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 19:58, 9 January 2009 editElKevbo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,619 edits →Requested move: question for Ubernostrum← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:30, 14 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,505,336 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(350 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi|page=Danah boyd (2nd nomination)|date=2 November 2016|result='''keep'''}}
{{move|danah boyd}}
{{Old AfD multi|date=8 April 2006}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Boyd, Danah|1=
{{WPB
|1={{WPBiography|living = yes|class = Start|priority = Low|a&e-work-group = yes|s&a-work-group = yes}} {{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Low|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Low}}
|2={{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=Start|importance=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}}
== Somewhat futile at this point, but ==


{{Archive box|
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)


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


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
::::::::: I find it somewhat amusing that my name keeps getting dragged into this, despite the fact that I haven't posted on this page since July 2007. ;) I could repeat, "Let's please stick to discussing the article, not the other editors," to see if anyone actually pays attention. But for the record: I still think that the title "Danah Boyd" is appropriate, though "danah boyd" should definitely be mentioned in the lead. If at some point it looks like the primary method that Boyd's name is referred to in outside reliable sources, is the lowercased "danah boyd", then I might be willing to change my mind on how this article is titled. But how the subject herself styles her name, is not a compelling reason for me to go against 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.
== Why is her name not capitalized? ==
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)
::::::::: 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)


== MoS ==
:::::::::: 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:


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)
:::::::::: 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?
: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)
:::::::::: 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)?
::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)
:::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)
:::::::::: I await your reply. ] (]) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (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". ] (]) 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)
::::::::::: 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.


Done. ] (]) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: FWIW, I have previously been lurker on this discussion and agree with the consensus ("Danah Boyd"). --] (]) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (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 ==
:::::::::::: 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)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
::::::::::::: 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)
:''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. ''
::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::: 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)


The result of the move request was: '''page moved'''. ] (]) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
== Capitalization discussion at the manual of style ==


----
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)


==Changes==
I just plowed thru the talk page (thanks ] and the even lengthier Manual of Style discussion. ]


] → {{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 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)
::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:


:* 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)
Please let it go, with grace. ] (]) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (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)
: Bellagio99, trying to edit war to force through your preferred version of an article, is completely ineffective. If you feel that you have a strong case, please follow one of the steps in ]: For example, you can ], or try ]. In the meantime, please respect the existing consensus on this article, forged through years of discussion. You are welcome to try and ], but edit-warring is not the way to proceed. --]]] 04:40, 18 September 2008 (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)
::Thank you for the advice. I am a scholar, and not an admin, but it does strike me as WP:Civil to respect both the person's choice and the current widespread usage. Times have changed. However, I am away on a speaking trip, and I hope that others, include Ms boyd, will address this issue. BTW, I don't perceive what I have done as an edit war, but merely as a move towards Wiki accuracy. Frankly, I don't understand your intransigence on the subject. For a case where a Name Change has taken on WP, see ], known until last month as Chad Johnson. YMMV. ] (]) 13:01, 18 September 2008 (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)
:Final thought before I go on the road: I re-trudged thru the WP:MOS/Capitalization discussion and found this quasi-consensus at the end. It is both later than the preponderance of opinion on this page (not a consensus), and I think MOS supersedes individual page discussions.
**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)
:: "to use a lower case variant of a name, it should be the wish of the subject and have regular and established use in reliable sources. This need not be a clear majority. If multiple styles exist in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the subject. I have bolded the three primary parts of this proposal: the preference of the subject (which is obvious), acceptance and use beyond that of the individual involved and from respected sources (to ensure that we are following the lead of reliable sources and not being jerked around), and, when in doubt, using the preferred orthography of the subject (because widespread acceptance is hard to define). -- Irn (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)" It's near the end of:
. Good luck. ] (]) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC) :Yep. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
::: Yes, I'm familiar with that conversation, since as you may have seen, I was one of the people participating. In the case of this article ], this is a discussion that has been ongoing since 2006, and the consensus is for the article as you see it, which means a capitalized name in the article, which is the "regular and established use" in mainstream sources such as the '']'', '']'', and '']''. We also include a mention of the lowercased form of the name in the lead of the article. If mainstream reliable sources switch to using the lowercased form of her name, then Misplaced Pages may follow. But that's the point: Misplaced Pages ''follows'' sources. We don't lead them. Show us major mainstream reliable sources which are lowercasing the name, and then we can talk about possibly changing our article to match. --]]] 16:18, 18 September 2008 (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 ] for some usage examples. ] (]) 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Curious. Is the of the subject trumped by the (erroneous) usage by "mainstream reliable sources"? --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


== @ nyu ==
:::::Yes. Misplaced Pages is written in service of its ''readers'', not its subjects; decisions should be made in light of their effect on readers, not the desires of those written about.


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


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


What do you think about this as documentation of boyd's non-trivial affiliation with NYU?
:::::I agree with Aaronshaw. Since this keeps popping up as an issue reveals that any past "consensus" is either mistaken, or at least shifting. Major scholarly publications and organizations reflect her legal and preferred spelling, and Misplaced Pages should as well. A particular sentence within a policy should not be wielded as an iron fist that goes against what her real name is. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/2011/9/23/danah_boyd_Joins_MCC_as_Research_Assistant_Professor
:::::: If you feel that consensus may have changed, I recommend another step in ], such as filing a ]. If there's a genuine consensus to use lowercase, it'll show up that way. --]]] 05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::: As noted above, scholarly publications are '''not''' independent of the subject: "academic peers are unlikely to challenge her on this point because it would complicate their professional relationships with her" --] (]) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


== New style guide discussion. ==
:::::: While the MOS has recently been changed to be more accommodating towards individuals who wish for their names to be lowercased, two requirements still remain, to warrant that type of exception on our part: A reliable source to confirm that the subject's preference expressedly includes third-party writing and multiple independent sources which in turn emulate the lowercase formatting. We got the former here, no questions asked, but I have to agree with R27182818 that the latter is still missing. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] ... --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Ah, very well then. No further objections from this editor. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:35, 27 September 2008 (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)
== Talk page editing broke links ==
: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? ==
A recent here on the talk page broke a pile of links in old discussions, as far as I can tell. Undo is not available due to "conflicting edits". Not sure what to do. --] (]) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
: Very odd! Thanks for bringing it up, I've gone ahead and restored it as best I could. If you see anything else broken, please point it out. --]]] 16:02, 18 September 2008 (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)
==RfC: Boyd or boyd?==
: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===
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-->
: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 ==
The question is whether the subject of this biography should have her name styled in the Misplaced Pages article as "Danah Boyd" or "danah boyd". Her own preference is lowercase. Reliable sources use both styles, though the more mainstream ones tend to use "Danah Boyd", but not consistently. --]]] 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:I question your assertion that "more mainstream tend to use "Danah Boyd"". On what basis do you make the claim that ''more'' captialize than not?. We have evidence that some mainstream sources capitalize her name ('']'', '']'', and '']''.), and evidence that some mainstream sources use lowercase (] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] ). But we hardly can come to a definitive conclusion that more sources do one or the other. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 22:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


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:
:In the lower case realm, I would add the very reputable and scholarly ''Journal of Computer Mediated Communication'', 2007. ] (]) 22:28, 27 September 2008 (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.
:: It's important that third-party sources be ''independent''; as I noted above, scholarly publications <s>in the same field as the subject (which this is)</s> are ''not'' independent. --] (]) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
:::R, I dispute your assertion that "scholarly publications are not independent.", speaking as a scholar and journal editor. Peer reviewed journals are extraordinarily independent. We turn down many more articles than we accept. Indeed, my next task is to request that a set of authors do an extensive revise and resubmit. Similarly, books published by university presses go through extensive peer review processes (I'm there now, myself). This strikes me as the independent assertions that some editors say they are looking for here. ] (]) 20:05, 28 September 2008 (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)
:::: &diams; Here's an elaboration of my earlier argument presented above, from my perspective as a researcher in computer science, which is Boyd's field and the field of ''JCMC'' cited as evidence above. I should also clarify that I do not claim scholarly pubs are nonindependent in general, but only for the narrow question of name styling.


== External links modified ==
:::: In this field, citation styling is done by authors, not reviewers. Thus, the decision of whether to upper- or lower-case Boyd's name is done by people who (a) may know and like Boyd, therefore giving undue deference to her preferences, and/or (b) do not wish to complicate their professional relationships with her. In particular, the quality conferences and journals keep reviewers anonymous; who would style the name upper-case if Boyd herself might review the paper? --] (]) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
: &diams; I feel that an important sub-question is: ''Which styling is more useful for '''readers'''?'' Much virtual ink has been expended on this talk page arguing that in the absence of third-party source consensus for upper-case, the lower-case styling should be used because the ''subject'' prefers it. But arguments that we should do what is best for Misplaced Pages's ''readers'' seem to have been ignored. --] (]) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::Beyond the bare question of accuracy (which has obvious importance for readers), it seems like we could recognize the emerging consensus for a shift to lowercase and complement it with a re-direct from the capitalized spelling. No sacrifice for readers in terms of usability, but a net gain insofar as more people would be likely to recognize and accommodate danah's spelling preferences in accordance with Misplaced Pages community policies on the issue. ] (]) 22:15, 28 September 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:
::: &diams; I think it's premature to claim consensus. --] (]) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
*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}}).
R27182818 asks "''Which styling is more useful for '''readers'''?''" Well, one needs to ask how presenting her name , would benefit our readers? I can think of no reason. The fact that some major sources continue to spell her name with caps means ''they'' are providing a dis-service to ''their'' readers, since "Danah Boyd" simply '''is not her name'''. "danah boyd" ''is'' her name, and it would be in full service to our readers to accurately reflect that (legal) fact. Finally, the ] seems quite clear on the issue before us: "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual.". As I noted above, we do have multiple styles in use in reliable sources, so we should deer to the version preferred by the individual. What am I missing here? --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
:Is her name legally spelled in lower case? If so, than there is no need for further discussion: upper case spelling is an error, and we should not propagate it, EOT. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
::She claims that in 2000 she "had legal paperwork acknowledging my name" in lower case, and that she "signed my new name change papers". --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


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


Hi. I would like to update the "Honors and awards" section, adding more information about the speeches that she has recently given.
: &diams; Here's a couple of arguments why the upper-case styling better serves readers.


· "What Hath We Wrought?" at SXSW EDU 2018
: 1. Lower-case names are jarring. When one encounters a lower-case name while reading a sentence, it's, "Huh? Is this a name? It's not capitalized. But it looks like a name." Extra thought is required to decide whether the lower-cased string is or is not a person's name.
· "Hacking Big Data" at University of Texas at Austin


] (]) 16:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
::''Name changes are always jarring. ] is jarring, as he was known till this year as Chad Johnson. I was one of the many who were upset that Cassius Clay changed his name to ], but in both cases I respected his wishes (and in the latter case, the person)). We get used to it.'' ]


Just do it!! ] (]) 18:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
: 2. What do we do if the name appears at the beginning of a sentence? Do we upper-case the first name (Danah boyd), like most words? Or do we keep it lower-case, like program variables, because lower-case is "correct"? Most people's names do not require this choice to be made.
== Requested move 21 June 2018 ==
<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) -->
:''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. ''


''']''' 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>
::''It's lower case, as she requested.'' ]
: '''Move logs:''' <span class="plainlinks"> and </span> for future consideration

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

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

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

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

::Your philosophical argument as to what is burdensome or fair for readers is better suited for the ] that addresses such treatment. For this article, we simply need to decide how to follow the ], which, again, seems quite clear on the issue before us: "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual.". As I noted above, we do have multiple styles in use in reliable sources, so we should deer to the version preferred by the individual. Unless the policy changes, I see no further reason for discussion. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 04:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The Manual of Style is a guideline, but it is not policy. Please also review ], and ]. Saying, "I see no further reason for discussion" is a bit dismissive of other editors. The goal here, is to come up with a version of the article which reflects the community consensus. The best way to proceed here, is to ensure that everyone who wishes to comment, is listened to in a respectful manner, and that we do our best to create an article which everyone is happy with, which stays in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies, which best serves our readers, and reflects positively on Misplaced Pages. There's obviously a disagreement here, but the way through it is to try and find an acceptable compromise, not to try and silence one side or the other. --]]] 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Apologies - didn't mean to sound dismissive, but I recognize it does come off that way. My point simply is that it appears that the MOS guideline (not policy, as I describe incorrectly above) is quite clear, and since ''that'' was decided based on consensus, the path before us here seems clear as well. If the consensus there is to let the subject's wishes dictate usage when conflicting versions exist in reliable sources, I don't see a compelling reason why we should go outside that guideline on this particular article. R27182818's arguments are more suited for the general guideline discussion, not this particular case. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: Yes, I was one of the people that participated in the discussion over the current guideline. There is still ambiguity though in terms of what "regular, established use" means. As I expressed there, and continue to express here, I am not (yet) convinced that the lowercase form of Boyd's name is sufficiently established in widely-available sources, to warrant changing the article from "Danah Boyd" to "danah boyd", though I do agree that more sources have become available which appear to be using the lowercase version. If this trend continues, then I would support moving the article to the lowercase spelling. But I'm not sure we're there yet. I say this not just to be stubborn, but also because I am trying to reduce disruption to the project. As some background, I spend a lot of time sorting out naming disputes on Misplaced Pages, especially in the ] where there are major edit wars over the names of towns and cities. The Eastern Europe topic area is particularly rife with these kinds of battles (Piotrus above is intimately familiar with these). Getting back to biographies though, even for those individuals where the lowercase form of a name is much more mainstream (such as ] and ]), those articles still tend to find themselves in a constant tug-of-war, such that pretty much every time I spotcheck them, they appear to be in a different state. So we should proceed slowly and carefully, so that if/when we do move the page, we are confident that something so controversial is going to "stick". We should also stick with the ], meaning the form of the name that is going to be the least surprising to a typical non-specialist reader. It is my feeling that ''at this time'', the "Danah Boyd" title better serves our readers, though I fully support the idea of including the lowercase form of her name in the first paragraph of the article, to indicate the subject's preferred version. --]]] 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

:::::: Should we have a section explaining the controversy, perhaps in comparison to other notable people whose lower-case stylings have gained more traction? Are there people whose lower-case stylings have gained ''less'' traction? I'm unsure that this is encyclopedic, but I find it interesting. --] (]) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::] has such a section. --] (]) 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
===Status===
Where are we regarding this RfC? -] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

== Another voice heard from in the capitalizing dispute ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Of course personally I don't believe an RFC (recommended further up) should be necessary for something as simple as bringing an article into line with MOS (rather, such a thing should be recommended when it is proposed to contradict a guideline), and when prior revisions of MOS were more inclined to the upper-case usage this was often taken to be sufficient reason in itself for maintaining that usage here. But perhaps it's time to have such a discussion, and hear out any new arguments in favor of contradicting MOS. Want to get that started? ] (]) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::: I took a quick look at articles at news.google.com, and the predominant use in third-party sources still appears to be a capitalized version. --]]] 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::::Yes, I pointed out that wording from WP:MOS back in November, and since it is still there, presumably that change was "properly done". I fully support moving the article to ]. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::: I'm well aware of the MOS discussions, since I was participating in them. See ]. However, ], and it's been over a year since the last time ], so it wouldn't hurt to start a new ] discussion and see what other editors think. Personally, I still feel that the Misplaced Pages title should reflect the usage in the majority of mainstream sources, and that still appears to be uppercase. Misplaced Pages ''follows'' the usage of outside sources, we don't lead them. If it gets to the point where lowercase usage is common, for example see how sources are handling "bell hooks" then it would make sense to move the Danah Boyd article to "danah boyd". But I personally don't think it would be appropriate yet. --]]] 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

:::::::: Also, I can't help feeling that you're trying to have it both ways: when your opinion on this article and the MOS guideline were in agreement, you were happy to declare consensus behind the guideline. But now that your opinion and the MOS guideline are no longer in agreement, suddenly we hear that consensus can change and we should be wary ;) ] (]) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: In order to move an article, it is necessary to show that there is a clear consensus to accomplish the move. See ]. --]]] 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::: So like I originally asked: someone feel like starting the formalities so we can see what happens? ] (]) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Done. --] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

== Sexuality - notable? ==

&diams; A discussion of Boyd's sexuality has appeared:

:She has an "attraction to people of different genders," but identifies as ] rather than ] or ]. "I very much attribute my comfortableness with my sexuality to the long nights in high school discussing the topic in ]."<ref name="boyd_aboutme">
{{cite web
| last = Boyd
| first = Danah
| title = "a bitty autobiography / a smattering of facts"
| work = danah.org
| url = http://www.danah.org/aboutme.html
| accessdate = 2008-11-02
}}
</ref>


*'''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)
Is this notable; i.e., should it be included in the article? It's not relevant to her role as a professional. I'm having a hard time articulating arguments to keep it, but I feel that there must be some. --] (]) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:....and we also have a style guide. ] (]) 11:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
:It doesn't seem relevant to her work or her notability, and unless there are 3rd party sources that make significant mention of how it is important, it should be removed. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
* '''Speedy move''', clear ] violation that shouldn't need any discussion. ] (]) 13:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
:: It should be removed, per both ] and talkpage consensus. --]]] 17:20, 3 November 2008 (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)
:::I disagree. It's very poorly worded and the emphasis is all wrong but it's important to her identity as a researcher and a person. The "attraction to people of different genders" doesn't seem important but the comfort with sexuality attributed to IRC bit is important. --] (]) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (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)
::::We all have things that are important to our "identity as a...person" (sexuality, favorite flavor of ice cream, etc), but that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. And how is it important to her identity as a researcher? My point is that unless there is indication that her sexuality plays a role in her research (which is why she is notable), it seems spurious to mention. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 04:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::It seems that it significantly informed her understanding of the use of ICTs and motivated her interest in them. Admittedly, I don't know offhand of any notable interviews, articles, etc. outside of danah's self-published material that makes this connection. I personally believe that the media have totally missed this important and interesting connection but that's beyond the scope of this discussion (and a significant weakness in this particular argument). --] (]) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' per ]. The lower case has regular and established use in reliable sources. -- ] (]) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of notability, I know for a fact ('cause I was a consultant on the project) that danah was a key member of the MacArthur report on teens and the internet that had a major NYTimes article the other day. Alas, only the team leader's name (Mizuki Ito) appeared in print, so we can't know if the NYT has finally decided to recognize danah's lower case name. ] (]) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::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)
:::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)
==Requested move==
::We ''are'' following our own style guide, which ChiveFungi quoted above, by using the lower case. -- ] (]) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I request we move this article to ]. Although "Danah Boyd" is used by some reliable sources and references, "danah boyd" is used by others and is clearly preferred by the subject. The ] clearly states that "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual." --] (]) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (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 ==
* '''Support''' the move, per ElKevbo's rationale regarding MOS. Additionally, arguments given elsewhere on this talk page to the effect that peer-reviewed academic publications and other reliable sources using "danah boyd" are somehow under Ms. boyd's influence and thus not reliable for this purpose (arguments which would theoretically resolve this the other way by excluding such sources) seem to overstep Misplaced Pages's bounds. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to try to investigate such sources for bias or personal motives (that's the job of other reliable sources, which could then be cited here if needed). ] (]) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Unwilling Support''' I disagree and don't think we should honor ridiculous requests by people to use odd capitalization, but ] says we can re-name article names to use no capital letters if the person spells it that way (and she does according to her homepage). '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' It's come up several times in the history of this article that calling capitalization schemes "ridiculous" is perhaps a POV judgment Misplaced Pages shouldn't be trying to make (bolstered by the fact that some people strongly object to such schemes, while others seem to have no problem with them, something which seems a strong indicator that it's a subjective judgment and not a matter of objective fact or style). I'd like to keep the article free of such. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


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)
*'''Strong Support''' I think Ubernostrum put the case nicely, and I had put a similar case (without MOS) some months ago. I also request that Elonka reinsert all the discussion material that she archived, as I believe that much of it is about this case. BTW, I just tried to email ms boyd about something else today, and got a note that she's offline until Jan 19 -- moving to a new job at Microsoft Research in Boston or Cambridge.] (]) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (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)
* '''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 such usage in third-party reliable sources. As for the arguments about what the Manual of Style says, it is worth remembering that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, and not policies. The MoS is a recommendation only, and it is still our responsibility to choose what works best for a particular page. I was a participant in the discussions for the current wording of the MoS, and the consensus is that it's not just whether or not sources are using both spellings, but whether an unusual spelling is in "regular, established use". In the case of Danah Boyd, the majority of third-party sources are still using normal capitalization (Danah Boyd), so Misplaced Pages should follow that usage. If at some point in the future, the majority of reliable sources use a lowercased spelling, then Misplaced Pages can adapt. But we're not there yet. --]]] 23:58, 8 January 2009 (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)
** '''Comment''' I looked through the history of the MOS changes, and noticed that originally there was stronger language about number of sources with a given usage; this wording was over time pared down, without apparent reversion or controversy, until it arrived at the present version. This would seem to reflect that the ultimate consensus evolved away from considering "X sources using upper vs. Y sources using lower" as a guideline (present language regarding the subject's own preference was added in by ], who presumably did not do so without consensus). <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::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)
*'''Oppose''' also per MoS, specifically ]. ''Cf''. ], another subject whose "preferences are ignored." — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 01:53, 9 January 2009 (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)
:*Don't worry; we'll get to her next. :) --] (]) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:*By the way, I'm not quite clear what part of the MOS you're referring to and it would be helpful for me if you could be more specific. Thanks! --] (]) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' I'm confused. You oppose ''also'' per MOS, but no one else opposes per MOS (in fact, the only other oppose explicitly wants to go against the MOS).--] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::*Sorry, my bust. I was specifically referring to ]. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::*But her name is not a trademark, and there exists ] that deals explicitly with this issue.--] (]) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't think I've expressed it before, but I think this is fundamentally an issue of basic respect. This isn't a scientific theory, a product, or a corporation; this is a living person and I think it's damn disrespectful for us to ignore her clear and simple wish to use her name as she uses it hen it costs us absolutely nothing to do so. I'm glad that the MOS was changed to recognize this idea and am only half-joking when I said that k. d. lang is next. --] (]) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
**It's an issue of typography, not respect. Notice what the external citation links use . Like Misplaced Pages, they have style manuals that eschew the use of cutesy typography. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::*Yes, and we have a style manual that states we should go by the subject's wishes when there are sources using both versions (see ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] ). Further, this is a matter of ''accuracy'', not "cutesy typography". Please don't be condescending to a subject's of what her name actually is. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::*I personally don't care about official names but since it is being put forth as an argument here, is there any evidence that the ''capitalisation'' choice is a "legal name"? The subject notes a legal change but mentions ''"my decision to leave the capitalization out of my name"'' but not whether any legal authority concurs on the capitalisation ''per se''. On the other point, I feel my attitude is dismissive rather than condescending but my arguments are based on numerous other name choices with "irregular" <small>(Is that better?)</small> typography in their "official" names described at ]. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 04:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:: &diams; Respect goes both ways -- why is it OK for her to impose her nonstandard styling and the costs that come with it on the rest of us? --] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::She's not imposing this nonstandard styling - ]. --] (]) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' This is why the MOS was changed. Additionally, as ] pointed out, in the discussion leading up to the change at the MOS, the idea of looking to a majority of sources was proposed, but was ultimately not the language decided upon. "Regular, established use" was decided precisely because it does not require a majority. -- ] (]) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
**How about ''all'' of the sources except the subject's own website/output? — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*** Further back in the discussion on this talk page, you'll notice I found, for example, a story in the Boston Globe not written by Ms. boyd, which nonetheless referred to her as "danah boyd"; academic citations of her (not work by her, but work citing her) seem to tend strongly toward "danah boyd" as well. So it's disingenuous to say that only work by her uses lower-case. ] (]) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' per WP:MOS, and all the reasons I've stated over the months: it is her legal name, it is her preferred spelling, WP should strive for accuracy (especially for BLP), and our presentation of facts ] by the fact that some RS decide to spell it contrary to what is correct. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' per the arguments that I've raised previously on this talk page. See above for elaborations on:
** The mixed-case styling better serves readers:
*** Lower-case names are jarring when reading text.
*** Lower-case names have strange, unfamiliar rules at the beginning of a sentence.
** It is impossible to write the name without making a value judgement.
** It is unfair for Boyd (or anyone) to demand that others accept the burdens of the lower-case styling in service of personal identity.
** Academic publications do not make independent style choices.
** Legal documents containing a lowercase name do not give legal weight to the lowercase styling.
** --] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
***It seems that your objections are to ] and I think your arguments are better placed there. In the meantime, I don't think it's at all fair that editors should have to go through this lengthy exercise when there is clearly a consensus in the MOS which represents a far larger number of Misplaced Pages editors than those monitoring this article. --] (]) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
****Actually most of MOS represents a small number of - deeply opinionated - editors who have agreed on its talkpage; it's worse on the subpages, of which MOSCAPS is one. ] <small>]</small> 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::*(ec) You are arguing for a change in policy; here, we're debating the ''application'' of existing policy. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. MOSCAPS is being misquoted; it says ''may'' use. I see little evidence that sources which the subject did not write herself use lower case cinsistently, which is the line we normally take on such issues; compare ] . ] <small>]</small> 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' As I noted above, repeatedly, there are reliable sources using both. Questioning why a reliable source chooses one or the other, or injecting allegations of bias or influence into such discussion, is not Misplaced Pages's province; if you believe certain sources, which Misplaced Pages considers reliable (academic journals, anthologies and at least one major newspaper), have been unduly influenced by Ms. boyd, the proper course of action is to find other reliable sources which indicate this influence. As it stands, some reliable sources use lower-case and others use upper-case, and MOS clearly states that, in such a situation, the subject's preferred version should be used. ] (]) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::* Here are some reliable sources independent of the subject using the lowercase presentation: ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] . --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::**On the contrary, source criticism is exactly what we are here for. This is why we have editors, not bots. ] <small>]</small> 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Ubernostrum: Can you please square your initial comments above ("I see little evidence that sources which the subject did not write herself use lower case cinsistently") with the evidence presented by ZimZalaBim? I see no evidence that those articles - published in very high profile (one may even say ] and ]) sources - were written by the subject of this article? --] (]) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Note''' I've dropped a note at ] about this requested move given (a) that it's a test of the new(ish) change to the MOS and (b) the tone and direction of this conversation seems to be more about acceptance of the MOS than the merits of this particular case. --] (]) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (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: