Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 13 May 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Zephoria (talk · contribs) / Boyd, Danah Boyd, Danah

Archives

2006–2007 2008 2009

Requested move

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

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

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

• Support the move, per ElKevbo's rationale regarding MOS. Additionally, arguments given elsewhere on this talk page to the effect that peer-reviewed academic publications and other reliable sources using "danah boyd" are somehow under Ms. boyd's influence and thus not reliable for this purpose (arguments which would theoretically resolve this the other way by excluding such sources) seem to overstep Misplaced Pages's bounds. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to try to investigate such sources for bias or personal motives (that's the job of other reliable sources, which could then be cited here if needed). Ubernostrum (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification Since I've added a few comments to the discussion and a couple folks seem to be misunderstanding me, I'd like to clarify and explain my position a bit. I support the move of the article to "danah boyd" (and a switch to using "danah boyd" throughout the article text), based on the MOS as it was at the time the move was proposed; there are sources for "danah boyd" and there are sources for "Danah Boyd" (there are also reliable sources for a number of misspellings, but that's another matter and, curiously, no-one suggests moving to "Dana Boyd" or similar on such basis), and MOS stated that, when reliable sources conflict, Misplaced Pages should use the subject's preferred version, which is clearly and verifiably "danah boyd". I also support the move even if MOS is edited back to requiring a majority of reliable sources to be using the lower-case version; though a few mainstream press articles have used "Danah Boyd", a number of others (see various citations throughout the discussion) use "danah boyd", and "danah boyd" seems to be the universal or near-universal usage in academic publications where proper citation is taken to an extreme, and Ms. boyd is much more frequently published and cited in such publications than in mainstream press, which means that "danah boyd" almost certainly is the dominant usage in reliable sources (without even taking into account universities and employers which identify her as "danah boyd" rather than "Danah Boyd"). Ubernostrum (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Unwilling Support I disagree and don't think we should honor ridiculous requests by people to use odd capitalization, but Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Mixed or non-capitalization says we can re-name article names to use no capital letters if the person spells it that way (and she does according to her homepage). TJ Spyke 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It's come up several times in the history of this article that calling capitalization schemes "ridiculous" is perhaps a POV judgment Misplaced Pages shouldn't be trying to make (bolstered by the fact that some people strongly object to such schemes, while others seem to have no problem with them, something which seems a strong indicator that it's a subjective judgment and not a matter of objective fact or style). I'd like to keep the article free of such. Ubernostrum (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support I think Ubernostrum put the case nicely, and I had put a similar case (without MOS) some months ago. I also request that Elonka reinsert all the discussion material that she archived, as I believe that much of it is about this case. BTW, I just tried to email ms boyd about something else today, and got a note that she's offline until Jan 19 -- moving to a new job at Microsoft Research in Boston or Cambridge.Bellagio99 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: The above editor may have a COI with the subject of this article. --Elonka 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The concept of a lower-cased spelling in an article title is a major stylistic choice, and should not be made lightly. It can be jarring to readers, and look like an error. We should only move a page to such a title if there is a clear preference for such usage in third-party reliable sources. As for the arguments about what the Manual of Style says, it is worth remembering that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, and not policies. The MoS is a recommendation only, and it is still our responsibility to choose what works best for a particular page. I was a participant in the discussions for the current wording of the MoS, and the consensus is that it's not just whether or not sources are using both spellings, but whether an unusual spelling is in "regular, established use". In the case of Danah Boyd, the majority of third-party sources are still using normal capitalization (Danah Boyd), so Misplaced Pages should follow that usage. If at some point in the future, the majority of reliable sources use a lowercased spelling, then Misplaced Pages can adapt. But we're not there yet. --Elonka 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I looked through the history of the MOS changes, and noticed that originally there was stronger language about number of sources with a given usage; this wording was over time pared down, without apparent reversion or controversy, until it arrived at the present version. This would seem to reflect that the ultimate consensus evolved away from considering "X sources using upper vs. Y sources using lower" as a guideline (present language regarding the subject's own preference was added in this edit by Irn, who presumably did not do so without consensus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernostrum (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to presume any such thing. The discussion was at WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalisation, and three editors out of a dozen (Irn was one), supported that position; they outlasted the others, but did not persuade them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose also per MoS, specifically WP:MOSTM. Cf. K.D. Lang, another subject whose "preferences are ignored." — AjaxSmack 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Don't worry; we'll get to her next. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• By the way, I'm not quite clear what part of the MOS you're referring to and it would be helpful for me if you could be more specific. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm confused. You oppose also per MOS, but no one else opposes per MOS (in fact, the only other oppose explicitly wants to go against the MOS).--Irn (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

• But her name is not a trademark, and there exists another section of the MOS that deals explicitly with this issue.--Irn (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think I've expressed it before, but I think this is fundamentally an issue of basic respect. This isn't a scientific theory, a product, or a corporation; this is a living person and I think it's damn disrespectful for us to ignore her clear and simple wish to use her name as she uses it hen it costs us absolutely nothing to do so. I'm glad that the MOS was changed to recognize this idea and am only half-joking when I said that k. d. lang is next. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an issue of typography, not respect. Notice what the external citation links use . Like Misplaced Pages, they have style manuals that eschew the use of cutesy typography. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and we have a style manual that states we should go by the subject's wishes when there are sources using both versions (see MSNBC , Salon.com , Chicago Sun-Times , Washington Post , Toronto Star , PBS ). Further, this is a matter of accuracy, not "cutesy typography". Please don't be condescending to a subject's express and legal declaration of what her name actually is. --ZimZalaBim 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I personally don't care about official names but since it is being put forth as an argument here, is there any evidence that the capitalisation choice is a "legal name"? The subject notes a legal change but mentions "my decision to leave the capitalization out of my name" but not whether any legal authority concurs on the capitalisation per se. On the other point, I feel my attitude is dismissive rather than condescending but my arguments are based on numerous other name choices with "irregular" (Is that better?) typography in their "official" names described at WP:MOSTM. — AjaxSmack 04:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

♦ Respect goes both ways -- why is it OK for her to impose her nonstandard styling and the costs that come with it on the rest of us? --R27182818 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

• Strong support This is why the MOS was changed. Additionally, as Ubernostrum pointed out, in the discussion leading up to the change at the MOS, the idea of looking to a majority of sources was proposed, but was ultimately not the language decided upon. "Regular, established use" was decided precisely because it does not require a majority. -- Irn (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How about all of the sources except the subject's own website/output? — AjaxSmack 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Further back in the discussion on this talk page, you'll notice I found, for example, a story in the Boston Globe not written by Ms. boyd, which nonetheless referred to her as "danah boyd"; academic citations of her (not work by her, but work citing her) seem to tend strongly toward "danah boyd" as well. So it's disingenuous to say that only work by her uses lower-case. Ubernostrum (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that. I said that all of the sources by which I meant the references used for this article (my bust for not making that clearer). I never claim to have made an exhaustive survey of every article, blog, or other mention of the subject. — AjaxSmack 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        • So would it be okay if we added the sources mentioned in this discussion to the article? I suspect that doing so would raise more accusations of bad faith and I hope you can understand that this - having many reliable sources but being unreasonably prevented from adding them - is an untenable position.
        • And what about the sources I recently added (not added, mind you, in any relation to this discussion but in response to editing that reminded me of recent work published by the subject that garnered national attention)? --ElKevbo (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
          • To my knowledge, the only person who's been removing sources lately, was you, ElKevbo. In terms of adding more sources or further expanding the article, I don't think anyone would have any objection. For best results though, stick with reliable third-party sources, rather than sources written by Boyd herself. A certain amount of self-published information is acceptable in biographies, but it's always better on Misplaced Pages to include information written by other people, independent of the subject. --Elonka 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:MOS, and all the reasons I've stated over the months: it is her legal name, it is her preferred spelling, WP should strive for accuracy (especially for BLP), and our presentation of facts shouldn't be dictated by the fact that some RS decide to spell it contrary to what is correct. --ZimZalaBim 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per the arguments that I've raised previously on this talk page. See above for elaborations on:
  • The mixed-case styling better serves readers:
    • Lower-case names are jarring when reading text.
    • Lower-case names have strange, unfamiliar rules at the beginning of a sentence.
  • It is impossible to write the name without making a value judgement.
  • It is unfair for Boyd (or anyone) to demand that others accept the burdens of the lower-case styling in service of personal identity.
  • Academic publications do not make independent style choices.
  • Legal documents containing a lowercase name do not give legal weight to the lowercase styling.
  • --R27182818 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems that your objections are to WP:MOSCAPS and I think your arguments are better placed there. In the meantime, I don't think it's at all fair that editors should have to go through this lengthy exercise when there is clearly a consensus in the MOS which represents a far larger number of Misplaced Pages editors than those monitoring this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually most of MOS represents a small number of - deeply opinionated - editors who have agreed on its talkpage; it's worse on the subpages, of which MOSCAPS is one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) You are arguing for a change in policy; here, we're debating the application of existing policy. --ZimZalaBim 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOSCAPS is being misquoted; it says may use. I see little evidence that sources which the subject did not write herself use lower case cinsistently, which is the line we normally take on such issues; compare E. E. Cummings . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As I noted above, repeatedly, there are reliable sources using both. Questioning why a reliable source chooses one or the other, or injecting allegations of bias or influence into such discussion, is not Misplaced Pages's province; if you believe certain sources, which Misplaced Pages considers reliable (academic journals, anthologies and at least one major newspaper), have been unduly influenced by Ms. boyd, the proper course of action is to find other reliable sources which indicate this influence. As it stands, some reliable sources use lower-case and others use upper-case, and MOS clearly states that, in such a situation, the subject's preferred version should be used. Ubernostrum (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some reliable sources independent of the subject using the lowercase presentation: MSNBC , Salon.com , Chicago Sun-Times , Washington Post , Toronto Star , PBS . --ZimZalaBim 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, source criticism is exactly what we are here for. This is why we have editors, not bots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Ubernostrum: Can you please square your initial comments above ("I see little evidence that sources which the subject did not write herself use lower case cinsistently") with the evidence presented by ZimZalaBim? I see no evidence that those articles - published in very high profile (one may even say notable and reliable) sources - were written by the subject of this article? --ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Note I've dropped a note at WT:MOSCAPS about this requested move given (a) that it's a test of the new(ish) change to the MOS and (b) the tone and direction of this conversation seems to be more about acceptance of the MOS than the merits of this particular case. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I see reliable sources using lowercase (, ), and I see from her website that she prefers to use lowercase herself. Moving the article is the correct application of the guideline. More generally, this is the way that she chooses to identify herself, and since other reliable sources also identify her this way, it makes sense for WP to as well. Croctotheface (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an incorrect application of the guideline. Because it can be so read, it is also the wrong guideline, as TJSpyke perceived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional discussion

(response to "no consensus")

It was??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.149.238 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• 100% Support This is clearly the chosen name of Ms. Boyd and so this article, by Misplaced Pages standards, should reflect that. Is it Beyonce or Beyoncé —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.149.238 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• 100% Support I feel that those that objected to this clearly don't know enough about Misplaced Pages or, in this case, Ms. boyd, and are simply pushing their own personal preferences. Ms. boyd has an article on her site discussing why she goes by danah boyd and not Danah Boyd and she is credited in nearly all her published work as danah boyd, too. This isn't a matter for discussion. 82.23.149.238 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional and POV

I have removed some non-encyclopedic content from the page and rewritten the rest to be less chatty and more informative. I understand, from the history of the page, that most of the content I erased came from the subject or the subject's friends. And, in any case, what I removed was nonnotable, nonencyclopedic, and sourced only by the subject's own blog posts. Furthermore, the detail in the article was grossly out of proportion to the subject's mild notability. The article previously came across as an informal version of the subject's resume, not an encyclopedia article. Childhood stories that the subject has decided are important do not on that basis alone need to be preserved in an article. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I should add: I reviewed the talk pages and the article's history before making my admittedly significant edits. I do not believe I disturbed any matters on which consensus had been reached. There was simply no reason for the filler that was in the article, other than it was what the subject chose to write about on her blog. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to some mild pruning, but the existing attempt to drastically slash half the article is a bit much. A better way to proceed would be to go more slowly. Perhaps focus on one section, make a change, then wait and see how it is received. See WP:BRD. --Elonka 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Antiselfpromotion, please heed the advice given above. And discuss your proposed edits first as they have been reverted multiple times by different editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you look carefully at the edits I made? They were not extensive. They were mild. They deleted material that was simply not notable, like description of an undergraduate thesis with no claims of notability. This subject has apparently engaged in extensive self-marketing on the web with an eye toward furthering her career, which is fine, but it is not a basis for including nonnotable information in an encyclopedic biography. In any case, I'm happy to discuss the edits here as you suggest. Which do you object to (in particular), and why? I would be interested in comments from people who do not in fact know the subject personally. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I don't see the problem with mentioning her undergrad thesis as it establishes continuity in her academic career. I agree that we don't need to devote significant space to discussing it but not only do I not see a problem with mentioning but I don't understand the harm in doing so.

Given that several editors have objected to your proposed edits, how about either (a) taking them slow and making them one-at-a-time or (b) listing your proposed edits here so we can quickly see which ones are controversial and which ones can be made immediately? --ElKevbo (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable enough for a page?

Pretty much the only thing on this page is a biography that mentions lots of irrelevant facts like wanting to become an astronaut. It barely even makes it clear that she's accomplished anything. It just comes across as an unnecessary article. Verisimilarity (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Veri, Her accomplishments are real. In 5 seconds, I went to Harzing's Publish or Perish tool, and I found 51 papers, with 1700+ citations. I could do more by going to Scholar.Google. I am not danah, but because I am involved with a committee considering her for an award, I know that she has done a lot of policy work: testifying to Congress, MacArthur Foundation, etc. But that would be WP:OR on my account, and I don't have the time or inclination to document this. And frankly I don't see the need to. Your question hasn't been raised in years, despite much traffic about this page, and she's done lots more since then. Her existing page shows a lot, the citation count shows a lot, and if need be, the policy stuff could be brought in. It would be great if you'd like to -- I'll put you in touch with danah herself, and she can supply the documentation to you. Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very much that she truly satisfies WP:BIO's criteria for notability. She has an online following of people, including you, but she's basically a blogger and a nonnotable quasi-academic. This is a vanity page of the worst sort, as evidenced by its creation and history. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Take it to AfD if you feel strongly about it. But I strongly recommend doing some more research, perhaps starting with the references cited in this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded here to weigh in informally. I'm quite familiar with the AfD procedures. I'm concerned, however, that few people seem to be paying attention to the editing of this article except people who know the subject personally. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know her personally, but I'd have trouble assuming good faith on an AfD at this point -- the number of reliable sources treating her as someone noteworthy in the field (scholarly papers, NYT and other big papers calling her up for quotes when they run stories on social media issues, etc.) is kinda overwhelming. Ubernostrum (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: What editors, other than Bellagio, do you believe are personally acquainted with this subject? --ElKevbo (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To start with, Elonka as well: both the editors who reversed my last edit and on whom you relied in reversing my edit today. See the subject's own Talk page. The article is nothing more than a narrative personal resumé. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

♦ I follow it peripherally; never met her, read a few of her papers. I'm not tuned in enough to have a detailed opinion on what specific parts of the article are notable/non-notable, but I'd certainly oppose deletion. --R27182818 (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this a bit on my watchlist, and I too am a bit concerned that the article may be overly puffy. (As another example of possible conflicts of interest, the article was created by a user who has worked personally with Ms. Boyd.) She certainly seems noteworthy enough for an article, but the article needs to stick to the encyclopedic, not the puffy or frivolous. For example, it looks like she herself lamented on her blog because an anecdote about "fuzzy hats with ears" was removed; sorry, but that's a good example of what doesn't belong. And of course, the debate over her name's capitalization. (I note that she states on her website that her aesthetic preferences have a lot to do with her capitalization; I'd hope she'd respect that like many more traditional publishers, Misplaced Pages has its own aesthetic preferences as well, namely its manual of style?) The article right now seems too much like a résumé or an autobiography; e.g. do we really need to list every single television show she's been on or news outlet she's been quoted in, particularly in the lead like it is now? And is it really within our scope to note things like "her initial desire was to be an astronaut"? I think the article can be pared down in an agreeable fashion. Fran Rogers❇ 06:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This violates WP:OR, but I know for a certainty that Dr. boyd has been nominated for an achievement award by a major scholarly body. I am not on the committee and the award winner has not yet been announced, so I cannot say anything more. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is a body such as the ACRL in her quasi-academic speciality, I doubt even that would make her notable on its own. If she is elected to a major academic group like the AAAS I agree that would make her notable, but given her mild scholarly accomplishments that cannot possibly be the sort of 'major scholarly body' you have in mind. Her work is not 'academic' or 'scholarly' in the usual way. (I do not mean that as a criticism.) Even so, I am not objecting to notability per se. I am positing that the page has content that is puffy, needlessly promotional, and far out of proportion to the little notability that the subject has. On the last AfD, people who did not know her in person treated it as a borderline case. Her career has involved preparing a few studies, presenting at a few conferences, and being a TV talking head a few times on a very narrow set of subjects. She is absolutely not more notable that the average academic. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented some of your suggestions, Fran, with which I agree. The edits are not destructive but have been made faster than the glacial pace suggested by one or two others, some of which have conflicts of interest. The page is still too promotional and unduly emphasizes autobiographical material but it is incrementally better now. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recent edit, since it was too large of a deletion (approximately half of the article), and removed not only information, but also the reliable sources along with them. The edit summary was also of concern, as it implied that the other editors here are expanding the article only out of some personal friendship with Boyd. Speaking for myself, I would not count myself as one of Boyd's friends, and neither do I have any conflict of interest where she is concerned. I met her once at a conference, very briefly, and we have had some conversations here on-wiki, but that's about the extent of it. On the other hand, I do have to admit to concerns as to whether or not the deletions by Antiselfpromotion (talk · contribs) are being undertaken in good faith. Looking at the contrib history, there seems to be excessive focus on just steadily whittling down the Danah Boyd article. See WP:SPA. Anti, perhaps you could spend some time working on other topics, than just Boyd's article? Or, perhaps you could spend time expanding the article, rather than just deleting information from it? --Elonka 21:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a gross mischaracterization. I have made hundreds of edits, only a few of which have been on this ridiculous vanity page. However, I shall step back and allow others to edit it. I wish to point out nonetheless that you are manifestly incorrect that 'removing sources' constitutes inappropriate editing. The information that I removed was promotional filler mostly sourced to the subject personally. The article was built in the first place by friends of the subject, as the logs and Talk history clearly show. There was nothing misleading about my edit summary. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article may have been created by a friend back in 2005, but it has been extensively rewritten and overhauled since then. Looking through the history, here's an example of an overhaul that I gave to the article in 2006. To say that the article has been primarily expanded by friends of Ms. Boyd, is not an accurate statement. --Elonka 00:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I neither know nor care who created this page, but have trouble discerning the notability of the biographee. And the talk in the article about her sex preferences and how she chooses to write her name make the result look more desperate: if an article has to resort to this fluff, what substance can there be? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read through the AfD discussion linked up at the top of this talk page for background before taking further action. Ubernostrum (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. It's one of the least convincing "keep" AfDs that I remember reading, with IPs and new users expressing enthusiasm rather than presenting reasons. I've no particular urge to take "further action"; I'm willing to believe that she is notable but see very little evidence of this and urge people who do believe it to improve the article accordingly. ¶ When I think of writers about the net I think of such people as Philip Greenspun, Jonathan Zittrain, and Sherry Turkle. (This isn't a matter of admiration: I find the writing of two of these three soporific.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the consensus from the AfD was to keep. Thus, it would be up to you to convincingly argue for the opposite position at this point. Absent a convincing argument that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages (and criticism of the article content isn't quite the same thing -- bad articles can be written about good subjects, and the solution is to turn them into good articles), I'd argue that the existing result should stand. Ubernostrum (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If we are not to delete the article, I propose that we keep the notability tag on it and seek to excise the vanity and promotional content from it. It would be better as a stub than it is now, and it can be expanded from that stage with encyclopedic content, if there is any. I have tried to do this myself, but it has been reversed by editors who have interacted with the subject or who know her personally. Detailed discussions of minor academic articles, her sexual preferences, and her modification to the capitalization of her name all give undue weight to those matters. So far as I can tell, the subject has done nothing of note other than to give a few speeches and to gain minor and brief press coverage for claiming that the users of Myspace and Facebook differed on average by race and social class. That record does not meet the general academic notability guidelines. The page, once again, was created by one of the subject's personal friends. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

She has one article in press: “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” It's here (PDF) on her website. It's pretty long. It disarmingly says that "My primary goal is simply to unveil some of the common ways in which teenagers now experience social life online." And it all seems very humdrum. Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong about the humdrum: such people as Joe Moran have written perceptively and fascinatingly about it and have had their achievements recognized. I don't see this here. Of course, my own perceptions and tastes mean squat; what's important is what note other experts in the field have made of her work. There's no indication of such note in the article, so my own reactions are all I have to go on. (How about your own?) ¶ I also vaguely infer from "Shirky, Clay (February 28, 2008). Here Comes Everybody. Penguin Group. pp. 224–5. ISBN 978-1-59420-153-0." that she has a two-page article in print. ¶ Her notability seems to be that of an academic. Here's the guideline for notability among academics. It lists nine criteria, any one of which should normally be met. Which one does she meet; or, if she meets none of them, how else is she notable? ¶ In this edit, User:ElKevbo reverts my addition of "notability" flag with the edit summary nonsense; have you read the cited references or the discussion in Talk? No, ElKevbo, I have not read the cited references. However, I have looked at the descriptions thereof that appear in this article, and they whelm me. Which one should impress me? And I certainly haven't read all of the discussion here but I've read enough to make me wonder why it is that people who are keen to say that her work is recognized by her fellow-academics fail to revise the article to accommodate this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You have no business editing this article if you believe that boyd only has one article in press. I'm not being mean, I'm not being snippy - I'm serious. You really need to learn about the subject of an article before you toss around accusations and assertions that are demonstrably false. Her full list of publications is here; please read before you ignorantly downplay the work of this scholar further. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I tentatively infer that you have learned about the biographee. So go ahead, have the article reveal your learning. After all, the article is not semiprotected, let alone protected. If you see reliably sourced material about the recognition by her fellow academics of the theoretical insights, etc, of the biographee -- as opposed to (or, if you must, in addition to) mere fluff about her capitalization preferences, youthful dreams, etc -- then you're entirely free to add it. But as it stands (and perhaps very unfairly), the article does not show her notability. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Folks, You might consider thinking about Dr boyd as a public intellectual. As such, she has testified multiple times before Congressional committees, and she has keynoted a number of major conferences. And from what I've read, she goes way beyond recycling old speeches and gives major innovative analyses. Plus, as ElK says, there's more than one article, and in addition, there is the co-editing of a book-like special issue a year or two ago for the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. She's also been nominated for a major award as a public intellectual by the Communication and Information Technologies section of the American Sociological Association. Peace. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you know her personally and like her, but that does not establish notability for an academic or public intellectual, and some of what you write distorts the truth. I have not seen evidence that she has testified, for example, before congressional committees. She may have spoken to a subcommittee, but all I have seen is that she wrote letters ('written testimony') to some of them. This is typical for an academic, as would be occasional spoken testimony to a subcommittee in a narrow field of expertise. Many academics are asked to edit journal issues or provide peer review for journals, and the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication is a minor journal with limited impact. Getting an annual award from a section of a professional academic organization is also commonplace, and those are not the type of major academic awards to which the notability guidelines refer. That you think she is a promising young academic--a belief that may or may not even be corroborated among other sociologists--does not establish notability, nor does skill at self promotion. At the least, we should remove the fluff from the article and avoid giving undue weight to trivia and personal links that the subject likes, but you and two others have reversed my edits when I have tried to make that change. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My former PhD supervisor has ticked more public policy and academic achievement boxes than Danah Boyd, but he (rightly) doesn't qualify for an article under WP:BIO. I suspect that because Boyd's research is on a related topic she seems a lot more visible to the kind of people who frequent Misplaced Pages. That kind of institutional bias is exactly the sort of thing that policies like WP:BIO are meant to avoid. Orpheus (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I hear her referenced quite frequently in academic discussions on the subject of youth social network service use. She has a fair amount of name recognition, and may be the best known researcher in this area. My gut feeling is that she is notable enough to deserve this page.DarwinPeacock (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S., take a look at Google News : she is repeatedly cited in major news media (New York Times, The Guardian, etc) as an expert on Facebook, online privacy, etc. This satisfies Criterion 7 of WP:PROF. See Note 14: the criterion is satisfied if "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."DarwinPeacock (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Such quotations are recent and narrow overall. It is important to keep in mind the intent of the criterion itself, which is to include those who have had a substantial impact outside academia. A few quotes in the Times and Guardian, and somewhat more quotes on blogs, are not sufficient, particularly on ephemeral or trendy topics. Few outside her speciality would say Boyd has had a substantial general impact, or at least the citations do not so establish. In any event, my concern is not only notability but also WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:ADV. I am not challenging only the existence of the article but also its content, style and emphasis. Others in forums that discuss Misplaced Pages have used this article as an example of what is embarrassing about our editing practices. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The news mentions make it look to me like she got approached by major news sources to comment on a number of different social media news events. These aren't just quotes about her recent publications: it looks like she was actually sought out as an expert (and being an expert counts as having a substantial impact--that's exactly what note 14 is trying to say). Social media may be a trendy topic, but I don't think it's an ephemeral one--otherwise, we should really go short on some Facebook stock ;) I have no opinion on the other issues--they may detract from the quality of the article, but they don't detract from her notability. DarwinPeacock (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I don't see how this is an autobiographical article; the subject is known to edit Misplaced Pages, yes, but doesn't edit this article. I also don't see conflict-of-interest issues; yes, some people who know the subject have contributed to the article, but so have other people; "someone who knows her edited this" is grounds for having someone neutral take a look and deal with anything that's unsourced or unreliable, not for deletion. Similarly, I don't see how you could make a case that this is an advertisement. And if someone's criticizing Misplaced Pages on some other forum, feel free to go argue with them on that forum; there's no policy saying Misplaced Pages should delete anything somebody makes fun of.

In other words: I get that you want this article gone, but you're going to need sound policy-based arguments to back that up, and right now you don't really have them. Ubernostrum (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not committed to seeking deletion for the page. I have proposed many AfDs and have refrained from doing so here. But much of this article's content is embarrassing. To start with a modest suggestion, what say we remove everything that's sourced only to personal musings of the subject in her own blog on the assumption that these facts are not noteworthy and are receiving undue weight? I do not argue for that as a widely applicable principle to other articles and do not dispute that it can be useful occasionally to cite the subject for significant facts, but it would be a suitable response here to the vanity history of this article. To make my suggestion concrete, I would remove the second paragraph under 'Biography' and rewrite the first--possibly as a new section entitled 'Name'--to be factual rather than personal. I would then refrain from detailed descriptions of each minor published work of hers that she or her friends have decided is significant. The third paragraph currently under 'Biography' is suitable. The fourth should be trimmed, and several of the 'External links' should be removed, for they appear to have been added solely to promote the subject's career and from an encyclopedic perspective are redundant and of limited value. These fairly minor suggestions would improve Misplaced Pages and prevent a pernicious kind of self-promotion. Given my own harsh views about the subject's self-promotion, to avoid bias I will refrain from discussing notability or more radical changes to the article for now and will leave that to others. In general I am in agreement with Orpheus and think that, in addition to self-promotion, this article reflects a regrettable institutional bias. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good suggestion for me. Just a clarification about the "institutional bias" - I don't think it's regrettable, as every person and group of people have a collection of biases. What is regrettable is not acknowledging those biases and setting policies and guidelines to avoid them as much as possible. See WP:WORLDVIEW for an essay on the subject, but a good example is "Because you need the Internet to edit Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages will give undue weight to the Internet". Again, that's not necessarily a problem or even a bad thing, but it is something to watch for. Orpheus (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree: remove anything referenced to her own sites/blog (primary sources) and clean it up. Even if it she's borderline notability (is what I'm thinking for now even though I havent studied it in more detail), it should never be inflated with personal references because otherwise the reader would think that any Tom Dick and Harry can get a page here. --Matt57 15:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not every Thomasina, Ricky or Harriet publishes papers or is invited to work for Microsoft. While I worry about evidence of notability I do also see signs of notability -- and I'm unexcited by "thin end of the wedge" arguments. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor am I. However, working for Microsoft and publishing papers are very clearly insufficient for notability under our policies. I see signs of it too, but am not persuaded. At best it is a borderline case. Regardless, at a minimum we should follow through on the editing suggestions that appear to be gathering consensus here. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to reply saying she's not notable enough. Here's what I think. You need multiple reliable sources to be talking about her. One is the discover magazine interview and perhaps there are others. I'd say borderline notability but I havent looked more carefully. --Matt57 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Notability tag should be removed. The article has already gone through an AfD (in 2006), and passed, so the tag is not appropriate. --Elonka 17:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue against its removal, but I do continue to wonder about the contrast between (a) the certainty expressed by various people in this talk page that the biographee is noteworthy, and (b) the sparseness of what's in the article. How about beefing up the article a little? -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tag. As for the article's length, it looks like about a third of it has been stripped out over the last few months, primarily by one editor. I would have no objection to restoring the article to its original size, for example as it was seen here. --Elonka 00:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, the most obvious problem with that version is its description of what I vaguely infer to be the pinnacle of her work thus far:

She is also involved with a very large three-year collaborative ethnographic project funded by the MacArthur Foundation and led by Mimi Ito; the project examined youths' use of technologies through interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. Her research culminated in an article in the "MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning, Identity Volume" called Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites:The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. This article analyzes many of the issues that youth are facing today in the online networked publics that have become a major part of their lives. The article primarily focuses on social networks as implications for youth identity. It also deals with parent relationship's with their children in regards to these social network sites. Her research on this article was roughly two years.

Whether the work was a matter of three or of two years, there's nothing wrong with its main fruition as an article. However, if it had instead been a book, then I'd say its mere publication as a book by a sound academic publisher -- a university press, Wiley, Erlbaum or whatever -- would (to my mind at least, if not against some WP guideline) indicate significance. But it isn't a book and instead is an article. So what's the significance of the article? I don't deny that it is significant; I just don't know. Neither that version of the article nor the current one tells the reader. People have said above that her writing is highly valued by her academic peers; if this article "Why youth social network sites" is widely acknowledged to be perceptive, to cut through conceptual confusion, to debunk misperceptions or orthodoxy, or to start a new line of investigation (to be "seminal"), then let's see some (sourced) sign of this in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had it assigned to me in two different classes - I'd guess it might be widely cited enough that my professors knew of it, but I don't know how to find out widely cited something is. The citation for it on Misplaced Pages is off a bit with its "in press" notation (an earlier version?). The article can be seen online here http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119 where it is given as boyd, danah. “Why Youth Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life." Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David Buckingham. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 119–142. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What is currently in the article is indeed a (outdated) mischaracterization. That specific talk was expanded into a book chapter, as mentioned above. Moreoever, to state that either the talk or the book chapter was the "culmination" of her work seems woefully incorrect. That and similar work led to her doctoral dissertation, her role as the lead author in another book chapter, and many other activities. This was not a one-off project but a cohesive part of her research agenda. ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Perhaps you could rewrite this part of the article accordingly (and of course sourcedly). -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Hoary. Go ahead and be bold and make appropriate changes? --Elonka 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was a book. It's called "Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out" (published by MIT Press, first author: Mizuko Ito). And it maps out the collective work we did over the span of the Digital Media and Learning project. My dissertation "Taken out of Context" also came out of this and I'm currently turning that into a book for Yale University Press. Zephoria (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

None of that, as it happens, would suffice under the notability guidelines for an academic. Most academics publish their dissertations. I agree that if the page is kept, that information should be added. Your recent posting on Twitter about your own Misplaced Pages entry will likely do more harm than good to the article, however. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(I must add, however, that this prediction of mine appears to have been incorrect so far, due to the excellent edits by MaxVeers.) Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Most doctoral dissertations aren't published, unless you include on-demand publication by UMI etc. (Occasionally in a university library you'll encounter a clutch of twenty or more dissertations from UMI, and looking at them you realize that there's a very good reason why most remain unpublished: the majority are pedestrian, and of course many are mere assemblages of PoMo piffle etc.) A lot are published on the web by their authors. Quite a lot are published by vanity academic presses. A small number are published more or less as is by reputable academic publishers. And a sizable minority are reworked into books from such publishers. (The last is the fate of the PhD thesis of my own supervisor. He went on to publish nine more books I can think of offhand -- all Cambridge University Press or Blackwell -- but there's no article about him in en:WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I just want to add that I do find this kind of comparison helpful. To add an example to those I listed in an earlier remark, about half the people profiled as 'leaders among women in technology' in the short Fast Company article that is now mentioned in the entry's introduction do not, themselves, have Misplaced Pages pages and do not appear to meet the notability guidelines. This is the type of thing I mean when I call this case a borderline case of notability. It is not an insult to the subject (except to the extent you find self-promotion distasteful). Antiselfpromotion (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't think that I was notable if I read this entry and I generally agree that its fluffiness makes me look silly at best. If I were to edit this article, I would add the work that I did with the Internet Safety Technical Task Force with John Palfrey and Dena Sacco (and its impact on the online safety discourse in the press, in policy, and with companies); I might also talk about the MacArthur-funded followup on Youth and Media Policy. I would add the work that I did with on the Knight Commission on Information Needs in a Local Democracy co-chaired by Marisa Mayer and Ted Olson (and its impact on policy decisions from broadband to CPB). I would refer to the fact that I keynoted SXSW this year to an audience of 8000 and my talk's impact on discussions of privacy. I might also talk about all of the other high-impact keynotes that I've done in recent years rather than tangential talks from years ago. I would reference the press profiles that have been written about me in the NYTimes, Fast Company, Financial Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. instead of the tangential references in old news stories. (Although, for the argument happening here, I get 10-50 requests for comment from the press per week depending on what's happening in the news and I respond to maybe 20% of them.) I might even mention that Fast Company listed me among the most influential women in technology or that the Financial Times called me "the high priestess of internet friendship" (even though this makes me cringe). So as to make all of my biases known, I'd probably mention that I worked for Macromedia, Intel, Tribe.net, Google, and Yahoo. And that I'm on the LiveJournal advisory board and the New Media Consortium board of directors and that I have a fellowship at the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society. (And, for the record, I worked full-time for V-Day from 2007-2009 after volunteering part-time since 2004.) I think that the academic work that I do is interesting and important but it alone doesn't make me any more notable than your average academic. What I would argue makes me notable (and probably controversial) is the way that I blend academia, industry, and the public. I've become a public intellectual by communicating grounded academic scholarship to a much broader audience through many channels: blogging, public speaking, sitting on commissions and task forces, working for companies, and speaking to the press regularly. It's the combination of what I do that makes people interested in who I am. But of course, this is a Misplaced Pages entry about me so I don't really get to have a say, but I don't think that what is currently here communicates why I'm notable and so I totally see why this argument keeps happening. Zephoria (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is manifest that you have a high opinion of yourself, and that opinion may be, in the context in which you work, at least somewhat deserved. To make my own opinion clear, however, I am not convinced that even if everything you say above were sourced (I have no doubt it is true), it would make you notable under our guidelines; at best the notability would be marginal. Being profiled (I have read the profiles), particularly on trendy subjects, is not sufficient. Serving with dozens of other people on boards and commissions is not sufficient; would you claim that everyone who served with you on the Knight Commission (which is itself probably not notable under our guidelines) needs a Misplaced Pages entry, or only those who very much want one and who talk about themselves and their work a lot? Your autobiography above establishes you as a promising young academic, or 'public intellectual' if you would prefer. It is not atypical for young academics! It is, indeed, quite ordinary. That promise, or having a following on Twitter among social-media devoteés and at specialised conferences, does not establish notability. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We know what your opinion is and your comments are at or just over the line. You're not adding anything new to the discussion and some of your statements appear intended solely to demean the subject. (Incidentally, your comments continue to reinforce that you are completely out of your element in this discussion and lack the right background to make substantive contributions on this and related topics.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a bunch of notable accomplishments and references that ought to finally put this discussion to rest. (Boyd also won CITASA's 2010 Public Sociology award, which by itself makes her notable, but the announcement isn't official yet.) The whole process took me an hour or two, as it would have taken anyone else. I wish the countless hours that have gone into debating the notability of this page had instead gone into contributing to its content. MaxVeers (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You veered toward the promotional in your later edits, but on balance they are a clear improvement. Thank you. ElKevbo, my goal is not to demean, just to accurately describe. Not being an expert on social networking does not make me unqualified to discuss notability. It is not an insult to call the subject ordinary! Consider, if you will, that there was certainly some young academic who discussed televisions to the press during the rise of the television. It is questionable whether such a person would have been encyclopedically notable or would warrant an article on Misplaced Pages today, regardless of how often she talked to the press or whether a few passing profiles were written or vague praise given by journalists. MaxVeers, your edits are very good. I dispute, however, that an award from a section of the ASA makes one notable. Look at the past recipients of the award, or a similar type of yearly award by an departmental association like the ACM, and decide for yourself. It is manifestly not the kind of 'major scholarly award' to which our guidelines for academic notability refer; the guidelines are clear on that point. In general, comparison is a good strategy in evaluating claims of notability: the other 'associate fellows' at Tilberg do not (and probably should not) have Misplaced Pages articles about them, many other speakers at media conferences do not, the other members of the various committees on which the subject has worked have not. The major difference between those people and the subject is apparently that the subject seems to want others to hear her name more often. I am still a little concerned about undetected or systemic bias because the subject appears to have personally caused your edits to occur by posting here and on Twitter about her own article. I would be more comfortable if others who were not already experts about or aficionados of social networking had their say about the article; I am certain, at a minimum, that such people without a specialist's perspective would not so readily question my good faith or motivations in commenting on this article merely because I question notability in a borderline case. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

MoS

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

Per MOS:CAP, , bell hooks, k.d. lang etc. this would seem an obvious move. Skomorokh 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the policy has been in place for close to three years now, and almost all of the objections above are objections to the policy and not to its application to this page, I would definitely offer my support. -- Irn (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. It seems a mountain over a molehill, but I would support the move. -- Halavais (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support but figger the old objectors are still around. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the decent thing to do would be to honor her name-formatting/capitalization preferences. However, from a sampling of the reliable sources used as references in the article, as well as a Google News Archive search, it appears most of them don't honor it, and instead use "Danah Boyd". So the question is, which takes precedence: her preferences, or the reliable source usage? Is it sufficient that a decent minority (20–25%, if I had to guess) of the reliable sources do honor her preference? 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The standard, from WP:MOSCAP is "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." It doesn´t need to be a majority. I would definitely say that a "decent minority" over the course of years constitutes regular and established use. -- Irn (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that perspective, but as Bellagio99 suggests below, it would be good to line up a comprehensive list of the RS references that use "danah boyd" prior to opening a move request. 28bytes (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Having gone thru this multiple times (without success), I urge Irn and Ubernostrum to post a bunch of reliable lower case sources, before continuing the debate. Otherwise, I fear, same old, same old.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been through this multiple times, too, and can attest that reliable sources make not a bit of difference -- the moment you bring up a respectable source, you get shouted down with "oh, obviously they've been influenced by her and aren't reliable anymore". Ubernostrum (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Uber, I've been there with you. And I am not volunteering to do the work, altho Google Scholar would make it easy. But talking in an evidence vacuum doesn't make sense either. Those who are passionate about it, please put up or shut up as we used to say as a kid (in the nicest way). Assemble the evidence, svp. Bellagio99 (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

As there was no objections to your change, I've formalised it in the page title. Skomorokh 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There are most definitely objections to the change, and this should go through WP:RM. --Elonka 17:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You waited through three months of discussion in favour of the change to pipe up for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, seriously? Skomorokh 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
• Start-Class Websites articles
• Low-importance Websites articles
• Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• Articles with connected contributors