most dramatic way possible. You need to step back for a second and try to analyze events without your perspective bias...
::::::* When you are arguing, it's debate. When anyone else is arguing, it's people who are swooping in, not interested in debate, only in their own view.
::::::* When you think you are right, it's vigilant. When anyone else thinks they are right, it is stubborn and ignorant.
::::::* When you put forward and argument that's already been used (you really only have one or two) it's valuable because those are the facts. When anyone else says the same thing they've said before, you mark it is invalid simply because it's not new, and declare they must just think you didn't hear it. ''Maybe it's because you are repeating yourself in return, making everyone think you didn't understand. Or maybe, just maybe, that's actually a valid argument and it's worth hearing''.
::::::* When 5-10 admins agree or other editors who think differently from you, it's a clique or a conspiracy. When you and one other person agree, you portray it as representing some invisible majority. ''(Why don't you look at all our talk pages, or contribution history? There is no conspiracy, no collaboration. Simply people who '''disagree with you'''. I've disagreed with this point of view since almost two years ago, long before I was an administrator.)''
::::::All that is really enlightening here is your perspective bias. You can't seem to ever be wrong unless it was because of a dramatic conspiracy, or an unfair fight that ended in the ]. So really, Andyparkerson had a really good point when he said, "Let's dial back the drama here." -- ] (]) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::: Sorry, UN, but that comes across as a big helping of drama from this side of the screen. If that's not how you intend to come across, there are plenty of uninvolved parties on Misplaced Pages who will happily help you improve. For example, the Mediation Cabal is full of people like that.
:::::: I agree completely: this is a debatable point. Many things in style guides are; if they weren't, we wouldn't need to document them. But we've already had the debate. That the rest of us feel our time could be better spent than rehashing it isn't anything against you or Danah Boyd. She's in my social circle, and I have nothing but positive feelings for her. Were you in mine, I'm sure I'd feel the same way: my dad has a degree in philosophy, half my friends are web people, and a fair number of the rest are journalists and writers. But crikey, it's hard to be happy that you're reopening a debate that everybody, you included, see as futile. Please let it go until you have something big enough that you really think it will change the consensus. ] (]) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::: It's hard to be happy with what's happened here, period. Seriously, go look back over the history: someone proposes the change, Elonka and a couple others come down on it like a ton of bricks, and proceed to shout down the opposition for as long as necessary (occasionally dropping ominous hints about their adminship), while never once dealing with, say, the reliable sources which use "danah boyd" or responding to the apparent policy conflict at the heart of this. Meanwhile, they're happy to cite essays which take a dismissive POV attitude toward people who prefer to idiosyncratically case their names (Hi again, Elonka!) while claiming that this does not disrespect the subject of the article. Is it so hard to see why one might grow disillusioned after months of this? ] (]) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Generally conflicts on Misplaced Pages have both sides feeling that the other side has behaved shockingly. That's nothing new, as the bit about motes and beams suggests. Perhaps if you and Elonka were to talk this over some via email, you could both find ways to come across better to fellow editors. The way I keep from getting too disillusioned, both here and elsewhere, is to focus on the people and the process rather than particular outcomes. For example, I'm confident that along with honoring thy father and mother, God mandated the serial comma and cuddled elses. But when I am working among heathen, I'll follow local style, as I'd rather get the job done, and respecting their (foolish, erroneous) beliefs will create opportunities to bring them around later. And yes, I'm caricaturing myself here a bit, but only by a little. ] (]) 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::::::: I find it somewhat amusing that my name keeps getting dragged into this, despite the fact that I haven't posted on this page since July 2007. ;) I could repeat, "Let's please stick to discussing the article, not the other editors," to see if anyone actually pays attention. But for the record: I still think that the title "Danah Boyd" is appropriate, though "danah boyd" should definitely be mentioned in the lead. If at some point it looks like the primary method that Boyd's name is referred to in outside reliable sources, is the lowercased "danah boyd", then I might be willing to change my mind on how this article is titled. But how the subject herself styles her name, is not a compelling reason for me to go against Misplaced Pages style guidelines, because it's too arbitrary. Someone could come in and want to go uppercase one day, lowercase the next, ALL CAPS the next, last name first the next, etc., and we'd end up just running ragged trying to keep up with the subject's wishes. Which is why we ''don't'' do things that way on Misplaced Pages. Instead, we have our own style guidelines, and we follow the lead of ]. And since the primary method in those outside sources still appears to be "Danah Boyd", my opinion has not changed. Misplaced Pages is here to summarize information that has already been published in reliable sources, not to act as a publicity outlet for Ms. Boyd.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505174453/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/index.php?content=20091022 to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/index.php?content=20091022
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,33


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
::::::::: Since consensus is clear on this, can we all please move on again, to the 2 million odd ''other'' articles on Misplaced Pages which could benefit from our attention? --]]] 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


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


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::: 1. If one or more "mainstream media" sources -- for example, the New York Times -- were to issue a correction and state that their use of "Danah Boyd" was incorrect, would your position change?


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


Hi. I would like to update the "Honors and awards" section, adding more information about the speeches that she has recently given.
:::::::::: I await your reply. ] (]) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


· "What Hath We Wrought?" at SXSW EDU 2018
::::::::::: To address point #2, in academic publications the styling of author name is controlled by the author, not peer reviewers. Even if it weren't, academic peers are unlikely to challenge her on this point because it would complicate their professional relationships with her. I.e., consulting these sources for name style is equivalent to consulting Ms. Boyd herself.
· "Hacking Big Data" at University of Texas at Austin


] (]) 16:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::: FWIW, I have previously been lurker on this discussion and agree with the consensus ("Danah Boyd"). --] (]) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Just do it!! ] (]) 18:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Ubernostrum: If the NY Times published a correction, I agree that that would have weight, and I would definitely consider it in combination with other sources. As for the difference between newspapers and academic journals, the anon's post above is very pertinent. I would also point out that Misplaced Pages's guidelines on this matter are to title an article with the "most common name" that someone is referred to. Usage in mainstream newspapers, which have readers in the millions, is a better indicator of "common usage" than a spelling in a relatively low-circulation academic journal which may only have a few hundred subscribers. Our goal here at Misplaced Pages is to provide a resource for laypeople, for the "mainstream". And mainstream usage appears, to me and many others here, to still be "Danah Boyd". --]]] 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
== Requested move 21 June 2018 ==
::::::::::::: If I may delurk for a moment, I object to the implication that wider readership indicates greater authority. By that standard, the ''Weekly World News'' would be more authoritative than the ''Encyclopedia Britannica''. Surely the careful attention paid to accuracy by academic institutions and publishers counts for more than the quick-and-dirty review of newspaper editors? (For the record, I'm in the minority: I feel that the final, overriding authority over the spelling of a proper name--and yes, it ''is'' a spelling issue--is the person him/herself, if that person is alive. BLP, in other words. If she says it's "danah boyd", then it's "danah boyd", period. Spelling it any differently demonstrates a complete disregard for her wishes--the same disregard shown to her by the ''New York Times''.) ] (]) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top (modified) -->
::::::::::::::I concur. The subject of the article says her name is "danah boyd". She has legal documents verifying that her legal name is "danah boyd". There really shouldn't be any further debate on the issue. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
:::::::::::: My view: although common usage is definitely helpful as an indicator, and I'd agree that general-circulation newspapers carry a lot more weight, I focus on convenience to readers. Many studies have shown that is very important for the usability of text on the web. Capitalizing names and other proper nouns makes them easier to find when scanning. Although I don't have studies to prove it, I'd also expect that nonstandard capitalization is distracting to readers. Were eye-tracking studies done, I'd predict a lot more re-reads and slower comprehension compared with standard capitalization. The primary value of Misplaced Pages is in making easily digestible reference information available to the general reader, and I think nonstandard formatting goes against the grain of that. ] (]) 02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


''']''' Don't see general agreement below with opposition's strong arguments and show of reliable sources against little determined rebuttal. So this article will retain its stable title and stylization for now. It may take a subtle change in the MOS before this title can justifiably be restyled, which is a discussion for another venue. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their args and try again in a few months to garner consensus for restyling. Have a Great Day and ]''!'' <small>(]&nbsp;by&nbsp;])</small> &nbsp;''''']'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>05:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)</small>
== Capitalization discussion at the manual of style ==
: '''Move logs:''' <span class="plainlinks"> and </span> for future consideration
----
] → ] – Seriously? This is a vanity stylism. And that was 2011, but no longer insisting on it. ] (]) 06:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC) <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' ] (]) 23:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)</small>


*'''Oppose'''. What do you mean "that was 2011"? . . (the rest, I suspect, are beholden to style guides). What is your argument for renaming? Because you don't like her name? This is the subject's preferred name and many (maybe most?) secondary sources use that name too. So this is the name we should be using. --] (]) 12:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at ] about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like danah boyd, for example). -- ] (]) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
:....and we also have a style guide. ] (]) 11:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Speedy move''', clear ] violation that shouldn't need any discussion. ] (]) 13:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
**{{ping|Lordtobi}} ] permits lowercase names: "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Misplaced Pages articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang)." The subject prefers lowercase, and many reliable sources also print her name in lowercase. --] (]) 13:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per nom and ]. ] does allow for exceptions for lower case, but when sources such as aren't using them, neither should we. '''--]]''' 15:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' per ]. The lower case has regular and established use in reliable sources. -- ] (]) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
==Changes==
::Not in reliable ''third party'' sources it doesn't. That's the problem. In third party sources such as the stylism which was current in her own material in 2011 isn't being much used. ] (]) 16:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I just plowed thru the talk page (thanks ] and the even lengthier Manual of Style discussion. ]
:::Sure, it does: , , , , these are all reliable, third party sources. -- ] (]) 04:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


*'''Support''' per ]. Such stylings are distracting and potentially confusing to the general readership of an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages should follow its own style guide in these cases. — ] 02:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I see a consensus that "danah boyd" should stay without capitalization if the person prefers it (she clearly does) and if it is widely used (which it is by academics -- I am a senior scholar, and I see everyone in the field who cites her using lower case). I think this trumps a few NYTimes references, so I am going to revert back to it. FWIW, I think danah has made herself a pain in the butt with this capitalization change, and I don't like it, but she did it, the scholarly world has accepted it, and so should Misplaced Pages with grace. ] (]) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
: Sorry, no, you cannot arbitrarily decide to declare a new "consensus" which goes against months of previous discussions. --]]] 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC ::We ''are'' following our own style guide, which ChiveFungi quoted above, by using the lower case. -- ] (]) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
:::No, we're following an exception to the style guide by using the lower case. '''--]]''' 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
::::It's not an exception. It's literally in the style guide. The style guide has a specific section to address this very issue. That's the point of having a style guide. -- ] (]) 04:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
:::::Per ]: {{tq|"'''Exceptions''' are made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable third party sources".}} It's literally an exception. '''--]]''' 08:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
::::::It's an exception to a different rule, not to the style guide. That's how style guides work. Rules conflict. One rule is ; an exception is ; an exception to is ; etc. The word "except"/"exception" shows up 29 times on that page alone. Those are not all exceptions to the guide; they are part of it just like ] is part of the MOS. -- ] (]) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


== Capitalization, but not exactly what you are worried about ==
::I was referring to the MoS consensus, which fits with what I said above: she did it, and the scholarly world has accepted it. See, for example, her major production at:


Even given that we present her name in all lower case, doesn't the "capitalize the first word of a sentence" rule still apply? We have "boyd grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Altoona, Pennsylvania" in the article, with "boyd" being the first word of the sentence. Shouldn't that be "Boyd grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Altoona, Pennsylvania"? --] (]) 14:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Please let it go, with grace. ] (]) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:After checking around I found ]. Which says "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Misplaced Pages articles may use lower-case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference. " I will make the necessary changes.--] (]) 14:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
::And, apparently, it was necessary for me to make them ''again'', because they got reverted (almost certainly with the best of intentions) at some point in the intervening years. ] (]) 05:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It makes sense for the rest of the sentences, but I would make an exception for the opening of the article-- the first use of the name would be more clear if it were stylized in the same way as the article title. Also, having one of the two names capitalized (Danah boyd) is more jarring than all lowercase or just the last name as Boyd ] (]) 07:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like this needs reversion again. I agree with ] because it corresponds to formal English writing outside of Misplaced Pages and to other Misplaced Pages pages like ]. ] (]) 17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:30, 14 November 2024

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies: Person
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconWomen scientists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen in Red
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
WikiProject iconWomen writers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.


Archiving icon
Archives

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gustgustboy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is her name not capitalized?

One lone woman can't change the English rules for capitalization of proper nouns. Capitalize it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.218.45 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Because her name is (lowercase) danah boyd, not uppercase. Proper nouns of sapients and collectives are the choice in capitalization of the sapient or collective, with title case being a default. Uppercase is only used if the platform doesn't suport lower. Ellenor2000 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

MoS

This is your occasional reminder that the current Manual of Style would recommend this article use "danah boyd" (which has regular and established use in reliable third-party sources and is the subject's preference), and that the continued deviation from the guideline is a source of persistent surprise and confusion for anyone who isn't a Misplaced Pages admin. Anyone feel brave enough to propose the move? Ubernostrum (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAP, , bell hooks, k.d. lang etc. this would seem an obvious move. Skomorokh 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the policy has been in place for close to three years now, and almost all of the objections above are objections to the policy and not to its application to this page, I would definitely offer my support. -- Irn (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. It seems a mountain over a molehill, but I would support the move. -- Halavais (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Support but figger the old objectors are still around. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think the decent thing to do would be to honor her name-formatting/capitalization preferences. However, from a sampling of the reliable sources used as references in the article, as well as a Google News Archive search, it appears most of them don't honor it, and instead use "Danah Boyd". So the question is, which takes precedence: her preferences, or the reliable source usage? Is it sufficient that a decent minority (20–25%, if I had to guess) of the reliable sources do honor her preference? 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The standard, from WP:MOSCAP is "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." It doesn´t need to be a majority. I would definitely say that a "decent minority" over the course of years constitutes regular and established use. -- Irn (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that perspective, but as Bellagio99 suggests below, it would be good to line up a comprehensive list of the RS references that use "danah boyd" prior to opening a move request. 28bytes (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Having gone thru this multiple times (without success), I urge Irn and Ubernostrum to post a bunch of reliable lower case sources, before continuing the debate. Otherwise, I fear, same old, same old.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been through this multiple times, too, and can attest that reliable sources make not a bit of difference -- the moment you bring up a respectable source, you get shouted down with "oh, obviously they've been influenced by her and aren't reliable anymore". Ubernostrum (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Uber, I've been there with you. And I am not volunteering to do the work, altho Google Scholar would make it easy. But talking in an evidence vacuum doesn't make sense either. Those who are passionate about it, please put up or shut up as we used to say as a kid (in the nicest way). Assemble the evidence, svp. Bellagio99 (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Asbruckman (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I changed the body, but I think an admin needs to do the move? Asbruckman (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As there was no objections to your change, I've formalised it in the page title. Skomorokh 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There are most definitely objections to the change, and this should go through WP:RM. --Elonka 17:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You waited through three months of discussion in favour of the change to pipe up for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, seriously? Skomorokh 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Calling this "fixing spelling" is so disingenuously misleading I really question the spirit beyond these eleventh-hour reversions. Skomorokh 17:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Using an edit summary of "obstructionist tactics" is not particularly civil. In any case, WP:RM is pretty clear: "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." Or in other words, if there's a clear consensus, it'll show up in formal discussion. Why not give it a try? --Elonka 17:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Skomorokh that this was an extremely misleading edit summary. Regardless, now that there's an objection, I'll go ahead and start a formal move request. 28bytes (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, Elonka, I wondered when you'd take notice. But since you're here: it's time to hear an argument for why this article should go against the grain of MoS, since the growing consensus appears to be that the article should be edited to conform. I await that argument, though not with bated breath -- one suspects that a flurry of edits is about to occur over at MoS instead. Ubernostrum (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAP, sentences that begin with "Boyd" should use a capital letter. This does not fit the exceptions under "Items that require initial lower case" for mathematical constants or "trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter, followed by a capitalized second letter." Therefore, standard English capitalization rules apply to those sentences. --167.165.222.48 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care what we do about this but I will point out that the MOS page to which you linked contradicts itself. As you point out, one section says that we should capitalize boyd when it begins a sentence. Another section in that same page also says: "The initial letter in a sentence is capitalized. This does not apply if it begins with a letter which is always left uncapitalized." That, of course, contradicts the requirement to capitalize names when they begin a sentence. If this is important to you, I recommend taking this up on the Talk page of the MOS to have it resolved so this doesn't come up again in the future. ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


Danah Boyd → Danah boyd – The article subject prefers danah boyd to Danah Boyd, and a significant number of reliable source publications (though not the majority) use the lowercase spelling as well. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (capital letters) offers the guidance that "when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (abelian group, k.d. lang), we follow common usage." Since reliable sources are divided on the capitalization of the name, I think it's fair to say that both danah boyd and Danah Boyd can reasonably be considered "common usage." Given that, and the article subject's preference, I propose moving the page to danah boyd. 28bytes (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I Support the move. For months (years?) this article has been out of line with MoS and out of line with general sanity. See history of this talk page for the various times I've brought up reliable sources ranging from academic journals to major newspapers. Then move it and then let's all move on with our lives, hm? Ubernostrum (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The concept of a lower-cased spelling in an article title is a major stylistic choice, and should not be made lightly. It can be jarring to readers, and look like an error. We should only move a page to such a title if there is a clear preference for this spelling in third-party reliable sources. However, the majority of reputable third-party sources are still using normal capitalization (Danah Boyd): New York Times, Seattle Times, Huffington Post, CNet, Discover magazine, PC Magazine and many others. Misplaced Pages follows the prevailing usage in outside sources that are independent of the subject. If outside sources were to use "danah boyd" as a common spelling, then Misplaced Pages could adapt to match. But that does not appear to be the case at this time, so the article should stay at "Danah Boyd". --Elonka 19:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's already been conceded that the majority of sources use the uppercase spelling, but, again, there are many reputable third-party sources that use the lowercase spelling, such as CNN, The Toronto Star, Businessweek, The San Jose Mercury News, The Sacramento Bee, PBS, ABC News, Information Week, Salon, TIME Magazine and BBC News. I understand that your argument is that the subject's preferences should be ignored, but given that all of these media outlets (and many others) do not ignore her preferences, but rather respect them, I think we ought to respect them too. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
28bytes, thank you for the links, but they seem to be somewhat cherry-picked since most of them are years old, with the exception of the ABC News entry. Could you please provide more current links? --Elonka 17:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be happy to. Here are some from the last couple of years:
  • Wired, November 4, 2010
  • Faster Times, November 13, 2010
  • Boston Globe, July 25, 2010
  • Salon, January 12, 2011
  • Toronto Star, February 14, 2010
  • TechRadar, March 9, 2010. This one is especially interesting, as it's an article about Misplaced Pages's reluctance to spell boyd's name the way she prefers: "Some of Misplaced Pages's denizens don't like the way academic researcher and well-known blogger danah boyd (legally) spells her name - without caps. 'Why is it OK for her to impose her nonstandard styling and the costs that come with it on the rest of us?' said R27182818 on the subject's discussion page. The argument continues to this day, and the Misplaced Pages article on danah boyd is still titled 'Danah Boyd'."
  • Time, May 20, 2010
  • CNN, November 12, 2010
Now, this is not to say you couldn't find more examples from that time period that use the uppercase spelling; indeed, there are plenty. This is simply to show that the subject's preferred usage is indeed used by a significant number of independent reliable sources, enough to qualify (in my opinion) as "common usage" as laid out in the MOS. 28bytes (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed all your links yet, but thank you for the effort in compiling it. To be most persuasive though, it's best to only use sources that Misplaced Pages regards as reliable sources. Specifically, please try to avoid blogs and other opinion pieces or first-person accounts. For example, your first "Wired" link might be regarded as a bit misleading, since it says Wired, but is in fact simply a Wired-associated blog. The TechRadar article is also pretty obviously an opinion piece, rather than "a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If Misplaced Pages were to start changing articles based on every opinion piece out there, we'd be in a pretty sorry state. Anyway, I don't want this to degenerate into a discussion about what is and isn't a reliable source, but could you please doublecheck all links? It's definitely food for thought, but please ensure that you're making your strongest arguments. Thanks, --Elonka 19:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I consider Time, ABC News, BBC News, The Boston Globe and CNN to be top-notch sources, especially as compared to, for example, the Huffington Post, but I agree with you that there's probably little to be gained in quibbling over where each individual source ranks on the reliability scale. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages follows the prevailing usage in outside sources that are independent of the subject. That's not true. According to the MOS: "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources" is the standard for using a person's preference. This is a much lower threshold, one which "danah boyd" certainly meets. -- Irn (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Numerous reliable sources use the lower case spelling and it accords with the subject's own usage. I also think this is a WP:BLP issue given that the subject has a widely-respected and well-known preference for HER OWN NAME. This is a trivial issue and it's downright disrespectful that we behave in this manner. ElKevbo (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd support the move. It is jarring, and looks quite narcissistic to boot, but if it's the image she insists on presenting, and a significant percentage of reliable sources goes along with it per the MoS's dictum, we might as well be consistent in applying the MoS. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support See above, "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources" -- Irn (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

So we should change the capitalization throughout the article to ensure consistency with the title, right? ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. I didn't touch the capitalization in the citations as I haven't gone through them to see which ones are capitalized and which ones aren't. Someone should do that; I don't have time right now. ElKevbo (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The name should be capitalized at the beginning of sentences, though, and as you say, any quotes and reference info should retain the source's formatting. See k.d. lang for some usage examples. 28bytes (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@ nyu

What do you think about this as documentation of boyd's non-trivial affiliation with NYU?

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/2011/9/23/danah_boyd_Joins_MCC_as_Research_Assistant_Professor

Bellagio99 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New style guide discussion.

As a lot of other related edits have also been done, hold-off reverting until the concise points raised in the style guide are addressed, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Caps_.22Items_that_require_initial_lower_case.22_.28partially.29_scrap_or_edit.3F Jimthing (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you've made a bunch of edits and are trying to change the MOS to support your edits. It doesn't work like that and you don't get to bully others and edit war to keep your edits while you change the MOS. Change the MOS and then make your edits. ElKevbo (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Uppercase for earlier names?

@HelicopterLlama: I set some uppercase aliases in Wikidata and made the change on this page that you reverted based on the uppercase name at http://www.danah.org/name.html. Should we defer to the subject's own usage? Or is this already covered in a past discussion? --Jeremyb (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, wanted to leave an edit summary but was still learning how to use the new app and missed how to do so. --Jeremyb (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion of this issue. Just scroll up on this Talk page and check its archives. ElKevbo (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I read some of the earlier discussion above before making the change in question. I'm not aware of anywhere that covers this particular variant of her name. Please quote or link to a diff or something if I missed it. (or is the argument that we have existing consensus that she should be referenced in lowercase for all variants regardless of what her own preference is? if clarification is needed beyond the ref I already linked we could just ask her…) Thanks. --Jeremyb (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm not following you. What is the point of contention and how does it differ from the several discussions previously held here? ElKevbo (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, did you look at http://www.danah.org/name.html ? It has some (earlier, obsolete) variants in uppercase. What do you think about that? Should we uppercase those older variants that the subject herself chooses to uppercase? --Jeremyb (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Only if for some reason we're discussing historical names and spellings in this article. It's a bit obscure to get into for this (or nearly any other) biography. ElKevbo (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
uh i based it on the source in the statement itsself?? http://www.danah.org/aboutme.html ?fj it lists quotation here as undercase and so thats why i reverted :^)( ~Helicopter Llama~ 14:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The issue may be that the two sources contradict one another with respect to whether the name has uppercase letters. This source doesn't use uppercase letters ("My birth name was "danah michele mattas") but this source does use capital letters ("Born: 'Danah Michele Mattas'."). ElKevbo (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Indicated name as "styled lowercase" & explained: I have moved the related cite footnote into "{Reflist|...refs=..}" to explain when she noted her mother added lowercase 'h' in her birth name "danah" for typographical balance in reflecting the lowercase first letter 'd' similar to "d-b" reflection. Her webpage seems to emphasize the lowercase birthname was "danah" because capital "Danah" would not reflect uppercase 'D' as 'h'. Her interim names may have used "Danah...Beard Boyd" but birthname as lowercase "danah" seems likely, unless rejected by other specific sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Further Discussion

It looks very unprofessional to have a name in lowercases like this. Not to mention goes against English writing convention.Reverted.--Cartamandua (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed many times over the past several years. Do you have any new information? If not, why do you believe that your opinion should override the consensus that has been achieved on this topic? ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 23:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Danah boyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Updating "Honors and awards" and "Career"

Hi. I would like to update the "Honors and awards" section, adding more information about the speeches that she has recently given.

· "What Hath We Wrought?" at SXSW EDU 2018 · "Hacking Big Data" at University of Texas at Austin

Parprae (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just do it!! Bellagio99 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. Don't see general agreement below with opposition's strong arguments and show of reliable sources against little determined rebuttal. So this article will retain its stable title and stylization for now. It may take a subtle change in the MOS before this title can justifiably be restyled, which is a discussion for another venue. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their args and try again in a few months to garner consensus for restyling. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth    05:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Move logs: Danah boyd and Danah Boyd for future consideration

Danah boyd → Danah Boyd – Seriously? This is a vanity stylism. And that was 2011, but Telegraph interview 2014 no longer insisting on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

....and we also have a style guide. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Not in reliable third party sources it doesn't. That's the problem. In third party sources such as The Guardian the stylism which was current in her own material in 2011 isn't being much used. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it does: Financial Times, Chronicle of Higher Ed, Wired, WDET, these are all reliable, third party sources. -- irn (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:MOSCAPS. Such stylings are distracting and potentially confusing to the general readership of an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages should follow its own style guide in these cases. —  AjaxSmack  02:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We are following our own style guide, which ChiveFungi quoted above, by using the lower case. -- irn (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No, we're following an exception to the style guide by using the lower case. --woodensuperman 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not an exception. It's literally in the style guide. The style guide has a specific section to address this very issue. That's the point of having a style guide. -- irn (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:PN#Personal names: "Exceptions are made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable third party sources". It's literally an exception. --woodensuperman 08:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It's an exception to a different rule, not to the style guide. That's how style guides work. Rules conflict. One rule is ; an exception is ; an exception to is ; etc. The word "except"/"exception" shows up 29 times on that page alone. Those are not all exceptions to the guide; they are part of it just like MOS:LCITEMS is part of the MOS. -- irn (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization, but not exactly what you are worried about

Even given that we present her name in all lower case, doesn't the "capitalize the first word of a sentence" rule still apply? We have "boyd grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Altoona, Pennsylvania" in the article, with "boyd" being the first word of the sentence. Shouldn't that be "Boyd grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Altoona, Pennsylvania"? --Khajidha (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

After checking around I found MOS:LCITEMS. Which says "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Misplaced Pages articles may use lower-case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference. " I will make the necessary changes.--Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And, apparently, it was necessary for me to make them again, because they got reverted (almost certainly with the best of intentions) at some point in the intervening years. Thepsyborg (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
It makes sense for the rest of the sentences, but I would make an exception for the opening of the article-- the first use of the name would be more clear if it were stylized in the same way as the article title. Also, having one of the two names capitalized (Danah boyd) is more jarring than all lowercase or just the last name as Boyd 142.105.69.34 (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this needs reversion again. I agree with MOS:LCITEMS because it corresponds to formal English writing outside of Misplaced Pages and to other Misplaced Pages pages like Bell_hooks#Legacy_and_impact. Jmill1806 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: