Talk:Danah boyd

Somewhat futile at this point, but

According to the Boston Globe, "danah boyd": http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/02/18/techs_feminine_side/?page=2 Ubernostrum (talk) 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. Wikipedia has its own. There is no outside authority on style (except Tim Gunn). Andyparkerson (talk) 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. William Pietri (talk) 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. Ubernostrum (talk) 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. Andyparkerson (talk) 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 Wikipedia, and I thank you all for the educational opportunity. Ubernostrum (talk) 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 "wrong" consensus. So really, Andyparkerson had a really good point when he said, "Let's dial back the drama here." -- Renesis (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia who will happily help you improve. For example, the Mediation Cabal is full of people like that.

I agree completely: this is a debatable point. Many things in style guides are; if they weren't, we wouldn't need to document them. But we've already had the debate. That the rest of us feel our time could be better spent than rehashing it isn't anything against you or Danah Boyd. She's in my social circle, and I have nothing but positive feelings for her. Were you in mine, I'm sure I'd feel the same way: my dad has a degree in philosophy, half my friends are web people, and a fair number of the rest are journalists and writers. But crikey, it's hard to be happy that you're reopening a debate that everybody, you included, see as futile. Please let it go until you have something big enough that you really think it will change the consensus. William Pietri (talk) 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? Ubernostrum (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally conflicts on Wikipedia 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. William Pietri (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2008 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Instead, we have our own style guidelines, and we follow the lead of outside reliable sources. And since the primary method in those outside sources still appears to be "Danah Boyd", my opinion has not changed. Wikipedia is here to summarize information that has already been published in reliable sources, not to act as a publicity outlet for Ms. Boyd.

Since consensus is clear on this, can we all please move on again, to the 2 million odd other articles on Wikipedia which could benefit from our attention? --Elonka 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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:

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?

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)?

I await your reply. Ubernostrum (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (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.

FWIW, I have previously been lurker on this discussion and agree with the consensus ("Danah Boyd"). --R27182818 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ubernostrum: If the NY Times published a correction, I agree that that would have weight, and I would definitely consider it in combination with other sources. As for the difference between newspapers and academic journals, the anon's post above is very pertinent. I would also point out that Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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". --Elonka 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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.) Brian Eisley (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 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 scannability 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 Wikipedia is in making easily digestible reference information available to the general reader, and I think nonstandard formatting goes against the grain of that. William Pietri (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization discussion at the manual of style

For all interested parties, there is a discussion going on right now at the Manual of Style about whether or not to capitalize people's names against their wishes (like danah boyd, for example). -- Irn (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I just plowed thru the talk page (thanks User:Elonka and the even lengthier Manual of Style discussion. [[1]]

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 Wikipedia with grace. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you cannot arbitrarily decide to declare a new "consensus" which goes against months of previous discussions. --Elonka 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:

[2]

Please let it go, with grace. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: For example, you can request comments from other editors, or try mediation. In the meantime, please respect the existing consensus on this article, forged through years of discussion. You are welcome to try and build a new consensus, but edit-warring is not the way to proceed. --Elonka 04:40, 18 September 2008 (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 Chad Ocho Cinco, known until last month as Chad Johnson. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2008 (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.

"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:

[3]. Good luck. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (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 Danah Boyd, 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 San Francisco Chronicle,[4] Wired,[5] and New York Times.[6] 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 Wikipedia may follow. But that's the point: Wikipedia 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. --Elonka 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Is the expressed wish and legal actions of the subject trumped by the (erroneous) usage by "mainstream reliable sources"? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia 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. --R27182818 (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. Aaronshaw (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that consensus may have changed, I recommend another step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as filing a Request for Comment. If there's a genuine consensus to use lowercase, it'll show up that way. --Elonka 05:36, 23 September 2008 (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" --R27182818 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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 covered here, no questions asked, but I have to agree with R27182818 that the latter is still missing. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC [7], Salon.com [8], Chicago Sun-Times [9], Washington Post [10], Toronto Star [11], PBS [12]... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very well then. No further objections from this editor. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page editing broke links

A recent edit 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. --R27182818 (talk) 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. --Elonka 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Boyd or boyd?

The question is whether the subject of this biography should have her name styled in the Wikipedia 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. --Elonka 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I question your assertion that "more mainstream [sources] 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 (San Francisco Chronicle,[13] Wired,[14] and New York Times.[15]), and evidence that some mainstream sources use lowercase (MSNBC [16], Salon.com [17], Chicago Sun-Times [18], Washington Post [19], Toronto Star [20], PBS [21]). But we hardly can come to a definitive conclusion that more sources do one or the other. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In the lower case realm, I would add the very reputable and scholarly Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2007. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's important that third-party sources be independent; as I noted above, scholarly publications in the same field as the subject (which this is) are not independent. --R27182818 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ 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.

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? --R27182818 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ 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 Wikipedia's readers seem to have been ignored. --R27182818 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia community policies on the issue. Aaronshaw (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ I think it's premature to claim consensus. --R27182818 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

R27182818 asks "Which styling is more useful for readers?" Well, one needs to ask how presenting her name contrary to her own expressed wishes, and contrary to the legal form of 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 manual of style 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? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

She claims here that in 2000 she "had legal paperwork acknowledging my name" in lower case, and that she "signed my new name change papers". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

♦ 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. --R27182818 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

♦ Here's a couple of arguments why the upper-case styling better serves readers.

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.

Name changes are always jarring. Chad Ocho Rios 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 Muhammed Ali, but in both cases I respected his wishes (and in the latter case, the person)). We get used to it. User:Bellagio99

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.

It's lower case, as she requested. User:Bellagio99

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.

It means we support this specific person's choice to legally change her name (even though I think it is silly). Bellagio99 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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). --R27182818 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your philosophical argument as to what is burdensome or fair for readers is better suited for the policy that addresses such treatment. For this article, we simply need to decide how to follow the existing policy, 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. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a guideline, but it is not policy. Please also review Wikipedia:Consensus, and WP:CIVIL. 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 Wikipedia policies, which best serves our readers, and reflects positively on Wikipedia. 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. --Elonka 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. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 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 Wikipedia, especially in the nationalist areas 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 bell hooks and e e cummings), 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 Principle of least astonishment, 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. --Elonka 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

♦ 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. --R27182818 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

E.E. Cummings has such a section. --ClarkLewis (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Status

Where are we regarding this RfC? -ZimZalaBim ^talk 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). Bellagio99 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

♦ 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. --R27182818 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Per MOS: "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 Wikipedia 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? Ubernostrum (talk) 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.[22] --Elonka 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 Wikipedia's editors (else it would read differently), so what's the rationale for going against the grain? Ubernostrum (talk) 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. --ElKevbo (talk) 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 danah boyd. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the MOS discussions, since I was participating in them. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalization continued.3B which sources and how to decide. However, consensus can change, and it's been over a year since the last time a move was proposed, so it wouldn't hurt to start a new WP:RM discussion and see what other editors think. Personally, I still feel that the Wikipedia title should reflect the usage in the majority of mainstream sources, and that still appears to be uppercase.[23] Wikipedia 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"[24] 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. --Elonka 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 ;) Ubernostrum (talk) 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 WP:RM. --Elonka 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So like I originally asked: someone feel like starting the formalities so we can see what happens? Ubernostrum (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --ElKevbo (talk) 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 here (which references Wikipedia) on the philosophical basis, and here, a polemic for capitalising. Both from Language Log. Shimgray | talk | 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality - notable?

♦ A discussion of Boyd's sexuality has appeared:

She has an "attraction to people of different genders," but identifies as queer rather than lesbian or bi. "I very much attribute my comfortableness with my sexuality to the long nights in high school discussing the topic in IRC."

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. --R27182818 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (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. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed, per both WP:BLP and talkpage consensus. --Elonka 17:20, 3 November 2008 (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. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (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. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 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). --ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (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. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I request we move this article to danah boyd. 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 Manual of Style clearly states that "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual." --ElKevbo (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• 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 Wikipedia's bounds. It's not Wikipedia'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). Ubernostrum (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification Since I've added a few comments to the discussion and a couple folks seem to be misunderstanding me, I'd like to clarify and explain my position a bit. I support the move of the article to "danah boyd" (and a switch to using "danah boyd" throughout the article text), based on the MOS as it was at the time the move was proposed; there are sources for "danah boyd" and there are sources for "Danah Boyd" (there are also reliable sources for a number of misspellings, but that's another matter and, curiously, no-one suggests moving to "Dana Boyd" or similar on such basis), and MOS stated that, when reliable sources conflict, Wikipedia should use the subject's preferred version, which is clearly and verifiably "danah boyd". I also support the move even if MOS is edited back to requiring a majority of reliable sources to be using the lower-case version; though a few mainstream press articles have used "Danah Boyd", a number of others (see various citations throughout the discussion) use "danah boyd", and "danah boyd" seems to be the universal or near-universal usage in academic publications where proper citation is taken to an extreme, and Ms. boyd is much more frequently published and cited in such publications than in mainstream press, which means that "danah boyd" almost certainly is the dominant usage in reliable sources (without even taking into account universities and employers which identify her as "danah boyd" rather than "Danah Boyd"). Ubernostrum (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Unwilling Support I disagree and don't think we should honor ridiculous requests by people to use odd capitalization, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Mixed or non-capitalization 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). TJ Spyke 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 Wikipedia 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. Ubernostrum (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (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.Bellagio99 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: The above editor may have a COI with the subject of this article.[25][26] --Elonka 22:00, 11 January 2009 (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),[27] so Wikipedia should follow that usage. If at some point in the future, the majority of reliable sources use a lowercased spelling, then Wikipedia can adapt. But we're not there yet. --Elonka 23:58, 8 January 2009 (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 this edit by Irn, who presumably did not do so without consensus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernostrum (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to presume any such thing. The discussion was at WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalisation, and three editors out of a dozen (Irn was one), supported that position; they outlasted the others, but did not persuade them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose also per MoS, specifically WP:MOSTM. Cf. K.D. Lang, another subject whose "preferences are ignored." — AjaxSmack 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Don't worry; we'll get to her next. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 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! --ElKevbo (talk) 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).--Irn (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, my bust. I was specifically referring to WP:MOSTM. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• But her name is not a trademark, and there exists another section of the MOS that deals explicitly with this issue.--Irn (talk) 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. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an issue of typography, not respect. Notice what the external citation links use [28][29][30][31]. Like Wikipedia, they have style manuals that eschew the use of cutesy typography. — AjaxSmack 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 MSNBC [32], Salon.com [33], Chicago Sun-Times [34], Washington Post [35], Toronto Star [36], PBS [37]). Further, this is a matter of accuracy, not "cutesy typography". Please don't be condescending to a subject's express and legal declaration of what her name actually is. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 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" (Is that better?) typography in their "official" names described at WP:MOSTM. — AjaxSmack 04:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

♦ 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? --R27182818 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

She's not imposing this nonstandard styling - we are. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support This is why the MOS was changed. Additionally, as Ubernostrum 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. -- Irn (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How about all of the sources except the subject's own website/output? [38][39][40][41] — AjaxSmack 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. Ubernostrum (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that. I said that all of the sources by which I meant the references used for this article (my bust for not making that clearer). I never claim to have made an exhaustive survey of every article, blog, or other mention of the subject. — AjaxSmack 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        • So would it be okay if we added the sources mentioned in this discussion to the article? I suspect that doing so would raise more accusations of bad faith and I hope you can understand that this - having many reliable sources but being unreasonably prevented from adding them - is an untenable position.
        • And what about the sources I recently added (not added, mind you, in any relation to this discussion but in response to editing that reminded me of recent work published by the subject that garnered national attention)? --ElKevbo (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
          • To my knowledge, the only person who's been removing sources lately, was you, ElKevbo. In terms of adding more sources or further expanding the article, I don't think anyone would have any objection. For best results though, stick with reliable third-party sources, rather than sources written by Boyd herself. A certain amount of self-published information is acceptable in biographies, but it's always better on Wikipedia to include information written by other people, independent of the subject. --Elonka 22:04, 11 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 shouldn't be dictated by the fact that some RS decide to spell it contrary to what is correct. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 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.
  • --R27182818 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems that your objections are to WP:MOSCAPS 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 Wikipedia editors than those monitoring this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) You are arguing for a change in policy; here, we're debating the application of existing policy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 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 E. E. Cummings [sic]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 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 Wikipedia's province; if you believe certain sources, which Wikipedia 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. Ubernostrum (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some reliable sources independent of the subject using the lowercase presentation: MSNBC [42], Salon.com [43], Chicago Sun-Times [44], Washington Post [45], Toronto Star [46], PBS [47]. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports only verifiable information from reliable sources, and while debating whether a particular source is reliable or not is within scope for a Wikipedia discussion, debating a source's reliability without reference to sources which question that reliability most likely is not. In other words, Wikipedia isn't a forum for investigating and determining why a peer-reviewed journal uses "danah boyd" and not "Danah Boyd"; that would constitute original research. Ubernostrum (talk) 20:26, 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 notable and reliable) sources - were written by the subject of this article? --ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times and Financial Times have both run articles using "Danah Boyd" (the NYT article was widely syndicated), which is my basis for saying sources conflict. My response above was mainly saying that questioning whether a particular source used "danah boyd" because Ms. boyd told them to (or wrote a particular piece) is outside of Wikipedia's scope; a reliable source is a reliable source. Ubernostrum (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; it's not closely related to this discussion at all how much contact danah had with the authors of any of these pieces. I think we both agree that there are multiple reliable sources that use both forms of her name. The current MOS guideline (which keeps getting tweaked and changed, damnit) states that we should use the subject's preferred form when there are conflicting reliable sources. It seems that this is precisely just such a situation and the subject has expressly made her desires known. Working with the guideline as it currently exists and ignoring WP:IAR, I don't understand at all how you (or anyone else) can logically object to this move. This is as clear a black-and-white case as one is likely to ever see. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all black and white; borderline, much more so than bell hooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand your position. It would be helpful if you could address the points I raise above but if you want to leave it at "he just doesn't get it" ("he" meaning me) then I understand. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tempted though I am to go along with EK's suggestion, I will make one more attempt. The evidence seems to show that "bell hooks" is now almost standard; usage and her preference makes a clear case. This is borderline; "danah boyd" seems to be less common than the standard form, and to that extent astonishing. "e.e. cummings" is right out; it was not his usage, except where he used no caps, even in "I", and reliable sources are firmly against it; we quote some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note I've dropped a note at WT:MOSCAPS 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. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I see reliable sources using lowercase ([48], [49]), and I see from her website that she prefers to use lowercase herself. Moving the article is the correct application of the guideline. More generally, this is the way that she chooses to identify herself, and since other reliable sources also identify her this way, it makes sense for WP to as well. Croctotheface (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an incorrect application of the guideline. Because it can be so read, it is also the wrong guideline, as TJSpyke perceived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think you could stand to chill out here. Honestly, from what I recall of your record, your stridence over a minor page move discussion confuses me greatly. I have no idea why this the possibility of moving the article is SO offensive to you, but everyone would benefit if you simply allowed other editors the courtesy of holding a position different from your own. I don't see how others who arrive at and participate in this discussion benefit from reading your declaration that I am "incorrect," especially considering that there is at least disagreement about how to interpret the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline was never meant to impose a rule that we must use lc; that's why it said "may" to begin with. What offends me is not moving the page, which I would be prepared to do if given evidence (I support the use of bell hooks, because our readers will expect it); it is the abuse of MOS to rewrite the English language against editorial judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm pretty sure that the English language will survive until tomorrow no matter what our style guide says. More generally, your accusation of "abuse" is especially bizarre considering that near as I can tell, the move was proposed in good faith and the guideline was interpreted in good faith. If it turns out that your view of the guideline is the consensus view, that will come out with more discussion. There is no need to get so heated about it. Croctotheface (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out a couple times now in this discussion (and multiple times in previous discussions), the problem here is precisely that Wikipedia is going against the accepted usage. Academic publications list the author as "danah boyd". Citations refer to "danah boyd". Even major mainstream news outlets have apparently switched to "danah boyd" (see multiple references in this and other discussions). And so Wikipedia's insistence on "Danah Boyd" is the thing that's "jarring" or "surprising" to readers, who either come in knowing of the subject and are confused by Wikipedia's apparent incorrectness, or come in unfamiliar with the subject but, on following up references, discover that the accepted usage is "danah boyd" and then become confused by Wikipedia's apparent incorrectness. That is, I believe, why this article keeps generating such prolific debates and move requests. I invite you to peruse the mainstream sources which have been presented in this discussion, and to look over Ms. boyd's academic publication history, and then consider carefully whether you think they support the idea that "Danah Boyd" is the norm and "danah boyd" is unfamiliar and jarring. Ubernostrum (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some mainstream sources are using "danah boyd". Most mainstream sources are using "Danah Boyd": Google News, CNet, Discover magazine. Wikipedia should follow the prevailing usage in outside sources that are independent of the subject, and this means "Danah Boyd". If you disagree with this, talk to the outside sources and get them to change their usage. If they change to lowercase, then Wikipedia is more likely to change to reflect the usage in outside reliable sources. But for now, the article should stay at "Danah Boyd". --Elonka 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please define how you determined that "most" are using "Danah Boyd"? I'm curious as to your data sample, methodology, etc. Point being, it is nearly impossible for anyone on this page to make any kind of empirical statement that "more" use one spelling over another, and no argument should be based on this inherently subjective claim. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not done an extensive case-sensitive Google search (I'm not even sure how to do one), but I periodically spotcheck Google News to see how current news sources are using her name. Today, a check at Google News shows Boyd's name being in five entries: Four are uppercase, one is lowercase.[50] When I did the search on all mentions in 2008, the ratio was over 3:1 for uppercase. Note that this is a straight numeric count, and is not factoring the kinds of sources. But it seems obvious that the prevalent usage, at least in third-party news sources, is for "Danah Boyd". --Elonka 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All that "seems obvious" to me is that you claim that 2008 articles that happened to be indexed by Google News use the uppercase. Even if verifiable, that doesn't mean "most" do. Again, the MOSCAPS policy that was in place since October (until this thread started and people went over there to try to change it) states, reasonably so, that when multiple versions appear in reliable sources, we should defer to what the subject prefers. You've found evidence that "some" reliable sources use uppercase, and I and others have posted evidence that other reliable sources use lowercase. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I "claim"? Feel free to count them for yourself. Google News is running about 80% at "Danah Boyd", and when I did a spotcheck of ten 2008 sources at NewsBank (I pulled off the top ten items on the list), it's 90% "Danah Boyd", including sources such as The Oregonian, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Sacramento Bee, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. If you want exact citations, let me know. Or, if you have some other metric by which "most" can be measured, I'll be happy to take a look at it. But the regular and established use is obviously "Danah Boyd". If mainstream sources were more or less equally split on whether to use uppercase or lowercase, then it might make sense to use Boyd's personal preference as the tiebreaker. But the clear preference in mainstream news sources right now is for "Danah Boyd", so no tie-breaker is needed. --Elonka 22:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I note you're being extremely selective in your choice of reliable sources. Google Scholar turns up nearly 400 results; some indexing software appears to force various capitalization schemes, but in all cases where I can click through to the actual paper the citation appears to be "danah boyd". And, tellingly, searching for "Danah Boyd" -- uppercase -- yields a suggestion that "d boyd" -- lowercase -- is the author I'm looking for. I welcome you to try to find 400+ "mainstream" sources using "Danah Boyd", and to weed out the duplicates, but it seems pretty clear to me that without extensive manipulation of which sources count there's no way to claim "Danah Boyd" is the predominant usage. Ubernostrum (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're missing the point. Any attempt to quantify usage is necessarily incomplete (do you have access to every time her name is ever used in a reliable source??), and ultimately unnecessary, since the policy guideline doesn't require any such quanitification of what might be "the clear preference in mainstream news sources". This isn't a matter of who can find more sources to support their view, but rather, how to best follow policy when there are multiple reliable sources using both versions. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. The last go-round on this article, MOS had no way of coping with conflicting sources, and I suggested that a resolution be found for this article (and then, if necessary, kicked back up toward MOS for discussion). I got nowhere with it, and I suspect that, as a result of this discussion, MOS is going to end up edited in such a way that it will no longer handle conflicting sources, or will simply mandate that Wikipedia use the "majority" version. Since this has been obvious to me for a little while now, I've moved on to pointing out that even such a guideline still support "danah boyd". Ubernostrum (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Meta-Comment I'd like to point out two things. First, Pmanderson appears to be both participating in this discussion and simultaneously trying to edit MOS in ways which would bolster a particular position in this discussion. This strikes me as inappropriate (if I recall correctly, I once told it was inappropriate for me to merely be discussing possible changes over at MOS while also taking part in a discussion at this article), and I'd ask Pmanderson to refrain from such editing for the duration of this discussion (if a new consensus on MOS forms, some other helpful editor will almost certainly update its text to reflect that). Second, I can't help noticing several comments to the effect that lower-casing a name is "silly" or "ridiculous" or similar; discussion here should be neutral and respectful, and based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and on information from reliable sources; if someone's personal POV on lower-case letters or the types of people who like them cannot be set aside for purposes of this discussion, I'd like to ask that person to recuse him- or herself from the discussion. Ubernostrum (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ubernostrum, it takes two to edit war, and it's pretty tacky to only list one participant (who, coincidentally, disagrees with your point of view), while not naming the other editors who are edit-warring, but happen to agree with you. This is standard Tag team behavior, where attacks are leveled on the "opposing" editors, while identical transgressions from your own "side" are ignored. For example, you're attacking people for using the word "silly", but ignoring the comment that accused people who opposed the move as showing no logic. Or in other words, please try to be more evenhanded in your criticisms here, rather than just attacking the people who disagree with you. As for anyone else who is making decisions here "per the Manual of Style", it does appear that the relevant section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) is in the middle of an edit war, involving multiple of the editors that are participating in this move discussion. So I would encourage all editors here to base their comments not on "what the MoS says" (since it's changing minute by minute), but simply on what you think is the best choice for this particular article. Thanks, --Elonka 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • From what I understand, it takes edits to to have an edit war, and I certainly won't touch the edit tab of this article with a ten-foot pole. I was, however (as I recall), called out for discussing MOS changes during a previous round on this article, and felt that the same rationale should apply here. As for tag-teaming... well, you, Cyrus and Renesis certainly taught me a thing or two about that a few months back, so perhaps we could expect even-handed treatment on that topic as well? And as regards the MOS war going on right now, personally I think it'd be rather sad if people are really that dedicated to the idea that they can dictate Ms. boyd's name to her out of a righteous sense of how English ought to be writ (since the war in question seems to have begun largely because this article would, under the MOS guideline at the time this discussion began, switch to lower-casing), but previous experiences don't give me high hopes, ya know? Ubernostrum (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • ♦ "Personally, I think it'd be rather sad if people are really that dedicated to the idea that Ms. Boyd can dictate that others accept the burdens of her funky styling out of a righteous sense of how personal identity trumps accessiblity to readers." -- I can't speak for the other opposers, but I do so out of a genuine sense that the mixed-case styling better serves readers, not "righteousness". --R27182818 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Let me point out that the only reason I ever got into this debate was that Ms. boyd's academic work is relevant to what I do for a living, and so I was familiar with her work and with the fact that, in such work (regardless of whether it's something she herself wrote or something else citing her work) she is basically universally named as "danah boyd", not as "Danah Boyd" (the only reliable sources upper-casing the name, so far as I know, are a couple of newspaper articles which doubtless imposed a similar theory of "helpfulness"; but, tellingly, even some newspapers are starting to use "danah boyd" these days, as I've occasionally pointed out in previous discussions). Seeing Wikipedia go against the grain of the accepted usage is -- to someone familiar with the topic -- quite jarring. Seeing Wikipedia do so deliberately on the grounds that it's more "helpful" to readers literally dumbfounds me; anyone who knows Ms. boyd's work will know her name is lower-cased and be surprised by this article's upper-case usage, and anyone who reads this article and then goes out and reads some of her work will discover that her name is lower-cased, at which point they'll be surprised by this article's upper-case usage. Thus the only possible result of leaving the article at "Danah Boyd" is an endless stream of surprised and confused readers wondering why Wikipedia takes such pride in deliberately getting the name wrong (as seen in the history of this talk page). How exactly is that helpful? Ubernostrum (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Tentative support - if that's her legal name, go with it. One question that bothers me is that in the discussion of the pronoun "I" on the page of her website which discusses the name [51], she does use the capital when "I" is used at the start of the sentence. Question is, does the same apply to her name: is it specifically all in lowercase, or does it follow the rules of normal English words and get capitalised at the start of a sentence - if so the move should surely be to "Danah boyd". Icalanise (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• danah tells me that it is her legal name. And when she starts a sentence with it, she uses lower case. My position -- to her -- and to this interminable discussion has always been: (1) danah's change to lower case was silly; (2) more importantly, now she has done so and it has been around for a while -- and widely used -- and now that MOS is agreeable, I support the lower case usage in the title and throughout the article. I don't know what "consensus" is defined as in Wikipedia, but it must be something short of unanimity. I strongly believe we should close the discussion (as many of us have other things to do, perhaps even better things to do;-)), move to lower case, and get on with our lives. Otherwise, I'm going to take my knitting, move somewhere else, and come back in 6 months and find that the same arguments are being rehashed.Bellagio99 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Then go with "danah boyd". I mean, we don't insist on "normalising" anyone who spells their name "Thom" to become "Tom"... Icalanise (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not about normalizing, it's about using the version of the name that is most commonly used in mainstream sources. If someone was legally named "Thomas Mahmad Sumari Fingledijitfragilistic", but newspapers tended to refer to him as "Tom F.", then we'd title the article "Tom F.", and include the long spelling of his name in the lead paragraph of the article. For more, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples. In the case of Boyd, the most common mainstream usage is "Danah Boyd", so that's how the article should be titled, though alternate spellings can and should be included in the lead paragraph of the article. --Elonka 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the most common mainstream usage is "Danah Boyd"" - that is far from an established fact. Yes, I know you've done some analysis on Google News, but I can also provide links to other mainstream sources that use lowercase. This isn't an issue solved by who can find more online sources with a certain presentation.... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not just Google News, but also NewsBank via a normal library search, which was showing an even higher percentage using "Danah Boyd". It's not 100% of course, and I agree that some mainstream sources are occasionally using lowercase. But let's not give undue weight to a minority of cherry-picked sources, let's stick with prevalent usage. --Elonka 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• To be clear, I don't think citation counts is the way to resolve this, but it would be interesting to do a temporal comparison, to see if there is any trending one way or another (caps or not) over time. If counting sources is the solution, then a more robust statistical analysis would be necessary (which is why I don't think this is the solution, as we're editors, not statisticians). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, for all the reasons cited by User:R27182818, and to add another voice in a (likely vain) attempt to balance the "loudest-voice-wins"-bullying being performed around here. Ubernostrum: Consensus is simply that, consensus. Your reasons have been presented. Now let the community contribute to the consensus on this topic, and don't attack every single opinion that doesn't agree with yours. You aren't coming up with anything new, you are just bullying at this point. -- Renesis (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

November 2008 project and deleted source

In a recent edit, I removed this source and the accompanying text describing it. I may be wrong but I am 99% sure the reporter got things very wrong. The article states that:

"A University of California, Berkeley, researcher and her team spent three years interviewing 800 youths and observed 5,000 hours of youth usage of new media. They reported Nov. 21 that pornography was rarely mentioned. Most kids concentrated on their friends, creative content, gaming or unique opportunities presented, researcher Danah Boyd said. In analyzing 10,000 random MySpace profiles, Boyd found few problems."

I'm pretty sure this actually refers to this, a project in which boyd was a collaborator. She did not lead the project; it was led by UC-Irvine Professor Mimi Ito Mizuko Ito but it did involve many people at UC Berkeley. It's a huge project and it's understandable that someone not immersed in the topics studied or the methodologies employed could get confused by some of the details.

Given the uncertainty of this situation, I think we need a better source if we're going to cite a November 2008 study led by boyd that had significant findings related to pornography. Ideally, we want a more reliable and substantive source than a few paragraphs in the popular press; a citation of a scholarly publication or presentation would be perfect. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no trouble adding new sources, but I still think it's a valid source for the "co-director" factoid. I am also extremely uncomfortable that you have been edit-warring to remove this mainstream citation (which uses the spelling of "Danah Boyd"), and replacing it with less mainstream sources which use the "danah boyd" spelling. And when I restored the citation, you reverted me just saying "bad source".[52] But no, it's not a bad source, it's a mainstream newspaper, The Oregonian, and perfectly legitimate to use. --Elonka 20:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no - you're absolutely right. I missed that it's a source for the co-director of the safety task force; I was only focused on the longer bit about the research study. I think there are much better sources for that piece of information but I'd be happy if this source were readded in the meantime. Sorry about that! --ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, source added back in. I also added a better source. And, no, it's not better because it uses "danah boyd." :) It's better, IMHO, because it's more direct and comes straight from the organization (the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University) that hosts the task force. I think it's such a better source that I think the other one should be removed but I am happy to compromise and leave it in as we hash out the naming convention. Heck, I wouldn't even cry if my new source were removed (but I would think it a very bad idea). --ElKevbo (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I allowed to violate WP:OR in a talk page? ;-) I know a fair amount about the study, and read through a preliminary draft of the entire report. danah was both the co-director of the study and also the lead author of several pieces of it. It was really a consortia research, integrated into one report. If someone insists, I could check the report and ID which pieces danah led on. BTW, Mimi Ito, the overall study director, has her own WP page as Mizuko Ito, and she's now at Univ of California Irvine, having moved from Southern Cal. I've taken it upon myself to edit ElKevbo's contribution earlier in this section to show Mimi's WP article and to reflect her UCIrvine appointment. Hope that is within colleagial norms. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it should just say UC-Irvine since she conducted all of the work while at USC and it seems more intellectually honest to credit USC with supporting her throughout the project (although I have the sneaking suspicion that she might say otherwise...). Might be better to just omit the institutional reference altogether and leave the gory details to her own article. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And boyd's only listed as the fourth author (of many) on the white paper, if that is the document to which you're referring. I haven't seen anything that lists her as a co-director; Ito seemed to get all of the mainstream press when the paper was released. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort out what I know. 1. Mimi Ito deserved to get the press, as she led the complex study. 2. I am not sure that danah boyd actually was co-director; sorry to mislead. I do know she was heavily involved. 3. Because, (a) she had the office next to Mimi; (b) she led the writing of a nice chunk -- I saw that in the draft I reviewed; (c) even though she was officially at Berkeley School of Info, she was physically at the Annenberg Center (RIP -- note NOT the Annenberg School) at SOuthern Cal. On another note, ElKev is right that the report was written at USC, altho the support I think was totally MacArthur. But if the desire is to give Mimi Ito's affiliation now, it is definitely Cal-Irvine.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No name calling please

FWIW, I didn't find Ubernostrum's name calling to be bullying. He had a well expressed point of view and defended it. I happen to agree with him, but that's (almost besides the point). I thought those who didn't want to move did not have good arguments on their side. But the main point IMHO is that Uber's writing was far from bullying. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed unverified statement

I removed a statement at the end of the article which said "Her controversial essay on the class divisions between users of Facebook and MySpace caused quite a stir." The source given was just a link to boyd's own webpage, and when I checked news and blog sources I could find no "stir" created by her comments, only one article in an Australian newspaper. Clockster (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? This Google search seems to turn up quite a few hits, too. --ElKevbo (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it DID cause quite a stir on listservs, such as the AoIR list. But that is not really citable. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I got my lower case from the New York Times

New York Times finally spells name "danah boyd": all lower case. If you read the discussions, the hold-outs to using Dr. boyd's preferred lower case spelling had always pointed to the Times upper-casing of it. That no longer is the case. (and yes, it's a great pun, if I do say so myself). See Riva Richmond, "Does Social Networking Breed Social Division?" New York Times, July 9, 2009, http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/does-social-networking-breed-social-division/ Bellagio99 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely spotted; shame it won't do any good, though. There'll be yet another long section here on the talk page, the same group of admins will turn up and make the same arguments, and eventually you'll get tired and wander off and they'll declare a "consensus" has been reached in their favor. My money is on "this is a blog and so doesn't count" and "this was obviously influenced by Ms. boyd and so isn't reliable" as the most-repeated arguments in the debate to come (currently offering reasonable odds, bets must be in before Elonka makes her first post).

Also, you might want to put the Manual of Style on your watchlist, since it'll probably get edited to add a workaround for this case. Meanwhile I'll make popcorn and wait for the fireworks to start. Ubernostrum (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I dare you to change the lead and move the article. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about the "blog" argument. NYT says that blogs are integral part of their newspaper, and they stand behind them. It's just the stuff that doesn't fit in to print. (my second pun on this; didn't anyone appreciate the "case" pun?) The piece meets the objections, as it is subject to NYTimes editing and style guides. Time to move onto weightier subjects. Which reminds me, I'm being interviewed by NYT reporter today. I think I'll mention danah and insist on spelling it the lower case way as a condition of my participation ;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

♦ The basic claim seems to be that the NYT has changed its style. I think that's premature -- I'll accept that the NYT blogs ostensibly follow the same style guide, but I claim that they are not as rigorously edited. Thus, one blog's use is weak evidence that NYT has changed its style.

You're speaking with the NYT later today -- will you ask? Or someone else could; it doesn't seem to me too difficult to get an NYT editor on the phone who would know.

Also, I object to the manner in which you made your edits. You knew, based on your long-time participation on this talk page, that they would be controversial, but you made the change before posting here (01:47 July 10 and 01:51 July 10, respectively). I won't revert them now because I don't want to start an edit war, but please consider reverting them yourself and waiting a few days for the discussion to play out. --R27182818 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just happened on this page so I'm not familiar with this dispute, but if the subject wishes the article title to be uncapitalized, it fits with the MOS, and most sources use the uncapitalized form, then i think that title of the article should be uncapitalized. Captain panda 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The NYTimes corrected the capitalization, so I have reverted the edits on this pages... obviously done by Dana's friends RE: twitter. http://twitter.com/barrywellman