Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd

Having skimmed through a bit of the AN Archive92 discussion, I wish to note to the parties that any peripheral arguments about how BLP should be applied to Wikipedia generally will be ignored and discouraged, as mediation does not apply to policy disputes. However, the name of the article is certainly within the scope of mediation, and hence this case will be accepted/rejected on the basis that all parties agree to mediation. Daniel 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary comment from mediator

First of all, thanks for accepting my offer to mediate - our current official mediators are a little swamped, and I'm glad that you guys are brave enough to work with someone with less experience than them ;)

Basically, my role here is to guide parties on both sides as to what issues should be discussed, ensure that everyone gets a fair say, and help us resolve this dispute. I will not take sides or express opinions. If at any point you feel unhappy about the way this is going, please do let me know. I can be contacted via my talkpage, or via e-mail. I will treat all e-mail correspondence as completely confidential.

As Daniel says above, mediation does not apply to policy disputes. Thus I request that all discussion be limited to the scope of the article's title, and BLP not be treated as the all-encompassing issue at stake here (though I suppose it will be brought up at some point!).

It would be helpful if we could just have each party give a statement - however brief - about how they stand on the issue, any thoughts about it, and how they would like for this to move forwards.

Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary statements from parties

Statement from Neier

As I outlined in a couple of different sections on the article's talk page, capitalization schemas are a matter of style, and not as a matter of content; and that is how Wikipedia treats it as well. Even though reliable sources have their own editorial styles, those source alone are not a reason to override the MoS. I also agree that the mediation is not the place to debate current policy; but, how the current policies apply to the subject. So far, there has not been any convincing argument put forth against the notion that capitalization is a stylistic issue. Neier 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Elonka

My own opinion is that Wikipedia should follow the lead of outside sources and popular usage, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I understand that Boyd (who edits as Zephoria (talk · contribs)) prefers the spelling of her name to be "danah boyd", but popular usage as indicated in multiple media sources such as San Francisco Chronicle, Wired, New York Times, Financial Times, Newsweek magazine, NPR, and others capitalize Boyd's name normally: "Danah Boyd". I am adamantly opposed to either renaming the Wikipedia article to a title of "danah boyd" or copyediting the article so that the name is lowercased throughout the text, as some anon editors have attempted.[1] I do, however, think it's reasonable to include a mention of the subject's preference for lowercase spelling in the lead of the article, as it was here.[2] --Elonka 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Wickethewok

First off, I'm pretty sure that the MoS (trademarks and people naming) is pretty clear about this, no? I don't think there has been anyone saying that the MoS doesn't say that the name should be lowercase. The main argument I've seen is that the article is somehow incorrect if we don't bend the rules of English to accomodate the stylistic whims of the article's subject. Unusual capitalization and trademark formatting is unnecessary flair that is designed to catch the eye, which reduces readability (which is my guess why most reliable sources disregard it as well). Just because Danah Boyd doesn't want to follow normal stylistic rules of English doesn't mean we have to in order to be correct. The article should still mention her preferred capitalization of course. Anyways, the primary argument for lowercase seems to be ignore all rules in order to make Wikipedia better/more accurate. This increasing the accuracy business seems silly, since if the article states her preferred formatting, no information is lost. It also does not make Wikipedia better in any way to reduce readability by forcing the reader to deal with unusually styled proper nouns. Wickethewok 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Renesis

I agree with the users above, particularly Neier. In addition, I'd like to address the main points I've seen for de-capitalizing the name:

• This is a BLP issue—need to respect subject's wishes

  I addressed this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92#Use of BLP justification getting out of hand. The overwhelming response was that there was no BLP issue here.

• The MOS says use should be as subject wishes: WP:MOS-CL#Mixed_or_non-capitalization

  This was brought up by User:DragonflySixtyseven. I followed the link, but disagree with the conclusion. Here is the applicable paragraph: For personal names, capitalize normally within the article, but include the lowercase spelling within the lead. For the article title, follow the lead of outside sources and use the most common spelling and capitalization, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. For example, if The New York Times and USA Today routinely capitalize the name, use the same style here on Wikipedia. If the situation is ambiguous, capitalize normally.

• Danah's website is a "reliable source" and as such, is sufficient to lower-case the name

  For this point, see Neier's response. Yes, Danah's website can be used as a source. But it should be used as a source only to inform that she says her name is "lowercase", not to actually treat the style as such. Sources are for facts and content, not for style. Capitalization is a style issue (The Chicago Manual of Style has addressed capitalization extensively, just as we have here with our own MOS, at WP:MOSTM and WT:MOSTM.

• Her name has been legally changed to "danah boyd"

  Mostly the same point as above, but with the "legal" appeal. However, we can't verify this, and most people seem to be of the opinion that "legally", names are case-insensitive (even if the application was filled out in lowercase).

• If the NYT or other major sources spelled her name Dana Boyd (jumped of a cliff, etc.) would we do so also?

  Capitalization is not spelling. A D is the same letter as a d. This point is not a matter of opinion, either.

• "I'm inclined to be extremely wary of the MoS in this case"

  Here, I think, is one key to this issue. The guidelines in the MOS have been formed by consensus, and are certainly not unchangeable. However, we do again need consensus, to do so.

The above responses summarize my feelings on this issue. -- Renesis (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Cyrus XIII

First of all, I have to agree with the previous statement; we are discussing capitalization and thus formatting/style here, not a content (and subsequently not a BLP) issue. Hence this case falls primarily under the scope of the Manual of Style, which like any other Wikipedia guideline was formed by a previous consensus. The current tonus of the MoS and its many sub-pages is to follow standard English text formatting and I believe we do that not just for the sake of readability, but also neutrality, as dismissing stylized (or "eye catching", as Wickethewok put it) typography where we can helps us to provide each subject which an equal "weight" in the typesetting. - Cyrus XIII 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Ubernostrum

My "hopefully 500 words or less, but probably going to run long" summary:

It's often been repeated that capitalization is a matter of style, and inferred from there that capitalization cannot ever be a matter of factual content. I don't believe that either one of these statements is generally correct, and I don't think that the latter necessarily follows from the former. Consider, for example, articles on the C standard library, many of which -- though the titles in their URLs begin with an initial capital due to limitations of Wikipedia -- present their titles on-page entirely in lowercase and refer to their subjects in that fashion throughout. Wikipedia has -- rightly -- chosen to ignore style guidelines in those articles because there is no such function as "Strlen" or "Strcopy", and no such header file as "Signal.h". In these cases, the capitalization of the title is a matter of verifiable fact, and (I hope) no argument based on a style guide would be able to get them changed: Wikipedia would be (and would deserved to be) laughed at if it presented "Strlen, also known as strlen" in the same fashion that it has previously presented "Danah Boyd, also known as danah boyd". Similarly, Wikipedia has in the past made exceptions for "idiosyncratic capitalization" of trademarks (a much closer concept to that of a person's legal name) such as "iPod", "eBay", etc. and these exceptions have even made their way into Wikipedia policy as examples to follow for similar cases.

A question has been raised as to whether it is possible to legally change one's name to lower-case, and hence whether case can be a matter of fact; danah is apparently a resident of the State of California, so the relevant law is the California Code of Civil Procedure, §1275 through 1279.6, which is silent on matters of case.

Given that, I'm not convinced that this is purely a matter of style; where a name is verifiably capitalized in a way inconsistent with normal style, Wikipedia has a history of going with the verifiably-correct capitalization over the "stylistically-correct" capitalization.

If we accept, however, that capitalization is merely a matter of style and never a matter of fact, then it's also been repeated that mainstream media sources have used "Danah Boyd", and this has often been assumed to mean "the majority of reliable sources", hence per Wikipedia's style guidelines Wikipedia should use "Danah Boyd". However, I believe that an extreme selectivity has been used in recognizing sources and judging their reliability. There are easily-located reliable sources which do not follow the lead of the New York Times:

• The University of California at Berkeley's School of Information, on a departmental web page, lists a "danah boyd".
• Reconstruction, a peer-reviewed journal, lists her in the table of contents of issue 6.4 and in an article in that same issue as "danah boyd".
• Knowledge Tree, a peer-reviewed journal, on its current front page identifies a "danah boyd", and does so again in introducing an article by danah.
• The anthology Best Software Writing I from Apress, a respected publisher of technical books, identifies the author of one of its anthologized essays as "danah boyd" (see amazon.com listing).
• danah has indicated on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on her that official documents such as her diplomas present her name in lower-case.
• danah herself indicates that her name is lower-case.

If necessary, I'll happily conduct a deeper survey of available sources, but it seems from the above that what we have here is, at best, a conflict between reliable sources. Numerous Wikipedia policies place on us the burden of resolving that conflict carefully, but the "resolution" offered so far has consisted largely of ignoring or dismissing many reputable sources out of hand (or, at best, with a justification that they must be ignored because danah may have somehow influenced them -- a justification I'm still not certain I understand). Furthermore, the reliability of newspaper articles in the matter of danah's name has been called into question by danah pointing out other mistakes made by reporters (misspelling her name as "Danah" without the final "h", for example); this makes the problem of resolving the conflicting sources even thornier, but it seems that there is little interest in genuinely tackling that problem.

Furthermore, most of the debate about this article seems to have arisen from people who -- having encountered both this article and outside sources -- were genuinely surprised that Wikipedia used "Danah Boyd" rather than "danah boyd", which also contributes to the question of what the most "common" usage is: if people routinely come to this article and expect it to be titled "danah boyd", then we should consider the possibility that Wikipedia is not following common usage. I'll reiterate that that's precisely how I got into this mess: I don't know danah, and I've never met her, but I was still quite startled when I saw the Wikipedia article on her; having read her publications and other publications which cited her, in addition to her essay on her name, I knew that the correct usage was "danah boyd" and was surprised at the amount of resistance I saw when I read -- and later began commenting at -- the talk page.

The reliability of danah as a source has been questioned, but the initial consensus after a previous RFC on her name was that the information she had supplied was not "unduly self-serving" and that there was no reasonable doubt as to danah's identity in providing information to Wikipedia; to date, no-one has really put forth an argument for how it would be self-serving for her to tell us what her name is.

Additionally, there has been more than a slight hint of POV in much of the argument against "danah boyd" -- Wickethewok's comment above, for example, about not wanting to "bend the rules of English to acommodate...stylistic whims" seems to carry with it something more than a wish to neutrally follow policy. Similarly, an essay Elonka cited on the talk page clearly comes with is own POV -- it takes no pains to hide value judgments it makes about the sort of people who lower-case their names. Others on the article's talk page have raised the question of whether capitalizing "Danah Boyd" in the fashion Wikipedia has used may even be POV in and of itself by imposing a view of what is and is not a "proper" name -- something danah's essay on her name change seems to anticipate. If we're going to resolve this, it should be resolved in a neutral and respectful fashion, with great care to avoid any inkling of POV.

So. Wrapping up:

• I believe there are problems with, and/or solid counterarguments to, the arguments which have been presented in favor of "Danah Boyd".
• I believe that there are good grounds for at least considering that the capitalization of danah's name may be a matter of fact rather than style.
• I believe that even if we accept that the capitalization is simply a matter of style, there has been a pattern of carefully ignoring some reliable sources while overly favoring others in determining the most common usage per Wikipedia's style guidelines.
• I believe that having this article titled "Danah Boyd" is likely to engender confusion in readers who are expecting to see "danah boyd".
• I believe that the appropriate amount of care has not been taken in having an honest, neutral debate about this article.

What I'd like to see, going forward, is an honest discussion of the above points and an honest evaluation of whether "Danah Boyd" really is the correct title of this article and the correct way to refer to its subject. Previous discussions on the article talk page, mostly involving others who've trod this same ground before, never achieved any true consensus -- an RFC in April, for example, ended up with three votes in favor of moving and three votes (all of them participants in this mediation) opposed. I don't really have high hopes that the article will end up renamed, and I previously suggested a compromise which seemed to get shot down, but getting this properly talked out and properly resolved seems like something that's absolutely necessary, or else the talk page for the article is just going to flare up again in a little while when someone else comes across it and thinks the article is incorrectly titled.

(and I realize I didn't come anywhere near keeping this "brief", but maybe it's best as the lone voice on this side to throw out a bunch of things to think about) Ubernostrum 23:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by CBM

I was very late in entering this discussion. In my real-life experience consulting manuals of style, I have also come to know that capitalization is a matter of style, not fact. The fact that other publications choose to use lower case for her name is perhaps not surprising, but isn't overly compelling either, as small journals may have looser stylistic standards than major newspapers. The statements by Danah are clearly intended to promote her viewpoint that others should use lower case for her name, although our style guidelines don't currently allow for personal preference. I feel the correct way for those who favor lower case to proceed is to find consensus to change the manual of style, rather than trying to find an exception here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Dan Hoey

I am joining this mediation late, by permission of the moderator. My concern is that Wikipedia not appear to be partial to some persons over others in the use of lower-case names. There are three contexts in which this impartiality must be manifest:

1. Determination of whether the person actually has a lower-case name,
2. Title of biography,
3. Mention of unusual orthography in biography, and
4. Use of name in article text, both in biography and in other articles.

I know of four examples of persons with lower-case whose biographies appear in Wikipedia: danah boyd, bell hooks, k.d. lang, and catherine yronwode. I do not know have the searching skills to find other examples, but I would like to know about them. Of particular interest would be persons whose biographies were subject to renamings over the lower-case issue, since the resolution of those renamings may be instructive in refining our precedents (whichever way the conflict was resolved). Of course, no amount of mechanical searching will find persons whose names are in lower case but who have not had that fact mentioned in their biographies. In the case of danah boyd, I see the current state of the three contexts in the following ways.

1. The determination of whether danah boyd's name is lower case is in dispute, given the appearance of her name with standard capitalization in print media. I believe this is overridden by reports of her name appearing in lower case in her publications and on her college diploma, and confirmed by statements on her web site. In addition, I am uncertain of the extent to which upper-case appearances of her name in print media arise from those media's stylistic conventions, as in item 4, below. Another issue in the identification of living persons with lower-case names is the length of time that their name has appeared in lower case, since we must distinguish between persons who have started using lower-case recently, since the change may be transient. Ms. boyd's web page claims that she has written her name in lower case since her college years, some time in the 1990s. My belief in the lower-case nature of Ms. boyd's name makes the remaining issues relevant.
2. Her biography is titled in upper case, while the others are in lower case. This seems to be manifestly partial and misleading.
3. The mention of her orthography was added to her biography recently, though I believe it should include some mention of the period of time that she has used lower-case; the current mention, undifferentiated from prior, transient changes of name, tends to discredit Wikipedia users' acceptance of item 1.
4. Use of lower case in the text seems to be resolved by using standard capitalization for everyone. I can accept the rationale, since the use of upper case to signal proper names makes text more readable (consider what we would do with a person named "with are"). However, I am concerned that this convention discredits acceptance of item 1, and I also believe it is discourteous to living persons with such names. Therefore, I will refer to danah boyd in lower-case in this discussion. I will not inflict my orthographic judgment of this matter on article text without a consensus change.

Finally, let me express my gratitude for being allowed to enter this discussion.–Dan Hoey^talk 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up from mediator

Thank you all for your statements, and for your patience. My deepest apologies for taking so long to get back to this - I have been a little overwhelmed by some recent events both on Wikipedia and in real life - but now I can devote as much attention as possible to this case.

As I see it, this is a brief summary of the above statements:

• Neier - Capitalisation (I hope none of you mind my British spelling!) is a stylistic issue; Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style, and this is not to be overriden by outside sources. That is, Neier would prefer the article to remain at Danah Boyd, and that the subject be referred to as such within Wikipedia.
• Elonka - According to WP:NC(CN), Wikipedia should follow the lead of outside sources which refer to the subject as Danah Boyd, despite the subject's own preferences. Elonka would prefer the article to remain at Danah Boyd, with a mention of the subject's own preference for lowercasing her name.
• Wickethewok - Similar to Elonka's view. "This increasing the accuracy business seems silly, since if the article states her preferred formatting, no information is lost."
• Renesis - Basically Renesis says the article should be at Danah Boyd - his summary style is much better than mine :)
• Cyrus XIII - Also believes that we are not discussing a content issue, but a style issue - and would prefer the article to remain at Danah Boyd.
• Ubernostrum - "Wikipedia has a history of going with the verifiably-correct capitalization over the "stylistically-correct" capitalization"; "I believe that an extreme selectivity has been used in recognizing sources and judging their reliability"; "there are good grounds for at least considering that the capitalization of danah's name may be a matter of fact rather than style."
• CBM - "I feel the correct way for those who favor lower case to proceed is to find consensus to change the manual of style, rather than trying to find an exception here."

Main questions

• Is capitalisation a matter of style or content?
• Should Wikipedia follow the lead of outside sources or its own MoS? Does the subject's preference override the manual of style?
• Is the best way to proceed with this issue to alter the manual of style, or make an exception for this case?

Thoughts? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should follow the lead of outside sources. Regarding the last bullet point, I agree with neither option. The Manual of Style does not need altering, and there does not need to be an exception in this case. The article title should stay at "Danah Boyd", with the subject's preference for lowercase spelling mentioned in the lead of the article. --Elonka 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, following outside sources or Wikipedia's MoS is not a mutually exclusive choice. Most institutions seem to have drawn the conclusion for their style guides (as has Wikipedia) that capitalization is a matter of style and therefore it is not incorrect to capitalize the name as proper nouns should be. -- Renesis (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, I do consider capitalization a matter of style and not content. Independently from the fact that most independent sources capitalize Boyd's name, I don't think that Wikipedia should rely on outside sources on a by-subject-basis when it comes to style issues. The MoS has become quite comprehensive and is inspired a great deal by the leading style manuals out there. It gets the job done and as Renesis said, for the time being, the line on certain matters has been drawn. Neutrality also implores us not to follow the given subject's preferences (just like we would keep corporate executives from enforcing the stylized typography of their brand names) and to generally avoid exceptions. Finally, while I don't expect the MoS to be changed to accommodate the wishes of Ubernostrum and subsequently Miss Boyd anytime soon, putting in for the respective changes on the designated talk pages would still have been the most productive course of action. - Cyrus XIII 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On style versus content: I think it depends on the situation. A quick glance around articles on Wikipedia, or at the somewhat labyrinthine guidelines in the MoS, reveals that there are no hard and fast answers to that question. The old joke that capitalization is the difference between "I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse" and a sentence with a drastically different and more colorful meaning sheds some light here. In this case I personally think there's a good argument for the capitalization being content and a history of less-than-absolute guidelines on the matter, but hopefully that's something we'll be able to discuss reasonably and come to conclusions about.

On outside sources, MoS and subject's preferences: reliable sources should be our guides, but -- as I've said -- I think there's room to debate exactly what the reliable sources are for this matter. Automatically-syndicated news articles have a tendency to skew pure counts of "sources" without adding any great level of verifiability, much as the many mirrors of Wikipedia which blindly pull content without verifying it do not in themselves make Wikipedia any more or less reliable, or add substantively to the number of independent reliable sources.

On altering MoS versus making an exception: the MoS is going to be in big trouble no matter what the recommended title of this article ends up being. If it's determined that capitalization can be a matter of fact and that it is in this case, then it will be necessary to propose a corresponding change to the MoS to account for articles like this one. If, on the other hand, it's determined that capitalization is solely a matter of style and that danah's name must be capitalized, then again changes will need to be proposed to the MoS to reflect this, either in the form of a universal edict of capitalization or in the form of many new sets of guidelines for various topical areas (e.g., many technical topics would need separate sets of style guidelines to account for sensitivity to capitalization). Ubernostrum 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain the last sentence in more detail? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It seems only logical that if there's a consensus among several experienced users of Wikipedia that capitalization should be handled in a particular way, then they should propose changes to the MoS to make that as clear as possible for future cases. So, for example, whatever consensus is reached here would result in a proposal to clarify and/or amend the MoS to reflect that consensus -- the MoS is currently gapingly silent on how this issue is to be handled in a variety of cases, allegedly lower-case legal names being one of them (currently, MoS only deals with cases where the common or preferred presentation is lower-case). This might mean proposing a flat guideline of "always capitalize", or proposing a number of topically-oriented guidelines to handle cases like legal names, technical areas where case sensitivity is an important factor of encyclopedic style, etc. etc., or probably any of several other options. Regardless of the ultimate option, I'd expect that the occasional flare-ups Wikipedia sees with cases like this article would suggest solving the problem at the root by clarifying and expanding the MoS in order to head off protracted debates on article talk pages and in mediation. Ubernostrum 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS-TM. I'll give you that this could be changed to state that it applies to people, as well, but it's pretty clear on "legal" status. -- Renesis (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We already have a "flat guideline" (Wikipedia:Proper names) and also one that deals with this specific scenario (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Mixed or non-capitalization), that's why there is so little sense in prolonging this discussion on article level. - Cyrus XIII 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, didn't we agree at the beginning of this mediation, that we were not here to discuss changes to Wikipedia guidelines, but strictly to discuss the Danah Boyd article?[3] If we're debating a change to the MoS, that discussion definitely needs to be opened to the community as a whole, as we're not the right group to be discussing a major change. --Elonka 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, though, our mediator asked us about the MoS. Also, I'm not saying "we should change the MoS outright", I'm saying that there's a certain likelihood that we should propose changes to the MoS based on where this mediation ends up. Since we're operating in a somewhat fuzzy area with respect to MoS right here -- trying to figure out to what extent this article's title is style and to what extent it's fact, how to handle reports of legal name changes which contradict common style, what to do with the conflicting sources, etc. -- it seems that if we can come to a conclusion for this article we ought to see if we can come up with a workable proposal to improve the MoS for any similar cases which arise in the future, so that no-one else has to end up at mediation over this sort of thing. Much of what's in MoS right now is, after all, generalization from specific problem cases just like this one. Ubernostrum 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Then first let's figure out what our consensus is on the article, and then discuss Wikipedia guidelines, rather than the other way around. --Elonka 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you want to address that to Riana ;) Ubernostrum 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about the status of this mediation - Riana has had to go on stress break for a little while, which leaves this RfM in limbo. If no-one objects within twenty-four hours (if you do object, and would rather wait for Riana to return, please email me), I'll continue as mediator in this case until she gets back, in which case we can take it from there. If there's no objections, I'll proceed in twenty-four hours time, and we'll keep the ball rolling :) Cheers, Daniel 07:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That'd be fine with me! I look forward to getting things rolling again.  :) --Elonka 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible solutions

OK, no objections, so here I am.

Now, we're working here with the intent to reach a solution which forms a compromise. So we have some sort of direction, I'm calling on the parties to suggest possible ways that this dispute could be resolved. For the moment, I'd ask that you avoid rebutting them etc., as it'd be preferable to have all the solutions listed before we move into discussing them and finding out whether they have the support of everyone here. If you see a prosposal with some promise but would like to tweak it a little bit, feel free to submit the proposal as a separate one and just note that it's based off Proposal X.

So, if I could have the input of anyone who has an idea below. I've listed a couple of proposals, none of which I have any opinion about (as a mediator, I don't have an opinion), but just to give you the gist of what we're doing in this stage.

Of course, we may end up using none of these proposals, or even blending some together and amending them slightly. Who knows where a good solution might come from :) Cheers, Daniel 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal #1: Include parapgraph in article

Basically, include prose about how she prefers to be called by "danah boyd". Include some details, and it could even be included in the lead as the last paragraph. Possibly consider bolding the lowercase name in the prose.

Proposed by: Daniel 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal #2: Alternative name

Maybe, at the immediate start of the article, include a statement like "Danah Michele Boyd (also known as danah boyd, born Danah Michele Mattas in 1977) ..." or something.

Proposal #3: Alternative name, II

Another possibility slightly differenct might be to remove her birth name from the lead (as it's mentioned in the Biography section, and write something like "Danah Michele Boyd (1977—), known also by her [some appropriate descriptive word] name danah boyd, ...".

Proposed by: Daniel 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal #4: Decide what to call the article

I think the only workable solution here is going to be a final decree of how the article is to be titled and how danah's name is to be presented throughout Wikipedia; including different variations or using an "also known as" would almost certainly result in someone else later lobbying for moving/renaming, so the only thing that'll work is to actually sit down and solve this in a manner which will carry some authority.

Proposed by: Ubernostrum 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to bear in mind about mediation is that it's a purely voluntary process and its' results aren't binding. The results of any mediation carry abolsutely no "authority" at all. All it can do is help the people who are arguing at about something at one time come to agreement. The parties to a mediation aren't bound by the outcome - though its understanadbly seen as bad form if they go back on what they had previously agreed - and its quite understanable that someone new might be unwilling to acknowlede the result of a mediation they were unaware of and took no part in, per WP:CCC. That being said, the arguments that came up and discussion that took place in mediation remain valid however, and you may want to direct the new party towards those discussions so he understands why the compromise came about. The result of any mediation is based on the goodwill of both the parties and the Wikipedia community to make use of. Daniel 03:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I just think it'd be a lot harder to point people to a previous discussion which reached a consensus if there ain't no such thing ;) Ubernostrum 06:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal 1 seems the best to me, and bolding the lower case version would be perfectly acceptable to me. The issue with 2 and 3 is that they implicitly claim that danah boyd is a different name than Danah Boyd, while I feel they are the same name capitalized differently. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the first three proposals share a common shortcoming: they end this without anybody actually having a discussion of the issues around the article's title. To me, at this point, that's unacceptable; throughout the arguments on the talk page and the limited comments here, I've kept going because I think it's important to see this thing through properly, and none of these three proposals do that. Ubernostrum 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

By "discussion", are you meaning "a generalised discussion about titles on Wikipedia and how the MOS should incorporate such situations"? Daniel 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to know what you think we've already had over this if not a discussion of the issues around the article's title. It seems you are waiting for someone to agree with you, please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Renesis (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, I feel like the discussion's gone like this:

Me: The capitalization here might be a verifiable fact, and the MoS in the past has been bent/altered to respond to unusual capitalization.

Somebody else: Capitalization is a matter of style. The MoS doesn't need to change.

Me: Here are several reliable sources which capitalize the name.

Somebody else: The New York Times capitalized it. Don't trust anyone who might have been influenced by danah.

etc., etc. There's very little in the way of actual discussion there -- I feel like I'm presenting one side of an argument, and the other side is never showing up, preferring instead to repeat "Capitalization is style... The New York Times... Capitalization is style... The New York Times..." over and over again as if it contains some sort of absolute answer to the question. And that's not an argument, that's a mantra ;)

The history on the article's talk page seems -- to me -- to bear this out. A Wikipedia user or sometimes a random passerby proposes the change and makes an argument for it, and each time the same group of people vetoes it without doing much to respond to any new points raised in the course of the discussion.

So let's actually discuss already: somebody tell me why there shouldn't be an exception to MoS for a case like this, or why it'd be wrong to lobby for one. Somebody tell me why we have to reject a whole class of sources (academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals) which would, in any just about any other context on Wikipedia, be treated as having an extremely high level of reliability, and instead follow the lead of newspapers which blindly syndicate stories verbatim without so much as a glance from a copyeditor (compared to, say, a university which has to take some steps to verify the identities of its students and faculty). Somebody tell me why capitalization must be solely a matter of style when there are examples here on Wikipedia which contradict that notion. Somebody tell me why we keep using "Danah Boyd" when it very obviously causes surprise amongst people who come across this article and feel, based on reliable sources, that it's factually incorrect to do so. Somebody respond to any of the arguments or counter-arguments which have come up in this recurring debate.

In other words, I'm not waiting for somebody to agree, I'm waiting for somebody to engage and actually argue for "Danah Boyd", because it feels like that's really been lacking so far. There seems to be a small group of people who are passionately opposed to Wikipedia using "danah boyd", but who've done very little to support their position aside from "Capitalization is style... the New York Times did it." We're here in mediation, and there's no better time to actually make a new argument or respond to a counter-argument; if nobody does, what I'll take away from this mediation is that there is no solid argument to be made against "danah boyd", and I'll go back and propose the move again with explicit mention of that fact. Ubernostrum 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you take anyone who's arguments don't successfully change your mind as "not engaging". I do agree that it might be "verifiable" that Danah prefers no capitalization. So, go ahead and state that in the article as it already is, or further as Daniel has suggested it. However, there is no such thing as verifiable enough to change our style guide. That's why a style guide exists. That's why the Chicago MOS exists, why the AP has one, and why all major newspapers have one. Because they must make decisions when frivolous requests for style emerge from their owners. If a company says there name is "ViDeO gAmEs CoMpAnY" you can be pretty sure that the AP, Times, and anyone who consults the Chicago MOS are going to write it "Video Games Company". The MOS doesn't ever make reference to WP:V -- that is for Wikipedia content. The National Association of Realtors says that that word is written "REALTOR". That is "verifiable", however, our MOS says we write it "Realtor". Have you even read WP:MOS-TM? As for whether we should go by one newspaper or Danah's website, I have no problem using her site for a source for repeating simple facts. As to whose cue we are going to take for following capitalization, if we can't use our own style guide, we ought to go with the most respected and major sources followed for style in the English world. This would be the AP, the Times, the Post, the Chicago Manual of Style, etc. Show me one who repeats Danah's preferred capitalization and we'll discuss it. As for now, there are none; we are not simply blindly following the NYT as you insinuate. -- Renesis (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, it is a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument simply because it is not new or because you disagree. I'm not going to go to pains to figure out a new way to stress my point simply because you make an appeal for something new. The matter of style is the strongest argument there is, and the matter of following the lead of multiple, reliable sources is a secondary place to look (especially in formulating our own style guide, for point 1). If you choose to believe no one can argue with you just because you dismiss the two main factors here, then so be it. -- Renesis (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And here you're perilously close to do exactly what I was talking about -- in response to "maybe it isn't a matter of style and here's why", you respond with a red herring and then beg the question (danah's preference is, you'd argue, irrelevant, and then you go on to assume the truth of the thing you hope to prove: that the capitalization is a matter of style).

Yes, I've read the MOS. A trademark and a person's name are two different things, and trying to generalize from one to the other will fail. Also, you ignore the blatant examples of "iPod", "eBay", etc. which I've already brought up and which are specifically called out for exceptions in MOS-TM.

As for sources: again, I'm asking a simple question about reliable sources. I can and have provided a list of respectable, reliable sources which use "danah boyd", and the response is "The New York Times". That's not a response, that's blindness -- if multiple reliable academic sources contradicted the NYT on any other matter of fact, you'd never even think of giving the NYT precedence over them. But, for some reason, in the matter of the name of the person who runs the site apophenia.org, you are willing to grant blind obedience to their usage. Again, I ask: why should we dsimiss whole classes of reliable sources out of hand? The preponderance of usage from the academic world would suggest that this is not a matter of style, but you continue begging the question -- your response is almost always of the form "capitalization is style because capitalization is style". At best you're engaging in a circular run to and from style guides, and again there's no logic in it. That is the sort of thing that's really bugging me here.

Again, it feels like there's a small group of people who are passionately opposed to "danah boyd", but they're doing very little to actually engage and back up that opposition. If you raise an argument and I raise a counter-argument, you need to respond -- repeating yourself more loudly each time is not an argument. Ubernostrum 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[arbitrary unindent] Although I'm not a party to this mediation, here's my unfortunately long-winded take:

There's no dispute over the fact that she writes her name as "danah boyd". We have good sources for that. Ergo, we can include that fact in the article.

The question is how we display her name. To me, this comes back to examining our purpose. We're here to create an encyclopedia for the general public. Serving the readers is primary; serving fellow editors is secondary; serving the topics of our coverage is, when it's something we care about at all, a limited and distant third. From that, it follows that in setting up a style guide, the main goal should be to aid the reader.

A lot of stylistic conventions are to some degree arbitrary, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. Driving on the left and right seem to be equally good -- just as long as everybody in a region picks one and sticks with it. That we capitalize names is certainly somewhat arbitrary. The western world got along without it quite well for a while, and I'm sure there are written languages today that don't visually distinguish names.

Still, capitalizing names is a widespread convention, and our readers expect it. Anything else would be visually jarring. It would reduce the quality of experience for our readers, to no benefit for them. It would add extra work for editors. The only benefit I see is honoring the personal preference of the subject, which is something Wikipedia generally avoids doing anyhow.

But suppose we do it here, in this apparently harmless case? Then I'd wonder where stylistic accommodation ends. Do we keep a lower-case name lower-cased at the beginning of a sentence? What if they insist that their name is "Jenni" with a heart dotting the I? Suppose they declares that their name must always be rendered in 24-point Univers Ultra Black? Or that their name must only be rendered in their native Tibetan character set? Or they change their name to some arbitrary glyph, like Prince did for a while?

In my view, none of that matters to us, except to the extent that we note the fact and move on. Why? Because none of those shenanigans aid us in our primary goal of providing the world with readable, factual, and usefully structured knowledge.

That's not to say that if I were to drop her a note, I wouldn't open the letter with "Dear danah". I think it's generally good honor people's wishes, even if it amounts to humoring them a bit. But here, we should stick with our style guide, just like the New York Times would, as that's what serves our readers best.

Hoping that helps, William Pietri 20:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll simply repeat the fact that I've raised questions over whether this really is just a "stylistic acommodation", and the fact that, right now, people are being "jarred" by the use of "Danah Boyd" because it contradicts authoritative usage elsewhere; that's how this debate keeps blowing up. So if you want to go with your outlined hierarchy of who Wikipedia is meant to serve, argue for "danah boyd" -- it'll be less jarring to the readers, though at the expense of annoying some editors. Ubernostrum 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a clever linguistic twist, but it completely misses my meaning and is anyway incorrect. The style guides of pretty much anybody who writes for the general public, including ours, treat capitalization as a matter of style. They also agree with ours: names of people are capitalized. They do that because that makes reading easiest for readers, as it goes with the convention they are familiar with. If she were known to the bulk of English speakers as "danah boyd", you'd have a case for making an exception, vaguely in the same way that we don't refer to "Madonna Louise Ciccone" or "Prince Rogers Nelson". As it stands, even the relatively few people who know her as "danah boyd" won't be terribly jarred, as a) they are used to seeing names with traditional case, and b) they know that philistines like the New York Times will be calling her "Danah Boyd", too. William Pietri 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As a heads-up to all parties, Riana's back and active, and she said she'll continue on with this RfM as of now. Handing you guys back over to her very capable hands :) Cheers, and good luck, Daniel→♦ 07:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not party to this mediation, but have kept an eye on the discussion since the RfC. People must have amazingly delicate sensibilities if they are "jarred" seeing "Danah Boyd" in print. To claim that capitalization is not a matter of style and is a matter of fact is akin to saying that capital and lower-case letters are fundamentally different. "Danah Boyd", "danah boyd", "DANAH BOYD", and "DaNaH bOyD" are all the same name, just styled differently. To claim differently is to say that a bank would not cash a check written to "Danah Boyd", or that an speeding ticket written to "DANAH BOYD" would be thrown out of court.

As for citing the NYT, that is often done because the NYT has a MoS, and most academic publications do not. The New England Journal of Navel Inspection is so happy to get a well-researched article that they will accommodate the whims of the authors, so as not to offend anyone. They simply typeset the article as submitted, create a title page, and they are done with the publication. Their accommodations should not be taken as authoritative, for they merely reflect the wishes of the author. One should not wholly discount the NYT simply because it has a MoS and does not follow the dictates of the people it writes about.

The argument that the name should be listed as "danah boyd" throughout the article because the only people reading the article are those familiar with her, and will expect it to be styled in all lower-case letters, is weak. The point of the Wikipedia page is not to be a fan site, but to be a repository of knowledge. Those unfamiliar with her will also occasionally read her page, and could equally be "jarred" by seeing her name styled in lower-case throughout the article. It looks unprofessional and unencyclopedic.

There's no problem mentioning that she prefers her name styled in lower-case, but repeated use of that styling should be left to blogs and fan sites. Andyparkerson 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Andy, if there's no difference between lower-case and capital letters, then there's a large swathe of programming-related articles you'll want to go re-title, since they're currently using lower-case. And please strive for NPOV here -- jabs about "fan sites" are out of place here. Ubernostrum 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Programming-related articles are allowed to have lower-case titles because they are articles written about processes in certain programming languages. In this case we are not referring to a programming language, but the English language. If "danah.boyd" were a process in C, then it would be acceptable to style it lower-case, because the C language does indeed construe capital and lower-case letters as different. In that case, "Danah Boyd" and "danah boyd" are indeed two completely different and distinct phrases. In English, however, capitalization is a style, and they are both the same name.

As for the fan site reference, I intended no offense. I apologize if my words came off that way. Andyparkerson 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Programming articles use lower-case because that is the factually correct way to present their topics -- there is no "Strlen" or "Strcopy" to have an article about, and so stylistic concerns are irrelevant. In this case, we have two questions raised: one is the assertion that danah has not just expressed a "preference", but has in fact changed her name to "danah boyd". If that's the case, then WP:V should, logically, render any stylistic concern irrelevant. If it's not the case, then we still have an MoS question because there are numerous reliable sources which use "danah boyd", so the MoS guideline to follow the "common" usage is unclear when one class of sources have one usage and another class (a few syndicated newspaper articles) which have another. I've been raising the question of how this should be handled, but the only response I've received is "Well, the New York Times capitalized the name". To expand on your "fan site" jab: if I wanted to read the New York Times' opinions, I'd go to nytimes.com, not to Wikipedia. Ubernostrum 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To say that's the only response you've received is not correct, and you know it, unless you really don't want to resolve this issue. -- Renesis (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet... Andy's really the first person who's constructively responded to my question about the conflicting sources. Everybody else seems content to ignore academic sources (are they somehow tainted by association with danah? It's been suggested...) and follow the usage of syndicated news articles. Ubernostrum 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make it explicit. Let me address that directly. My view is that capitalization is a stylistic matter -- which is why, for example, an author's name might appear in all caps on a book spine without anybody claiming that the publisher spelled the name wrong. We're writing for a general audience, not the specialized audience of an academic publisher, so the style guides of news sources are much more relevant. Further, our article is about her rather than by her, so we don't have the same incentive to humor her personal preferences. Is that clearer? William Pietri 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In certain programming languages, there is a difference between capital letters and lower-case letters. In those cases, "Strlen" and "strlen" are completely different things. However, this article is not about a programming function, and instead is about a name in the English language. Thus, programming language analogies do not apply here. As for your problems with the NYT, the following publications and sites reference her as "Danah Boyd": NPR.com, Financial Times, Newsweek, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Why should all of these publications be discounted in favor of the academic journals who print the name "danah boyd"? Indeed there is a quandry here, because two different sets of publications follow two different patterns (i.e., the journalistic publications list "DB", and the academic publications list "db"). I tend to think of Wikipedia as more journalistic than academic, and so I think we shoud list it as "DB". Mentioning her preference for "db" is fine, but the article should refer to her in the body as "DB", in keeping with the MoS. Andyparkerson 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, the fact that danah's asserted that she changed her name means we have to look at least at the possibility that she's telling the truth and that a person's name can -- as a matter of verifiable fact -- be lower-case. There have been people who've been primarily known by lower-case presentations (either by their own choice or against their will), and that's an awfully muddy realm to get into, but everybody seems to want to sidestep it with "capitalization is style, so it doesn't matter". In this case -- an article about a living person -- that fails the WP:BLP requirement to get the article right.

As for "journalistic" versus "academic" use: if you want to make that argument, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper (and, by way of counter-argument, Wikipedia seems to prefer academic sources, such as peer-reviewed journals, over newspapers when both types of sources are available). On wikinews that'd be a stronger point, though ;) Ubernostrum 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that we have an obligation to get the facts right. Ergo, we should mention in the article that she has declared her name to be "danah boyd". But I think our obligation stops there -- because yes, in the writing of the article, it's a matter of style. If you have some evidence that it can be a matter of fact, I'm sure we'd all love to see it. Were this French, I could even imagine that the Académie Française might be able to declare that. In English, though, I am having a hard time imagining who, other than the conventions of the broad writing public, could have that power. Perhaps the reason that others aren't discussing the point is that they also feel it's implausible. William Pietri 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky ground to argue on. If "getting the facts right" means we only have to note that she goes by "danah boyd" and strives to have official paperwork about her use lower-case, then how far away are we from listing a person by a derogatory alternate name and saying we "got the facts right" by mentioning they don't like it? BLP doesn't say "get the article right, unless there are some folks who are prepared to look the other way", it says "get the article right". And the fact that this is an article about a living person and so subject to BLP moves it out of the black-and-white world of easy decisions.

There's also a potential POV issue in that -- if you read the essay danah has on her site about her name change -- the style guide itself can be said to be imposing a point of view (namely, that "danah boyd" is an improper name for a person), however implicitly, and that'd be a major problem.

And please note I'm not saying it is or must be a fact that her name is "danah boyd" -- I'm simply saying that danah has indicated she changed her name to "danah michele boyd", and that reliable sources refer to her in that fashion. She's stated that this -- and not "Danah Michele Boyd" -- is also what appears on her university diplomas, which adds another source to consider. So at the moment I'm simply trying to start out by asking whether it's really so clear-cut that this must be "simply a matter of style" and thus deserves no discussion whatsoever, or whether there's at least some evidence that this might be a matter of fact. If it is "merely" a matter of style, we still have tricky ground to cover in determining the correct usage -- MoS says to follow common usage, and the common usage here is debatable given that we have reliable sources saying two different things and need to take BLP into account whenever we're writing about a living person. Ubernostrum 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From these comments, I am having a harder time believing that your goal in this discussion is to arrive at consensus on how to make a good article, rather than to win your chosen point through some sort of debate game. However, I'll assume the best and press on:

To answer your first question, referring to people by their legal name using the house style seems worlds away from referring to them by a derogatory name. If that actually happens, I'd encourage you to bring it up on that article's talk page. But I think we can all agree that's not at issue here.

That a style guide imposes a point of view on style isn't a problem, it's the point of a style guide. There are plenty of things about Wikipedia that are very POV, like WP:NOT and WP:NPOV itself. NPOV only applies to the content of articles.

I believe that yes, it is clear-cut that it's a matter of style, and apparently so does everybody else in this discussion. As do the people who wrote Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal_names: they it put in our style guide. As do all of the style guides I looked at. If you have evidence that it's not a matter of style -- other than that of her personal style, which I think nobody has a quarrel with -- I'd suggest now is the time to bring it up.

As to the last bit, the common usage, I take to mean most widespread. That seems pretty clearly to be mixed case based on the list of publications using it one way versus the other. If I understand rightly, most of the articles about her (rather than by her) discuss her as "Danah Boyd", yes? And the ones that don't are generally much smaller in circulation and not, as we are, written for a general audience. Regardless, Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal_names says "always first-letter capitalized". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) says to use the most common name, mentioning nothing about style. Even there, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions#People parent section makes clear that the context for that is that "<First name> <Last name>" is generally the way to go.

And I feel like even that takes us into rules-lawyer-land. So again, I come back to first principles. We're writing a general-audience encyclopedia. The general reader expects personal names to be capitalized so that they're visually distinguished from regular text. We thus go with the widely established convention, as honoring those conventions makes it easiest on our readers. Which, the MOS makes clear, is why we bother with style in the first place. -- William Pietri 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you and I have an irreconcilable difference: I believe that the correct title and usage for this article is "danah boyd", and have been unconvinced of other positions after reading all the argument available here and on the article's talk page. You and others believe that the correct title and usage for this article is "Danah Boyd", and have apparently been unconvinced of other positions after reading all the argument available here and on the article's talk page. So where do we go from here? If necessary, I've said before that I'll go lobby for changes to policies if that's what's needed to fix this article, but I don't honestly know what the appropriate "next step" is. Ubernostrum 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that pfahlstrom makes some good points at the talk page for WP:MOSPN regarding the use of lower-case names. Ubernostrum 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Ubernostrum: On the article talk page, please look for the comment starting "This is danah. My birth certificate says DANAH MICHELE BOYD - all birth certificates and driver's licenses in the United States are fully capitalized." So the claim that her name is "legally" lowercase seems quite weak. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some Wikipedian works at the California DMV, and imposes a style guide on issued licenses over and above factual accuracy? Stranger things have happened...

Still doesn't answer questions about conflicting sources, and in any event I'm just about ready to give up and go lobby for changes to MoS to resolve this, because as long as this article is titled "Danah Boyd" people are going to come to it and try to get it changed, and as long as MoS recommends capitalization Wikipedia die-hards will fight to the ends of the earth to keep it as-is. Ubernostrum 09:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the post I referred to (which claims to be by Danah Boyd herself) explains there is no "factual accuracy" to the claim that her name is "legally lowercase". As with the Realtor trademark, we are free to capitalize it as we see fit. That's why I think lobbying for changes to the MoS would be more productive than continuing here. However, some of the same die-hards may argue there that the correct thing to do is follow ordinary English capitalization. It seems to me that your real argument is with the New York Times and other professional publications who choose to capitalize the name normally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As the issue of unanswered arguments came up earlier, I'd now like to directly ask the party championing the lowercase variant of Boyd's name (I believe that would be just Ubernostrum), how making a stylistic exception for a certain subject (Danah Boyd) or a certain group of subjects (individual people, or more specifically their names) is in any way compliant with WP:NPOV. The only, completely neutral approach that accommodates idiosyncratic capitalization would be to emulate it for every subject to be covered by Wikipedia, which would render this publication into a billboard in some spots and completely unreadable in others. - Cyrus XIII 13:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If a person is commonly known by an "idiosyncratic" capitalization, and reliable sources verify that usage, then how does an apparently absolute and proscriptive policy on such capitalization aid Wikipedia? Also, how is it necessary that changing MoS to accommodate such situations must lead to the ruin you predict? You're employing the fallacy of the slippery slope to no great effect here.

Additionally, the MoS is not currently and can not currently be considered neutral, if we are to follow the implicit assumption in your argument that capitalization has a bearing on neutrality, in which case the MoS must change. Additionally, k.d. lang and bell hooks are, as far as I can tell, extremely strong counterarguments to everything that's been said here against "danah boyd", and I fully expect to see you or Elonka or someone else lobby for those articles to be re-titled and re-written if you truly believe that MoS requires proper names to be capitalized.

Again: I feel we've reached the point of irreconcilable differences. No-one responded for a few days, so I made preparations to move on by posting comments on the MoS discussion; I fail to see how that's in any way inappropriate, since this discussion concerns one single article and, per Daniel, mediation does not apply to policy disputes. The fact that the proposal, if adopted, would largely render this mediation, and all of the discussion leading up to it, moot, is a happy coincidence.

Additionally: your comments on the MoS talk page, regardless of your intentions, felt like an attempt to unduly influence that discussion by hinting that it was somehow improper. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from making such comments in the future. Ubernostrum 14:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you are completely oblivious to the possibility, that the pursuit of such, as you put it, "happy coincidences" (while this mediation is still formally on) may make you and your efforts look bad and subsequently less compelling for your fellow editors, then just forget I mentioned it. But given your assessment regarding "irreconcilable differences", we should probably declare the mediation over, which leaves us with a single editor dissatisfied with the current state of the Danah Boyd article and an otherwise strong consensus for it. - Cyrus XIII 14:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that only one person is in favor of changing this article's title ignores the people familiar with danah boyd's work, those who only know about her in passing, and those who hear about this disagreement on the Internet. The common opinion I have seen is that Wikipedians are so arrogant that they think they know how to write her name better than she does. Suggestions that this is an exception to some manual of style are belied by articles on k. d. lang, emma hooks, and cat yronwode. The idea that newspapers are more authoritative than her web page, her diploma, and her publications is similarly silly. Newspapers make mistakes, and spelling her name with capitals is a mistake. The reason that there is only one person entering mediation for the contrary opinion is that few people are willing to spend their time arguing with people who are being willfully ignorant. This is a signal failure of the Wikipedia process, and anyone who has any disagreement with Wikipedia is being given a free example of our idiocy to wave in our faces. I am embarrassed to be a Wikipedia editor. –Dan Hoey^talk 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we getting anywhere?

Personally, I don't think so; those of us who've been participating actively here all seem to be more deeply entrenched in our positions, and further from any sort of consensus, than we were when we started. If you all agree that's the case, I'd like to either withdraw from this mediation or have it closed by the mediator with us agreeing to disagree, since Cyrus feels it's inappropriate for me to be participating in discussion of the MoS as long as this is going on. Ubernostrum 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

By "agreeing to disagree" and your moving on to a different venue, does this mean that you agree with Cyrus that the effective consensus is currently for "Danah Boyd", and that choosing that is either supported or at least not opposed by the current MoS? William Pietri 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It means I agree that the current MoS supports the case for "Danah Boyd", but not that I feel it's necesssarily the correct interpretation (as I stated in comments on the MoS talk page, the guidelines are arguably contradictory). And, in any case, I believe the MoS needs to change with respect to this sort of article. Ubernostrum 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. Does that also mean you recognize a consensus to keep it as "Danah Boyd" for now? William Pietri 06:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, within this mediation, I am out-voted. I do not agree with the majority's opinion, with its reasoning, with its interpretation of the MoS or with its implied and non-neutral point of view. I simply agree that there are more of them than of me in this mediation, and that it seems unlikely that any amount of argument would sway them from their position, and hence that continuing this discussion here is fruitless.

I personally do not think there can be a consensus on this article; if the MoS remains as it is and this article remains "Danah Boyd" at the insistence of the editors above, I will continue to believe firmly that it is incorrect, and I expect that I will not be the last person to stumble across it and end up debating with this same clique of editors. If, on the other hand, the MoS does change and the policy becomes such that "danah boyd" is clearly preferable, I do not expect any of them will believe it to be correct. The best that can be said is that some person or group of people are going to come away disappointed, and that sooner or later some sort of binding decision will need to be imposed on this article to prevent it flaring up again and again as newcomers find it and become passionately convinced that one side or the other is correct.

And as an apparent late-comer to this discussion, I'd ask that you please read the article's history and talk page carefully; it's easy, within the confines of this page, to believe that I'm just some silly person arguing on against an established consensus, but the article's history shows that there never has been any consensus; various editors have argued at different times for "danah boyd", and a small but determined group have repeatedly mounted enough opposition to maintain the status quo, but the thing has never truly been debated out to a conclusion; it has always petered out without consensus. Ubernostrum 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ubernostrum 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you are not the only person to have held this opinion. I believe I have looked into the history sufficiently, but if you feel I have missed something, don't hesitate to point it out.

I think you should take some time to carefully consider your attitude and its relationship to Wikipedia's norms. Sure, as you imply, this outcome could be the result of some sinister and intransigent clique refusing to listen to sweet reason. On the other hand, perhaps you're just holding a minority viewpoint and are not arguing it persuasively. Or -- and this is my view -- it could be mainly an arbitrary convention, like whether a country drives on the left or the right, or whether you call it "aluminum" or "aluminium". Yes, there are plenty of rational arguments for both, but they in effect don't matter. That it's convention is enough to keep it convention.

In particular, I'm concerned about your belief that you're going to, or even should try to, get a "binding decision" on this. This is a community-driven site. We work by consensus. Sure, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can both issue edicts. But by and large even they work from community opinion. Taking a small disagreement up on high after having no success at the article talk page, at the BLP Noticeboard, at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and in formal mediation is, in my view, unlikely to succeed. Anything short of that will be just like what you've experienced so far: any decision will be provisional, based on the people involved at the time.

If you do take it farther, though, I'd encourage you to both accept and demonstrate your understanding that this is at bottom a community effort. From reading your contributions here, I don't see any indication that you came to mediation prepared to find common ground and arrive at a shared conclusion with your fellow editors. consensus is both a guiding light and a core policy, and your time here will be easier if you take it to heart. William Pietri 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said what I believe: there isn't, hasn't been and probably won't ever be a consensus on this article. The best there will be is a plurality, which isn't the same thing but which does have binding force on Wikipedia (at least until the next plurality happens). If you don't believe there's binding force behind it, go move the article to "danah boyd" and see what happens ;)

As for open-mindedness: I've said that I feel as if everyone involved here -- myself included -- has become more entrenched in their positions since this mediation started. It's exasperating to everyone: it's exasperating to Cyrus and Renesis and Elonka because they believe quite clearly that this is a simple matter and that there's no need to go on and on about it. It's exasperating to me because this article sits in the middle of a mess of Wikipedia's trickiest policies and all anybody wants to do is go round and round about the MoS. It's exasperating to others who've argued because they know -- apart from Wikipedia policy -- that the conclusion they've come to about this article, whether it be "Danah Boyd" or "danah boyd", is right and can't understand the painful obtuseness of the other side. Believe me I know about this and that's one reason why I'm willing to push this as far as is needed to achieve resolution.

As I've said, personally I don't think changing the MoS will change anyone's mind on either side, but at the very least it'll make MoS as much of a non-issue as possible, which will allow this discussion to evolve away from "capitalization is style because capitalization is style" arguments and toward constructive discussion of common usage, reliable sources, respect for a living person, etc., etc. and maybe then there will be a chance for a real discussion instead of a bunch of people talking incomprehensibly past each other.

Also: I realize that in my last comments I was riding off into my mother idiom; the high formal Old Testament style creeps in every now and then when I'm busier thinking of replies and counter-replies than of words to express them. It's nothing personal, just an unfortunate by-product of having had to write far too many papers and proofs in that style when I was doing my philosophy degree ;) I'll keep a close eye on anything I write here in the future, but if you see me starting to avoid contractions again give me a little kick and I'll stop. Ubernostrum 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, no, we aren't getting anywhere. You yourself have admitted that this is just one stepping stone in your fight. Since this discussion has evolved in nearly a 10-1 against lowercase capitalization, there is no point wasting those 10 persons' time when at the close, you are still going to take the fight to a different venue. Let's close this now. Renesis (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed with a closing. Wickethewok 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (to Ubernostrum) I'm sorry, but you're wrong on one thing. You're welcome to continue fighting on the naming issue, but please be careful about how you define consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. On Wikipedia, consensus is defined when the clear will of the community is known. Consensus involves identifying and addressing concerns, listening to objections in a respectful manner, carefully weighing different alternatives, ensuring that everyone understands what is being discussed, and also ensuring that everyone has had a chance to state their opinion and suggest alternatives. In this case, we have done this and more. The consensus is clear, and for you to continually say "there isn't consensus," when there obviously is, can even be regarded as disruptive. Don't get me wrong: You are welcome to continue stating your opinion, you are welcome to disagree with the consensus, and you are welcome to continue fighting to change the consensus. But to say that there isn't consensus, is just coming across as being stubborn. I have been where you are now, and I am offering you a good-faith caution that you're on the wrong path here. I strongly recommend that you re-think your analysis of the situation. --Elonka 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Again: there isn't a consensus here, there's a plurality. May seem like semantic hair-splitting, but if it is it's a hair that needs to be split; up to this point, the only real result of the discussion was an old RFC which split with three recorded votes on each side, and the number of people who've argued for "danah boyd", historically, don't seem to be too grossly outnumbered by those who've argued for "Danah Boyd". "Plurality" seems, then, to be a more appropriate word, as it more clearly conveys the back-and-forth nature of the debate (remember that this article has even gone so far in the past as to start a fleeting wheel war -- if even Wikipedia administrators have had that sort of difficulty, it's hard to say there's a consensus). Ubernostrum 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, there is a consensus here, as defined by how Wikipedia defines consensus. And please don't go reaching into old history. You can take any debate on Wikipedia, dig through years of discussions, and find a name here or a name there that agrees with any side of whatever is currently being discussed. That's not a helpful way of looking at things, and to say that there was a wheel-war between admins is just grasping at straws, because everyone here is well aware of the actual circumstances of what went on. The way that is helpful to look at any disagreement like this on Wikipedia, is to look at discussion as a constant flow, with different names entering and leaving the discussion as time goes by. A consensus is typically defined by the people that are actively involved in a particular discussion. Getting even more specific, the consensus right now is defined by the views of the people that are actively involved right here, in this mediation. This means the names that are listed in the "Participants" section of this page. There was no restriction on who could join this mediation, it was an open call. We're the ones discussing this, we're the ones that are here to decide how this article should be handled. There is no "binding decision" past here. Even if it went to ArbCom, the arbitrators don't make decisions on article content -- they make decisions on user conduct. They would not issue a ruling like, "The article should be named X or Y," they would issue a ruling like, "There was a consensus, and User X did not respect it. User X shall be blocked from editing that page." If User X continued to split hairs about the definition of consensus, ArbCom could further block that user completely from all editing on Wikipedia. So please, do not try to enforce your own definition of what consensus is. You're on Wikipedia, please use Wikipedia's definition. If I were you at this point, I would say something like, "I have made my best arguments, and have not been able to sway opinions. I cannot say as I agree with the consensus, but it is obvious that there is a consensus, which I acknowledge. Perhaps some day Consensus can change, but for now I agree that we should conclude this mediation." --Elonka 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, I'm just going to stop trying to talk to you, then; my first comment on the article talk page netted me a reply from you accusing me of being a troll, and since then there have been a few too many not-so-casual mentions of adminship and intimations of punishment from Wikipedia authorities for my taste. If you'd like to discuss the proposed change to MoS, I invite you to come over to the talk page and do so. Otherwise, I'm done here. Ubernostrum 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I would interpret consensus a little more broadly than Elonka, but things like the MoS are generally considered to have community consensus, and the current name is in line with the recommendations of the MoS. That's why I think you need to convince people to change the MoS, rather than trying to find an exception for this article. That would have the second benefit of resolving whether pages such as Bell Hooks need to be renamed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a thoroughly depressing page. Sigh. And I'm out. —pfahlstrom 23:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue #2

Just as a reminder, we came here to decide two things. (1) How the article was to be titled, and (2) How Boyd's name was to be listed in the article. It would appear that we have a consensus on the first one: "Danah Boyd", though it might be wise to have a confirming poll for ease of future reference. In terms of item #2, how her name is to appear in the article, my recommendation is that we capitalize normally: "Danah Boyd", but that we do include danah boyd somewhere in the lead. Perhaps with a sentence like, "According to her website, Boyd styles her name as 'danah boyd'" What do others think? --Elonka 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this hasn't already been done. While I am of the strong opinion that WP is being incorrect in taking so long to change the article's title, there can hardly be an objection to noting the preference that is being overridden. To omit it makes it look like WP is trying to make it harder for people to find out how silly we are.–Dan Hoey^talk 22:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so is anyone at this mediation opposed to the idea of including the lowercased spelling as an alternate in the lead of the article? "Danah Boyd, who styles her name danah boyd...."? --Elonka 06:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I support adding danah boyd (in bold text to set it apart) to the lead, as long as this doesn't mean we are changing the article title. There is already a danah boyd redirect, anyway. -- Renesis (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure I like the phrasing "styles", but would prefer:

Danah Michele Boyd, also known as danah boyd[ref] (born Danah Michele Mattas, 1977)...

-- Renesis (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept "also known as", if others are okay on it too? Sounds like a reasonable compromise. --Elonka 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not opposed to mentioning her preferred capitalization in the lead and bolding it. I'm not even that concerned over the displayed title at the top of the page (though proper caps looks better and makes more sense imo). As I've said before, my main concern is using normal capitalization throughout the text of the article, so that the text is more readable (eg. "In 1999, Boyd wrote blah blah..." is more readable than "In 1999, boyd wrote blah blah..."). This is, after all, one of the reasons we capitalize names in the first place, right? Anyways I've tried to add this to the opening sentence. I don't think all users view this as a final acceptable solution however. Wickethewok 20:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the phrasing a bit, since the "also known as" phrasing was deemed disrespectful by a participant of the discussion earlier. I'd say the current article is as descriptive in regards to the lowercasing matter as necessary, so let's call it quits here. - Cyrus XIII 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The new text (permlink) in the article is acceptable to me. --Elonka 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Steve

I came here from danah's blog, and I have to say that the arrogance here is unbelievable. How dare you (or the NYT for that matter) presume to tell danah what her name is. It is her name. It is not yours. This is a matter of simple common dfecency, which most here appear to be completely oblivious to. You think being an "encyclopedia" gives you special rights to define reality to your choosing, running roughshod over the individual whose reality it is? I am trying to be at least minimally civil here. I'm not cursing, nor am I speculating as to the possible psychological deficiencies of particular individuals. I have to say, however, that maintaining that stance has been an effort.

Have a nice day.

-Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.163.156 (talk • contribs) 07:14, August 15, 2007

Nobody here is "telling Danah what her name is". We may choose to capitalize her name as we think is best, which is another issue entirely. "Danah" and "danah" are the same name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The effort it has apparently taken you to remain "minimally civil", as you put it, over the capitalization of a name, is particularly enlightening. -- Renesis (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't telling danah what her name is, where are the articles on K. D. Lang, Bell Hooks, and Cat Yronwode? It is indeed hard to be civil with Wikipedia editors who think their opinion on the best way to capitalize her name can possibly override her opinion on the matter. Their efforts do not make Wikipedia a more useful source of information, they merely demonstrate that Wikipedia is run by politicians who are more concerned with warping other people's information than making their own creative contributions. –Dan Hoey^talk 22:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about something which you know nothing about. Style guides are an important part of any publication. They have nothing to do with politics. And no one is telling Danah how to spell her name. No one is saying she doesn't have a choice. But regardless of whether Macy's uses a star for an apostrophe, the National Association of Realtors insists that "Realtor" is in ALL CAPS, or some brand name insists on having a ™ after every instance of their name, every publication has to draw the line somewhere for material they publish. Danah can say her name is written in pink ink for all I care. This is only about Wikipedia's publications. In addition, I would look at the content of the k.d. lang and bell hooks articles. While the article title is lowercase, all in-article references adhere to the style guide. Renesis (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you think I know nothing about. If the k.d. lang, bell hooks, and catherine yronwode articles are following the style guides, then so would a danah boyd article. Mentioning pink characters or funny characters is so irrelevant that I have a hard time assuming good faith. We are talking about a particular stylistic variant that WP has adopted in other cases. The only argument is that that there is some lack of evidence that this is another instance of the same kind of variation. I have a hard time taking that argument seriously.–Dan Hoey^talk 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You seem to know nothing about the editors who've been discussing this article, or style guides, for that matter. I say this because you think they are political, which they quite obviously aren't.
2. I said that Danah can spell her name with pink characters for all I care. This has nothing to do with her choices and everything to do with Wikipedia's published material.
3. I didn't say the articles you mentioned are following the style guides in title, I said the content is. Have you not even visited the links you've presented?

-- Renesis (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1. It's not obvious to me that the question is not political. Why are you singling out danah boyd for refusal to render her name in the correct case? Why is this not a no-brainer? Do you really think that some newspaper article is more authoritative than her university diploma and bylines on publications, confirmed by danah's statement on her web page?
2. How you brought up pink ink is irrelevant. You also stated that style guides exist, which is irrelevant, since the style I am talking about is exemplified in WP as I cited. You also stated that no one is telling danah how to write her name, which is irrelevant--I am talking about how Wikipedia writes her name. And you brought up all these trademarks and pink ink, which is precisely what I am not talking about. You even said that everyone has to draw the line somewhere, after I told you where WP drew the line for k.d. lang and bell hooks and cat yronwode. All this is mud in the water, and I'm really having a hard time trusting it's not on purpose.
3. And, yes, I visited the pages, though that question sounds like more mud. But I did visit the pages, and I know they are titled with names of people in lower case. But why do you ask? What I asked, when Carl said "Danah" is the same name as "danah", is Where are the articles entitled "K. D. Lang" and "Bell Hooks" and "Catherine Yronwode"?

The answer is that calling it "the same name" is belied by the tenacity with which you cling to the mythical style guide except for anyone with enough fame that everyone would know WP is wrong. These distinctions have significance for the people who are named that way and to the people who want to know about them. So what is it about Wikipedia editors that they get to decide who can have a lower-case name and who can't? What hoops would danah boyd have to jump through to convince you that her name is spelled in the same case as cat and emma and bell? And why should she have to, when the information is right there on the web already?

Perhaps my take on the politics of this is to ask why WP is trying to convince everyone on the Internet that WP can't figure out how to write "danah boyd"? That's a political question, and WP is showing everyone just how incompetent it is at getting the facts straight. –Dan Hoey^talk 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The "mud in the water" is coming from you. The K.D.Lang articles and Bell Hooks articles used capitalized names throughout. The only instance they don't is the title. So change the Danah Boyd article title. I don't care. It's not personal. I merely think it's wrong. I would campaign for the same on the other articles, except that I don't care about campaigning, and I would only encounter fanboi support at those articles. And you seem to have forgotten, you claimed [fixed link] we are telling Danah how to write her name. -- Renesis (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's time you started getting more careful about quoting me, or at least quoting me in quotes instead of linking to something that isn't what you say it is. Perhaps you misunderstood my statement of the common belief that Wikipedians are so arrogant that they think they know how to write her name better than she does as referring to telling her how to write her name, but that is not what I said and not what I meant. I'm talking about the arrogance of giving misinformation of how to write her name to people who go to Wikipedia to learn something. And the issue I am addressing is the title of the article (though it would also be foolish to miscapitalize her name in the body of the article) and I'm grateful that I have your permission to fix it. Perhaps we may begin to approach consensus.–Dan Hoey^talk 05:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's all take a step back here for a second, before things get unnecessarily heated.

Dan, you have some opinions on the subject. Would you like to list yourself as a party in the mediation? All opinions are obviously welcome, and all opinions can be argued about - in as friendly and polite a manner as possible, of course.

Dan, my understanding of Wikipedia is this: being a relatively new and fairly immense institution, we tend to work based on precedent. When something works, and keeps working, we make guidelines or policies based on them. You'll see it at work if you take a glance through our deletion debates - people tend to talk about similar articles being deleted before. However, obviously after a point this cookie-cutter approach does not work for all articles and issues - as in meatspace, so in Wikipedia there are exceptions to the rule, or the tide can turn and new precedents can be set.

As the initial mediation statement says: We're not trying to change our whole manual of style. Our efforts - all this argument above - is solely focussed on the article Danah Boyd (or whatever you wish to call it). I am unsure of whether you find this heavy debate to be inward-looking and arrogant, or whether you believe the whole idea of us having an argument at all is arrogant! Either way, debate has been a traditional part of Wikipedia - it stems from having a massive community working towards a focussed goal. If there's one thing you cannot get away from here, it's arguments. Arguments which we attempt to resolve in a civil and courteous manner.

Enough philosophy from me. I would like to make it very clear - as a party wholly uninvolved apart from mediating this dispute - that I do not believe for one second that we are trying to tell Ms boyd how to write her name. We are merely trying to tell ourselves how to write her name. Her own preferences are of course a huge factor in this. However, her wishes must be consolidated with our own, established manual of style. That is the point of this conversation.

Obviously, one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that you can, in fact, as an outsider, make your own preferences clear to us - not a request that would be easily entertained at, say, the NYT. However, making accusations of arrogance and unprofessionalism is unlikely to get us anywhere - we all wish to resolve this debate, not throw peanuts from the gallery. Thus I would advise all concerned to remain calm, cease the accusations, and try to work together. Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Riana, thank you again for inviting me in, and I must apologize if my reports of accusations of arrogance became accusations. I do believe that these accusations, while almost always unfounded, hurt Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality and accuracy. So I am somewhat moved by an effort to remove fuel from this particular fire.

But there is another issue. I must disagree, at least partially, with the statement that "We are merely trying to tell ourselves how to write her name." We are also informing Wikipedia readers on how to write her name. In the case of a person who has made a significant effort to inform people on how she prefers her name to be written, our use of capitals in the article title informs our readers otherwise. We cite newspaper articles that use upper-case, but newspaper writers may check our page to see how her name is written, and may tend to use the title (especially when coupled with our stylistic use of capitals at the beginning of the article text) rather than follow the links to see that she has stated a marked preference for another. Thus, while I can accept the current article text, I still believe the article title should be renamed to lower-case.–Dan Hoey^talk 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Accusations and attacks on Wikipedia are less than helpful, Steve, and weaken any point you are trying to make. Phrases such as the possible psychological deficiencies of Wikipedia editors (even as it is soooo cleverly disguised!) make this close to trolling. Also, there is no such thing as precedent on Wikipedia - any decision can always be changed at a later time. Wickethewok 07:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Slightly OT

As I've said, I'm personally done with this mediation for a variety of reasons. However, since I know there are some folks here who probably feel strongly about it, I'd like to point out that I've asked for opinions on some reasoning for changing MoS in a way which would impact this article, and if any of you would care to offer some input I'd appreciate it. Ubernostrum 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)