Talk:Touré (journalist)/Archive 2

From: Talk:Touré/Archive_2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC

Consensus discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Because of the recent reverts ([1], [2], [3]), and the fact that Touré has now emailed me to again request having his surname removed from the article, I think we need to have a consensus discussion on the matter of whether to include Touré's surname, one that will hopefully yield a final, binding resolution. If you're new to this discussion, please familiarize yourself with the arguments for and against inclusion of the surname above. Jimbo Wales touches upon his discussions with Toure, and Toure's personal reasons for wanting it left out, in Jimbo's October 25, 2011 message above. I will try to invite others into the discussion by posting notices elsewhere, such as the BLP noticeboard. My respectful suggestion is, rather than rehash everything said above, is to keep the comments brief, and begin them with Keep or Omit to make it easier to gauge consensus. Is that acceptable to everyone? Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

This choice to reject my slave name isn't about "branding." This is my life. I don't share my last name with people in my private life. My friends know better than to ask. New friends ask and are told I don't use my last name, period, and that ends the conversation about it. They know me as Toure and that's it. For Wiki to force it into the conversation about me does grave harm to me as I can no longer force people to not address me by my slave name. What small gain accrues to Wiki at the cost of a great pain to me? Toure. — Preceding Toure comment added by Toure (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're both dead. This is a living person whose full name is not widely published, and so it may be omitted if the subject prefers, per WP:DOB. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Retain This is, above all, an encyclopedic website. Subjects of the encyclopedia DO NOT get to decide what goes in their entries. In fact quite the contrary if we are upholding journalistic standards. The bottom line is this: if he is famous enough to warrant an active page then he is famous enough to have his true biography listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.188.202 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — 98.92.188.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Minimize Harm

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

Journalists should:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Others have said this but it is worth repeating: the subjects of Wikipedia articles should not retain journalistic control over their own articles just as they do not control what the New York Times writes about them. This is both common sense and a commonly agreed upon ethical standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyScotland (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — JohnnyScotland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

I couldn't disagree with you more, Cusop Dingle. Toure has framed this issue as an emotional one. He is asking a fact-based website to consider emotions when making editorial decisions. Therefore the discussion of personal issues is totally appropriate. He can't have it both ways. If this is an emotional/personal issue then people are free to address those issues within this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyScotland (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — JohnnyScotland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Thanks for sharing the link. This is a good link for future use when the issue of documentation comes up again. Even though Toure himself has never disputed that his last name is Neblett, and the name is used in a wide variety of pieces online written about him, some users insist that proper documentation must be included in future versions of the article. [redacted per WP:BLPPRIMARY] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyScotland (talk) 0:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — JohnnyScotland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • Which RS? I don't recall seeing a BLP-appropriate source. Guettarda (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • [5] was using full name as late as 2003. RS source for sure. Self-identification it appears for the publication he worked for. [6] HuffPo column also seems to be sufficiently reliable from here. Collect (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I've never heard of Benn's Media - can you attest to their editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking? And what exactly does the source say? I'm not even getting a fragment of a quote on Google books. Can you provide a quote? As for the HuffPo link - it's a blog post, not a column. HuffPo, as I mentioned higher up the page is a hybrid source - paid contributors + unpaid bloggers. Since the Lewis page is clearly marked as a blog post, I don't see how it can be used as a source for material that is clearly contentious. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Have you read the preceding discussion? The production company distributing his television programs has issued press releases with his full name, and that material has been reprinted in the wider media. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I've read the discussion. And Touré clearly says "that's not my name". You're familiar with the concept of a slave name? Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

A better link for the Benn's info: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22Tour%C3%A9+Neblett%22+Benn's+media&btnG= TuckerResearch (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@TenOfAllTrades I still don’t think Nightscream’s argument regarding the WP biographies for Orlan, William Pope.L, and Lonely Christopher is valid. As far as applying featured article standards to those three articles and the one for Touré goes, how likely is it that these four biographies will ever become featured articles? According to the WP:FA page, only 3,530 out of 3,916,689 articles on en-WP—about one in 1,100—have earned that distinction to date. In light of that, we should stick with comparing like with like. In the end, it doesn’t matter why the birth names for Orlan, William Pope.L, and Lonely Christopher were left out their biographies. No editor seems to have missed those names so far. And that does matter.

Wrt to dialing back the heat, I took your advice to heart and decided to ignore Nightscreams 6+K diatribe below. His attacks show that he is far too emotionally involved here than is good for the project and this article. Now he’s even accusing me of socking as an IP, an opinion he’s also expressed at ANI, without leaving me a courtesy note. And to that I just had to reply in kind. Sorry. Nightscream claimed I was mocking people’s edit counts when I did no such thing. Where was his outrage when user ToureSyndrome chose a name that mocks the subject and posted information that had to be redacted? Ah, but ToureSyndrome voted Keep, so Nightscream did nothing. New user JohnnyScotland – same deal. Nightscream even defended an editor’s use of the KKK flag on his page. That user, btw, also expressed the following opinion on his talk page: “I certainly don't think it's only Jews and Sexual minorities that get special treatment on Wikipedia …” Forgive me for concluding that his Keep vote can be seen as an attempt at making sure that a subject belonging to another ‘minority’ does not get ‘special treatment’ on WP. In many ways, this is one of the strangest Rfcs I’ve seen in my two years on this project, and I think I should be able to point that out without being attacked. I shudder to think how hurtful some of the comments here must appear to Touré. Surely we can do better? Draco^E 10:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TenofAllTrades, thank you for offering your own words of reason. I hadn't seen it while I was initially composing and posting my message. Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Is a name "encyclopedic"? Generally "yes." Does consensus support having the name? At this point, clearly yes. Is the name "contentious" requiring strong sourcing? Let's say "yes" here for the reason that there is an RfC. The sourcing, however, is strong, including standard references. Seems dispositive to me. Collect (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Retain Hello everyone. I apologise for my delay in responding. I feel Toure's name should be mentioned because it is factual that Neblett is his name. The article is called Toure not Toure Neblett, so we are following his wish of being known as a mononym. Reading all the other's comments i have learned that though Toure claims to have not used his surname for 22 years,yet he hasnt ever dropped it or changed it legally. It isnt a costly and arduous process as he as stated. As he has married and has kids, do they not carry his name? Anyways, just as other mononyms Cher, Madonna, Sting list their birthnames in parenthesis, so must this article. I understand that Toure is stressed, we are not doing that. We are an encyclopedia reporting the facts. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Retain: Making it clear that this is the name he was born with and that he doesn't use it any more. If the reasons for not using it are reliably sourced, then include those as well. --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Retain. This is an encyclopedia. Birth names, birth dates, birth locations, are all part of the encyclopedic information about any person, living or dead. Persons do not get to censor Wikipedia, even if the information is about them. The article title and the lede can be the single name, but somehere in the article it needs to be there, either in an Early Life section or preferably in the lede in a parenthetical that says "(born XXXX XXXX)" which is the standard approach. Good grief this is not libelous. It's no secret that any celebrity that goes by a single name was born with more than one name. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No one has said it would be libellous. The point, however, is that we would become the primary vector for propagation of a name that has not been part of the subject's public life, by his own decision – a decision which has a deeply personal basis, and which has generally been respected. One writer did not, and obtained the information through what the subject felt was an unwarranted intrusion into his privacy. A presumption in favour of the subject's privacy is a fundamental and essential part of BLP policy. If the name were generally known, and there were dozens upon dozens of high-quality sources out there attesting to it, it would be one thing. But there aren't, and Wikipedia should not be the means to bring this state of affairs about, and cause the subject a great deal of distress in the process. We should follow sources, not lead them. --JN466 03:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• Omit The subject had, I understand, not used the name in decades. It was not part of his public life. Multiple sources attest to that, and have respected it over the years. He has performed his public role without it. That it became public at all was the result of an invasion of privacy, which should not be rewarded. We are not an outing publication or a tabloid, prying into people's private lives, nor should we be the primary vector for the spread of titillating information, as in this case we would undoubtedly become. Instead, we aspire to reflect coverage in the best and most reputable sources. These sources have overwhelmingly been decent enough to respect the subject's choice, and therefore so should we. --JN466 02:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Some more sources with his full name:

The Media on Rush and Cain - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Target Entertainment Entertains International Buyers at MIPTV - Target Entertainment

The Limbaugh one is better, clearly, but the other is also helpful. Silverseren^C 04:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Limbaugh transcript has a single occurrence of the name in brackets, right? I wouldn't set great by store by that. It's a fairly obscure source, and the word wouldn't have been spoken on the program itself. JN466 04:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if we can or can't say whether the name was spoken on the show. Likely not, but that's irrelevant. What this source shows is that Toure was being identified with his last name as Neblett a mere five months ago. Silverseren^C 06:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Omit. The sourcing is weak and (by one interpretation of "widely") the name has not been widely published by reliable sources so, per wp:DOB, we may accede to the subject's wish. But also, the name seems to have been originally leaked as a breach of trust; and the subject asserts that inclusion of the name distresses him.

Above someone said, "the feelings of the article's subject can't be taken into account because that would violate our need for a neutral point of view." That's a falsehood. What kind of bias would that introduce? I can see none. Too many editors here equate respecting the feelings of the subject with bias. Humans take account of the feelings of others. If we weren't meant to do that, we could all be replaced by an algorithm.

Including this trivial fact here against the express wish of the subject is gratuitously cruel. Wikipedia needs to take claims of distress from article subjects seriously, and respect those feelings where the price of doing so, as in this case, is cheap. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's very clearly a slippery slope argument. How far do we have to go in censoring articles to relieve distress of subjects? At some point, we would be actively censoring negative information that is relevant and important to the subject, because the negative information gives them "distress". The better action for a truly neutral encyclopedia would be to write articles in a neutral manner and include reliably sources information, without listening to either side in terms of removing or adding information to the article. It's the only real way to be neutral.

And Toure's case is even more difficult, because it is quite clear that Neblett remains his legal name. It is the name that he is officially designated with by the United States government. If he had taken actions to actually change his name, then I would think we would be having a completely different argument here. Also, I notice, WP:DOB does mention full name in the beginning, but in terms of censoring information, it only refers to the date of birth (and even then, only to the point of just listing the year). DOB doesn't say anything about removing a full name. Silverseren^C 06:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think mentioning the full name in wp:DOB means by very obvious implication that it applies to full name; but can we not discuss that? I don't really care what wp:DOB says or means. The bit of my argument that I think is irrefutable is the remainder: feelings matter, the subject says inclusion distresses him, excluding the name is no significant loss to the article, when weighed against the subject's claim of distress.

Above, I referred to the value of the fact in question. Others have said, here and elsewhere, that editors shouldn't be expected to evaluate content, but that's what we do all the time. A group of editors can look at a fact (prior murder conviction, parking ticket, affair with a middle manager, affair with a rock star) and usually agree how central it is to an understanding of the topic. And editors can judge whether a particular fact, such as real name, is dispensable when it distresses the subject. Obviously, no one's going to delete stuff that will bias an article but, as I argued above, this case won't affect the neutrality of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Omit for several reasons:

• The surname is reported only in a Huffington Post blog. The only arguably reliable source offered so far is a Huffington Post blog. We should take our lead from high-quality mainstream news sources. The New York Times, for example, refers to him here as Touré in an article about family, which is where, if anywhere, you'd expect a birth name to be relevant, but they don't mention it.

• We should approach this the way we approach transgender people who have changed their names. In those cases, we omit the first surname unless it has been widely reported by reliable sources and/or the person was notable under the previous name. There is some guidance about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines.

• This is a situation that may become increasingly common as people try to forge their own identities, rather than living with labels they inherited. Some feminists, for example, are rejecting their surnames (because they're the names of their fathers), and inventing their own, which they and their spouses adopt when they marry. If a woman in that position asks us to omit her father's name, in the same way someone might not want to be labelled with the religion they were born into, we should agree unless there are strong reasons to include. Reasons to include would be if the person were running for high office, or had an equally important position, or where the previous name had become directly relevant for some reason. But for less notable people – where the only person the name matters to is the subject – we should omit on request. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nonsense. We defer to the subject's wishes already, by using his pseudonym throughout the article instead of his last name (still his legal name, as I understand it) as we normally would. We are under no obligation whatsoever to pretend that he doesn't have a second name; and even if he had changed it, the fact that he started out with that other name would still be a part of his life, and relevant to this article's completeness. Wikipedia articles are about the whole of a person's life history, not their current self-presentation (as if we changed the name of articles on radio stations every time they changed their slogans). I see no reason for a reference work to pander to the fad of "re-branding" oneself if one is a celebrity or purported celebrity; nor am I at all comfortable to the recent trend to say that Wikipedia articles should be changed if the subject whines loudly enough and especially if they run to Jimbo for affirmation of their whines. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• To insist on adding every detail of a person's life, no matter how poor the source, no matter whether it distresses him, gives the impression that we want to dissect people, that we're telling them "Look how much we know about you, and we're never going to let you escape it." That attitude will make people hate us. It puts us on a par with some of the big Web companies that people are starting to fear because of the way they collect data.

  Where someone is running for office, or holding an important public position, or doing something that seriously affects the public interest, then I'd agree with you completely. Or where the previous name was notable for some reason, then I agree too. But in situations where the only person who cares about the issue is the subject, and where he cares deeply, it's unkind of us to press our advantage. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I just double-checked to make sure we're talking about the same person. This is not a professor of theology or a noted ornithologist whose notability derives from his or her work. He's a television personality, a C-list celebrity, a guy who puts his face on the airwaves for fun and profit. Like that English radio chap we've touched on, he has long since abandoned any claim to hermit status or secrecy. Unlike "Violet Blue", he doesn't even have the excuse that the truth about the original name is not easily accessible from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing that he isn't notable. I'm arguing that we ought to be source-led, and the sources have decided for the most part to respect his reasonable and interesting decision to shed his slave name. If we publish it, other journalists will follow suit not realizing the background, and that will be that, back to square one for him. Let's not do that to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• Mike, I don't understand why you feel the need to talk that way about the subject's achievements, or why your opinion of his achievements should matter. For the record, the subject teaches at New York University (not that our article mentions it), and course and faculty listings have him as Touré [7][8][9]. (He has also authored several books.) We are not deferring to his wishes here in calling him Touré, we are following mainstream sources. The fact that someone is notable does not mean that we will be relentlessly intruding into parts of their lives that are irrelevant to their public notability. --JN466 17:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• His surname is mentioned in far more than just the huffington post article. Have you read this entire discussion? Silverseren^C 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. Like others, I'm not very impressed with the sources people's concerted efforts have located. The Huffington Post piece is the best among them. JN466 15:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • @Silverseren Wrt the HuffPost blog – a number of respected editors have already commented on the quality of that controversial source. As for the other two sources you brought up: a press release from an entertainment company is not a reliable secondary source. A passing mention in a transcript from The Rush Limbaugh Show does not deserve any weight either. The Washington Post, on the other hand, is a credible source. In this recent feature, the subject is referred to as “the single-named author, hip-hop journalist, cultural critic and provocateur”. In another recent piece on Touré’s latest book, the New York Times refers to him as “Touré — a correspondent for MSNBC, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone and the author of three previous books”. SlimVirgin put it beautifully: if we include Touré’s slave name, we will become the primary source for it, and writers who are unaware of the context might use it and cause him distress. Surely that’s not what you want? Draco^E 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep it in per my comment two sections up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Touré is not a corrupt businessman attempting to have a criminal record purged from his biography. He made a polite request and took the time to explain why the mention of his slave name is causing him distress. Please take that into account. Draco^E 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Omit The spirit of BLP, specifically of WP:BLPPRIVACY, is to respect a subject's request for privacy of personal information (including full names) when there is no compelling public interest served by revealing that information. If there is such a compelling interest in this case, I am still waiting for someone to present it here. Touré has clearly taken great lengths over many years to dissociate himself from his birth surname, and has made it explicitly clear that he does not want that name included in his WP entry. Further, the surname has not been widely published in reliable sources (you have to really dig to find its use in them), although it has been popping up in the blogosphere and in comments to web articles. From my cursory view of some of the mentions of the surname in the latter, most of those mentions appear to reflect an intent to "out" him as a form of personal attack. So why is this even a topic for WP debate? His request for privacy of this information materially harms no one (as previously noted, he is not a corrupt businessman or politician trying to hide past misdeeds); but WP publishing this information directly harms him. Are we so callous as to disregard a BLP subject's preference on this otherwise trivial matter? (Note that I have not contributed to any of the edits on the page and have had no opinions about the page; I am merely responding to the RfC.) Dezastru (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The BLP says that we should respect an individual's privacy, not their request for privacy. Show me where in a Wikipedia guideline it says that the subject shall have any editorial input (outside of correcting clear factual errors). In a case like the Star Wars kid, his name was left out for privacy concerns because he was not a public figure. Touré is a public figure, and intentionally so. If his full name were widely reported, we would be remiss to not include it. Wikipedia should not be revealing private information, but if that information is already widely known (which I don't think it is in this case), it should be in the article. Fnordware (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I wrote the spirit of BLP. I was not referring to any verbatim text. The spirit of respecting a subject's request for privacy is evident in WP:BLPPRIVACY: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year."(emphasis added)

Yes, Touré is a public figure by his own choice. But he is a public figure as Touré, not as Touré xxxxxx. Dezastru (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good quoting, Dezastru. That seems to perfectly sum up the issue here. We do not have widely published reliable sources. We do have sources linked to the subject, but the subject has complained. The guideline is talking about date of birth, not last name, but I agree it's clear that we are instructed to leave it off until a reliable source comes along, which would trump Touré's complaint. Fnordware (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Omit as WP:BLPPRIVACY states. Toure's full name is not widely published in reliable sources and he has respectfully objected to it's inclusion in the article, as it is not part of his public or private identity. Whose idea it was to rehash this debate, when former consensus was to omit it, is unclear but very concerning to me, as if there is a possible bias to commit harm through winning an argument to add his surname against his deep felt wishes. My objection does not rest on that though; my objection rests on the BLP policy as mentioned above. I also agree with user:Dezastru. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 09:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The debate was not rehashed. It was continued. Jimmy Wales asked for a delay in October 2011. We did so, and thus there was no conclusion to the discussion. Last month, five months after Jimmy's request, editors started reverting the article again. Thus, it appeared to me to be time to continue the discussion so that we could reach a more decisive resolution. Nightscream (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"It is not part of his public or private identity," well, except for the fact that it is part of both his public and private identity. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't know his last name if it wasn't for someone who knew him that brought it up, because as I said, it's not published. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? Benn's Media, vol. 3, 1993, p. 421: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22Tour%C3%A9+Neblett%22+Benn's+media&btnG= . Published. (And, just for fun: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/toure-neblett.asp?cycle=08.) TuckerResearch (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The first one isn't available to verify. The second one is from a campaign contribution. Good job, you managed to find one source on the whole internet. It probably took you a while. And that certainly doesn't qualify as widely published to me. How many would really look at a campaign contribution list of thousands of people and search out Toure's name.. Like I said...wouldn't know his name if someone who knew him didn't insert it. Honestly, I think it's a sad thing when someone is being hurt by this. You don't have to care and I'm sure many are having "fun" as you said, but I do. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 08:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it's not the only occurrence of his name, it has cropped up many times in many places, as noted above. You said "it's not published," I show you it has been, then you say it doesn't matter. As for the campaign contribution, I didn't ferret it out, others did. I merely Googled his name and found someone else already had. I add it merely to reiterate, like others above, that Mr. Touré is so hurt and anguished by his surname that he... has never bothered to change it. (And was still referenced as such, in print, by a media publisher in 2003.) As I said above, this is an encyclopedia, let's retain factual, non-libelous information. (In fact, noting why he dropped his surname in the article might initiate the very discussions about history and race that Touré would like to encourage.) Wikipedia should not allow article subjects rights over their public article on the basis of feelings. (Should Bush or Obama have editorial control over his article? "Hey, that factoid anguishes me. Remove." No.) TuckerResearch (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my reasoning states not WIDELY published in reliable sources. You can easily give your reason in your own post and call it a day. There's no use in going back and forth under mine. Thank you. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 11:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First you said "widely," but my response was to your comment "it's not published." Two different things. Secondly, "widely" has nothing to do with importance. I came to this page intrigued a few weeks ago by a man on MSNBC with one name, I wanted to see what his full name was. I suspect there are several other like me. It is sourced, it is out there, we haven't removed it from Cher's webpage. He has worked under that name at Emory, he makes political contributions under that name, it was published in 2003, it was mentioned in a press release in 2011, yet we are contorting ourselves on this page because he claims his feelings are hurt and he wants editorial control over his page. This is something Wikipedia should not do. And, lastly, I don't care one bit for you telling me what to write and where to write it on this page. If you don't want people to reply to you, don't post. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Go with what I said the first time. Problem solved. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Omit. Touré's choice of name is cultural and analogous to that of transgender individuals (Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines) where his assertion of identity is tied to the right to self-identify and self-name. See also the example of Violet Blue (author) and the citation of her posting on the My Name Is Me website; the website also has quite a number of reasons why people might want to self-identify in different ways online.--Larrybob (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the guidelines do not say to leave out a transgender person's original name simply because they do not like it. The question is only if they were notable under their original identity and if their birth name is found in reliable sources. If the media has infringed on someone's "right" to self-identify, then the person can take it up with the media. Wikipedia only records what the media has been saying. Since Touré is not notable enough for someone to have written a biographical piece on him, it doesn't appear we have a good secondary source for his birth name. Fnordware (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

RETAIN: I find it extremely objectionable the high-handed way this is done. I know another person who has a highly defamatory page regarding themself on wikipedia. When he attempted to correct blatant errors and libellous statements, he was told he had no right to control over an encyclopedic entry about himself. Therefore, I find it quite offensive that Neblett gets that sort of control. Emory1989 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Emory1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Draco^E 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What an absurd and spiteful little comment. We take libel and defamation very seriously. Point me to that article and I'll make sure it's sorted straight away. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Neblett is being given treatment that other subjects are denied simply because he whined to Jimmy Wales. He has repeatedly editted the page, something again no one else is generally believed to be able to do. Please explain why on other pages edits by the subject are decried. Emory1989 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Emory1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Draco^E 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@Emory1989 Anthony pointing out that your little comment was absurd and spiteful is not so much an ad hominem attack as a statement of fact. Your claims that the subject was “being given special treatment” and “whining to Jimmy Wales” ARE ad hominem attacks, and I am asking you to redact them in line with our BLP policies.

You seem to be quite familiar with wikispeak for a new user with all of six contributions to date (one to your user page, five to this talk page). Have you previously “editted” this page as an IP and/or under other account names? I am asking because you are making the same distinctive typo as User:129.215.149.98 – the IP from Edinburgh University who has made previous unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry against the subject and other users on this page. Draco^E 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost every account was an IP sometime. But wikt:editted is a "common misspelling". Actually, I am not sure I would call it a misspelling, because I have the strong sense that the usage is sort of British (I have the same impression of busses vs. buses, though that is recognized as a "legitimate" polymorphism by Wikipedia). Wnt (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think we have debated and respectfully waited (after Mr. Wales's request) for quite a good bit of time now. As it stands, I've made a rough count of the Omits and Retains (rough because I have not looked at potential sock puppets or anything else, I just counted) and here are the results:

Should Wikipedia omit or retain a mention of Touré's birth name (and current legal name):

• Omit: 10
• Retain: 24

I think consensus leans towards retention. What is to be done? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfcs usually run for 30 days, unless there have been no contributions for about a week. Talking about consensus before then is premature. Draco^E 17:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I was thinking from Jimbo's request for delay in October of last year, totally missing the start of the RFC banner. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Decisions like this are not made on the basis of numbers, but on the basis of policy. "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." His full name has not been widely published by reliable sources, and we know he objects, because he very politely requested that we be so kind as to leave it off. We are not fucking robots. --JN466 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And, again, it seems as if most people disagree with your interpretation of WP:BLP, your interpretation of what a reliable source is, and your determination that because Mr. Touré has "politely" (I would have said "whinily") requested it we should respect his wishes. Wikipedia WPs are not massive computers that raw data is entered into and finished articles come out of. Or, to put it in your spicy and entirely uncalled for parlance, Wikipedia is not a "fucking robot." Nor should Mr. Touré get special treatment because he is a celebrity journalist and hide under WP:BLP. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I also support the exclusion of the weakly reported name as per the subjects request under wikipedia en policy - Please avoid attacking the subjects of our articles with your whiney comments - the rest of your comment seems verging on attacking other good faith editors - please pack it in - thanks - Youreallycan 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And here it is! The last argument of the Wikpedian to be used against the Wikipedian you don't agree with: accuse the other guy of making personal attacks! One editor calls a whole group of dissenting people "fucking robots," and not a word, but I say "whinily" and I am "attacking" and told to "pack it in." The Mote and the Beam. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Omit (11). Thank you for the scoreboard, by the way. First of all, his last name does not mean anything to anyone except him, and he doesn't want it. I believe (not WP policy, not sourced, just a bald statement of my own personal belief, for what it's worth) that a person has the right to choose their identity. Second, as an earlier commenter commented, his rejected last name was obtained through an invasion of privacy, and bad behavior should not be rewarded. Third, the Ombudsman argument (having Jimbo as an arbiter that someone can go to in the case of special circumstances) is rather convincing. Fourth, at the moment, the most notable thing about this guy is the last name kerfuffle. My solution is to leave the last name out of the opening paragraph, but have a paragraph toward the end that explains why he doesn't use his last name. Fifth, two to one is not consensus, the jury is still out, and we as a community should default to not causing pain and distress. Finally, I have gone on record in other discussions as being an inclusionist, wanting as much information to be retained as possible; however, I am not heartless. Leave the guy alone. Listmeister (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. (Thanks for the courtesy.) TuckerResearch (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Omit - It's not clear to me why this RFC should even be necessary - there is a policy-based reason to exclude the surname. The closing admin should re-read the WMF resolution on biographies of living people before tallying up the votes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Omit - a living person whose full name is not widely published, and so it may be omitted if the subject prefers, per WP:DOB. - also, as per User:Slim Virgin's interpretation of guidelines and policy. Youreallycan 18:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Except DOB doesn't say anything about legal names. It only says that, at the subject's request, the month and day of the subject's birth date will be removed, though the year will remain. Silverseren^C 21:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Any decent biographical encyclopedia article should say who the subject's parents are, which tends to yield a surname. It should also note any changes of name - the name on the birth certificate should be given for reference, even if it is only temporary and the subject downplays or dislikes it. See Adolf Schicklgruber, Barry Obama, etc. Wnt (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • And we have a Godwin! Comparing Touré to Hitler seems quite undue, and as for Obama, several editors stated above that if Touré were ever to run for president, they would view this matter differently (or rather, it would not arise, as there would be widespread coverage in reliable sources). Regards, --JN466 17:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, for once, it isn't a Godwin, but a proper mention of Hitler in relation to the subject, since he does illustrate the difference in naming that we are discussing. Silverseren^C 18:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Silver, please allow me to ask you another question based on your experience as a long-time Wikipedia editor in good standing. User:Wnt, a newcomer to this discussion, referred to you here. Are you OK with User:Wnt’s description of you as someone who generally agrees with him when it comes to "keeping everything" in a BLP? I haven’t had time to check if this is indeed the case, but I noticed that you had previously asked him on his user page whether he was a member of Encyclopedia Dramatica who had come to Wikipedia to WP:GAME good-faith contributors like yourself. User:Wnt is indeed a member of Encyclopedia Dramatica. I'm unsure as to whether I'm allowed to link to this site here, but please check out http [colon doubleslash] encyclopediadramatica [dot] se/User:Wnt where he's not only referring to Eris, but also insulting Wikipedia contributors as being [http [colon doubleslash] encyclopediadramatica [dot] se/Moralfag “Moralfags”] and [http [colon doubleslash] encyclopediadramatica [dot] se/Wikipedophile “Wikipedophiles”]. I find these terms and their definition on that site highly offensive, just as I'm sure that User:Tuckerresearch would object to the term “Religionfag” also mentioned in the “Moralfag” article. User:Wnt seems to have cast a vote here not so much out of concern for our BLP policies, but to sow discord in the spirit of Eris (see his Encyclopedia Dramatica user page), and to get back at other respected editors with whom he seems to have had on-going disagreements that are wholly unrelated to this particular BLP issue. I'm still at a loss as to how to find a relevant connection between what we are discussing here and his recent comment wrt our article on Muhammad. His latest contributions to this Rfc show that he hasn’t even taken the time to familiarize himself with the most recent interactions between regular contributors to this page. Please also note that I did apologize to User:Tuckerresearch. What do you think? Best wishes – Draco^E 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Actually, User:Jayen466, your implication that User:Wnt was "comparing [an argument] to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis" is an example of the law, not User:Wnt's mere mention of Hitler. (And, technically, Hitler was never surnamed Schicklgruber, his father was.) TuckerResearch (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment/NoteToAdmins. Some users have created new accounts simply to vote Retain on this subject evident through their contributions list, which only consists of edits to this talk page. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 21:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC close?

Will someone expound on the RfC result? I would suggest that it did not result in a case to remove the last name where recent press releases directly associated with the person use that name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Second TuckerResearch (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the RfC is that there is no consensus to restore the name. Until such time as there is, it should stay out. JN466 01:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the name should stay out of the article until an uninvolved editor closes the RfC and interprets whether there's consensus to restore it. The usual place to ask for closure is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, though there's usually a backlog. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course that would be your "reading." TuckerResearch (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As it stands on RfC close

Howdy all, It seems that there are two issues here. (1) Is there a reliable source (or sources) for Touré's full birth and legal name and; (2) should it be included in the article? For this, I've done two things below: (1) Gathered all the sources into one spot; and (2) tallied all the votes for and against inclusion of Touré's surname. (And yes, I am well aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy.)

Sources

Here are the sources collected from this talkpage, in chronological order:

• The Fire This Time, Underground newsmagazine, Emory University, homepage, February 1999 - "Founded in 1990 as an underground newsmagazine by Editor Toure Neblett Reestablished in 1995 by Editor Savalas O. Colbert."
• Benn's Media, vol. 3, (Tonbridge, Kent: Benn Business Information Services, 2003), p. 421 - "URL: www.oneworldmagazine.com Personnel: Toure Neblett"
• http://www.campaignmoney.com, "Toure Neblett Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle" - "Name & Location: Neblett, Toure BROOKLYN, NY 11217 Employer/Occupation: BET/TV Host" (Also for 2004.)
• Target Entertainment Group, "Target Entertainment Entertains International Buyers at MIPTV," press release, January 4, 2011 - "The show is hosted by renowned music journalist Touré Neblett"
• Target Entertainment Group, "Target Entertainment launches over 100 hours of new programming at MIPTV," press release, March 21, 2011 - "...renowned music journalist Touré Neblett talks with some of the most provocative players in music today...."
• MTV Australia, August 14, 2011 - "Renowned music journalist, Tour Neblett...." [sic]
• Miles Marshall Lewis, "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Black," Huffington Post, August 25, 2011 - "Touré Neblett is the cultural critic folks love to hate."
• A. R. Ward, "NBC and Time Contributor Touré a 9/11 Truther," Breitbart.com, October 2011 - "Times’ 'Ideas writer' and MSNBC contributor Touré (real name Toure Neblett) has recently written about the Republican presidential candidates."
• Rush Limbaugh, "The Media on Rush and Cain," The Rush Limbaugh Show, transcript, November 1, 2011 - "TOURE (NEBLETT): Rush Limbaugh talking about, 'We see who the real racists are.'"

Votes

For

Editors for having Touré's full birth and legal name in the article (32 total; 25 registered users; 22 registered users not accused of being a single purpose account):

Before the Consensus discussion section (if they commented after that, I've moved them to the next section):

• User:Favonian
• 98.92.186.167
• 98.92.79.145
• Podge80525

After the Consensus discussion section:

• User:Doktorbuk
• User:Cusop Dingle
• User:Silver seren
• User:TenOfAllTrades
• User:Nightscream¹
• User:JFHJr
• User:Thriley
• User:Orangemike
• User:Buddy431
• User:Rcnj
• User:Fnordware²
• 98.92.188.202³
• User:Neutron
• User:JohnnyScotland³
• User:ToureSyndrome³
• 108.70.30.46
• User:Jcvillar
• User:Collect
• User:Ayzmo
• 158.130.14.20
• User:Tuckerresearch⁴
• 129.215.149.96
• 173.79.75.65
• User:RegentsPark
• User:Softlavender
• User:The Blade of the Northern Lights
• User:Emory1989³
• User:Wnt

______________

1. Switched from omit to retain.
2. With a proper reliable source.
3. Has been accused of making few or no other edits outside this topic.
4. The most awesome editor ever! Kidding. Smile.

Against

Editors against having Touré's full birth and legal name in the article (15 total; 14 who are not Touré):

Before the Consensus discussion section (if they commented after that, I've moved them to the next section):

• User:The Halo

After the Consensus discussion section:

• Toure¹
• User:Anthonyhcole
• User:DracoEssentialis²
• User:Guettarda³
• User:Cucumber Mike
• User:Herostratus⁴
• User:Jayen466⁵
• User:SlimVirgin
• User:Dezastru
• User:Teammm
• User:Larrybob
• User:Youreallycan
• User:Listmeister
• User:Delicious carbuncle

______________

1. Apparently the article's subject himself; has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
2. Wedded to User:Jayen466 and investigated several users to question their motives.
3. Never plainly says so, but general tenor is against inclusion without a solid primary source.
4. Switched from a sort-of retain to omit.
5. Wedded to User:DracoEssentialis.

Thus?

I just wanted to be helpful to users and admins by collecting this info and encourage more analysis and debate. Personally, I think this leans towards consensus (at least 22 to 14) being that Mr. Touré's surname should be mentioned very briefly in this article, though the article remain titled "Touré."

If I've made any mistakes, please make corrections. That's my two cents. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being decorous. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

TR, my understanding of the figures is that 61 percent want to add the name, which isn't consensus on numbers alone. In addition someone would have to analyze the arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, SV, which is why I reiterated above that I know Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's also why I said "leans towards consensus." I was merely trying to collate the info to get it in a digestible form. And then throw in my two cents. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC closer's take into account strength and validity of argument, and alignment with policy. Although I appreciate the effort Tucker went to above, I'm struggling to see the point of his for and against summary. I've added a brief indication of the "arguments" behind the !votes in favor of inclusion.

• user:Doktorbuk WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTCENSORED
• user:Cusop Dingle We don't respect the wishes of our subjects.
• user:Silverseren The full name is published in more than one source, and we don't submit to spiritual pretense.
• user:TenOfAllTrades We include birth names.
• user:Nightscream It is not disrespectful for his article to state what his slave name was. Why would it be painful to merely note a prior historical fact? While omitting some information for reasons like identity theft or privacy is sometimes done here, encyclopedias are not about omitting key information in order to put forward a narrative that a biographical article's subject considers more ideologically or personally positive.
• user:JFHJr An encyclopedic article should contain something as basic as a subject's actual name whenever it's available.
• user:Thriley To omit the surname due to Touré's wishes would set a precedent that could undermine many of the other policies of Wikipedia.
• user:Orangemike Per TentOfAllTrades.
• user:Buddy431 No harm, no foul.
• user:Rcnj WP:OTHERSTUFF
• user:98.92.188.202 (SPA) Subjects DO NOT (caps make it truer) get to decide what goes in their entries.
• user:Neutron Mention the surname in the body, not the lede, as a compromise.
• user:JohnnyScotland (SPA) The subject is a liar and a hypocrite.
• user:Favonian A person's birth name is an important piece of biographical information
• user:ToureSyndrome (SPA) His legal name is Toure Neblett. The subject is a liar and a hypocrite. He has never been a slave.
• user:108.70.30.46 (Six edits before commenting here) Slippery slope fallacy
• user:Jcvillar (Ten edits before commenting here) It's embarrassing to Wikipedia
• user:Collect a person who has legally changed his name to "Elvis" is still going to end up with his birth name in an article
• user:Ayzmo Unless he is in actual danger (emotional or physical), which he doesn't seem to be, there is no reason to withhold his name since his name is known.
• user:158.130.14.20 (One edit before commenting here) Toure is a public figure who chooses to be in the spotlight. He should not be given special treatment
• user:Tuckerresearch as long as the information here isn't libelous, noting someone's birthname is not wrong.
• user:129.215.149.96 WP:OTHERSTUFF
• user:173.79.75.65 it is factual that Neblett is his name. WP:OTHERSTUFF
• user:regentspark Making it clear that this is the name he was born with and that he doesn't use it any more.
• user:Softlavender WP:NOTCENSORED
• user:The Blade of the Northern Lights per Herostratus
• user:Emory1989 (SPA) WP:OTHERSTUFF. I find it quite offensive that Neblett gets that sort of control.
• user:Wnt Any decent biographical encyclopedia article should say who the subject's parents are, which tends to yield a surname. It should also note any changes of name

None of them adequately addresses the main objections of the omitters: WP:DOB, and slave name. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if you dig deeper, several members have referenced the WP:DOB argument. (I know I have a few times.) Your list is a good start, but perhaps it is, like my summary above, a bit too superficial (a true straw man!). For "slave name," and since you're throwing around logical fallacies below, that's merely an appeal to emotion. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And how would you summarize the omit side of the argument in the same fashion? TuckerResearch (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your appeal to the spirit of WP:DOB below is valid and worth addressing. I'll get to that when (if) I can compose a fair response. (I'm meant to be working now). I'm not aware of any other responses to WP:DOB that have any merit; I expect the meaning of "widely" could be argued.

As for "appeal to emotion," I am addressing the emotion of the subject, certainly something we must take account of. I'm not trying to stir the emotions of the audience, a deprecated rhetorical device. If our subjects didn't have feelings, life would be so much simpler for us encyclopedia writers. But they do. And their feelings matter to us. Hence, we don't use gendered pronouns that reflect a transgender person's old gender identity.

My summary of the omit case is basically WP:DOB and "per SlimVirgin"; though others may disagree.

The "omit" side has made a strong case based on WP:DOB and respect for identity rights. The "include" side needs to address these valid arguments. I really must go offline now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for someone to close it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Like User:Anthonyhcole above, I'll summarize the omit side of the argument, which I think is weakly hugging to believing that a full name applies to WP:Date of Birth and to feelings.

• User:The Halo - Back in 2006 it wasn't notable
• Toure - It pains him
• User:Anthonyhcole - Subject prefers and WP:DOB applies to names
• User:DracoEssentialis - We shouldn't cause distress and Touré asked nicely
• User:Guettarda - Need better source, under no obligation to have surname
• User:Cucumber Mike - Touré's request was extremely polite and well articulated
• User:Herostratus - I quote: "for meta-reasons involving the health of the organization. We need, badly, to have an obudsman."
• User:Jayen466 - Other sources have respected Touré's request
• User:SlimVirgin - Other sources have respected Touré's request and we should treat a slave name like transgendered people's names
• User:Dezastru - WP:DOB applies to names and Touré requested it
• User:Teammm - WP:DOB applies to names, not widely published, it would cause Touré emotional pain
• User:Larrybob - A slave name is like transgendered person's name
• User:Youreallycan - Not widely published and WP:DOB applies to names
• User:Listmeister - It would cause Touré pain and distress
• User:Delicious carbuncle - Everyone else is wrong but him (I kid you not, see the diff)

Hardly convincing. The first argument is that WP:DOB somehow applies to a published full name. WP:DOB does not talk about the removal of a name, just other factual details, and it is meant to stop identity theft. Tellingly, it begins: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern..." Nowhere does it say, "If someone feels psychic pain..." The second argument is Touré asked nicely. Hardly an argument. It is a conflict of interest and sets a bad precedent. The third argument is that a slave name is the same as a transgendered person's name. Touré, by his own admission, has not changed his name, and it is in use at the sources cited. Just as a transgendered person's article might bow to his/her wishes and use one set of gendered pronouns yet still retain a birth name (and the fact of changed gender), we respect Touré's wishes by using his mononym and referring to him as that, yet we should still (very fleetingly and encyclopedically) retain his full birth and legal name. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.