Language desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 22

danah boyd

Hi why is this person in lower case? Even the references to her are in lower case. Even if she chose to register her name like this, should it be allowed in written English? Sandman1142 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely accepted, including on Wikipedia, that we go with the unusual capitalizations people use. The Wikipedia position is that we follow common usage on this. Personally I am not sure this is a good idea. We do not, for example, generally use titles, even when they are awarded by recognised bodies (although we acknowledge them in first-use).

You may be amused that one lower-case personality claims that she chose lower-case so that her name would not be the centre of attention. This seems a little disingenuous to me.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

More than a little, I would say... I would also say that the lead of the dana boyd article, like any English sentence, should being with a capital: ('Danah boyd ... is ...') but I fear opening a can of worms (in contrast, the first sentence of "Early life" starts with capitalised 'Boyd'). A 10-year-old article on Language Log discusses this affectation. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that I agree with the conclusion and tone of that piece. For one, it seems needlessly dismissive of bell hooks. According to the Chicago manual of style, via this NYT bit [1]

“

...the Chicago Manual says it is not all right to capitalize the name of the writer bell hooks because she insists that it be lower case.

”

I mean, if you tell me you prefer to be called "Andrew", I am still allowed to call you "Andy" - but doing so repeatedly and with clear knowledge that it is against your preference would make me kind of a jerk, in my opinion. It may be an affectation on your part, but that doesn't mean your simple wishes shouldn't be respected when people write about you. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm OK with following the typographical preferences of individuals up to the point that it doesn't become inconvenient for me. In the middle of a sentence, sure, I'll go ahead and write "danah boyd" or "bell hooks" if that's what the owners of those names prefer. But I won't start a sentence with a lowercase letter — that interferes with readability. --Trovatore (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally reasonable; I'd do the same if I had to talk about them in print. I believe CMS speaks a bit about not letting another guideline destroy clarity/readability. I know Strunk&White mention something along those lines. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The direct answer to your precise question is "yes, it should be allowed" - in fact, according to my links above, it is preferred that writers respect the capitalization style of their subjects' names. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the answer is "no, it should not be allowed." Your Andrew/Andy example above is not relevant here. Both Andrew and Andy are permissible names, so in that case the subject's wishes should be respected. But writing a person's name in all lower case violates the rules of written English, which it is not within the subject's gift to do. --Viennese Waltz 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says VW apparently. It's not like the police will show up if I write "Bell Hooks" -- But that would be in direct contradiction to the Chicago Manual of Style, and also slightly disrespectful in my opinion. Of course people may write what they want here or on a blog. But each publisher will have their own style guide, and the CMS is widely regarded as an authority for many journalistic and academic venues. They are not the sole arbiter of what is "correct", but they are one of the primary authorities. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A style guide, or "the rules of written English", has no legal foundation, and there's no law preventing someone from calling themself pretty much anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people still write "e. e. cummings" in faux-respect to his general dislike of capitals, but in apparent ignorance of the fact that he did not usually impose this preference on the spelling of his own name, E. E. Cummings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, it's spelt, "Raymond Luxury Yacht," but it's pronounced, "Throat Warbler Mangrove". μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See also. —Tamfang (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Manual of Style does *not* insist that Bell Hooks' name be spelled "bell hooks". It says: "Names and initials of persons, real or fictitious, are capitalized.[...] The names of certain writers occasionally appear without capitals—for example, bell hooks. If such unconventional spelling is the strong preference of the bearer of the name, it should be respected in appropriate contexts." If you think the appropriate context in which to honor such a deviation from normal orthography is, say, in dinner invitations and Cchristmas cards, you can justifiably use the CMOS to justify using normal orthography in other contexts—such as encyclopedia articles. - Nunh-huh 23:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of spell my name this way stuff is performance art, and of the worst kind: it relies on the audience to amuse the "performer". --The artist formerly known as μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it is the right of every person to be called what they wish. It is not my prerogative to say what a person's name must, or must not, be. If bell hooks and danah boyd want that to be their names, its beyond presumptuous of me to decide that those are NOT their names. If a person does not get to choose what their own name is, why should you, or me, or anyone else have more rights in that regard? --Jayron 32 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, a person's right to call himself what he wishes places no obligation on me to learn Klingon. There's no such thing as a right to have other people pronounce your name in a certain way, dude. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Trovatore, I find my own convenience relevant here, though I have no problem with bell hooks and danah boyd (in fact, they're easier to type). On the other hand, I just couldn't manage something like

in English text (and not everyone can afford to be ). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various companies, pop groups and so on expect that their names are written in FULL CAPITALS. They're entitled to do this, and to pay others to do it. Wikipedia ignores this (other perhaps than in a footnote pointing out that this is the subject's preference). When Wikipedia (for the most part) ignores the fact that (for example) Sanyo consistently presented its name as SANYO, it neither denies that Sanyo (now defunct, despite the impression the article gives) wanted this nor implies that a company should not do this. Bell Hooks is of course entirely justified in writing "bell hooks" (just as she'd be entirely justified in writing "bell hooks"); if I were the autocrat of Wikipedia I'd ignore this; if my expected lifespan were 150 years or more I might argue the matter in the MoS talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various companies, pop groups, etc. are not actual people who should have the expectation of baseline levels of human dignity and respect. Corporations may be legal persons, but that's a rather arcane aspect of corporate law and not really applicable to how I, as a human being, should be expected to treat other human beings. --Jayron 32 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have different ideas of "baseline levels of human dignity and respect". My own include, but are not limited to, shelter, warmth, food, education, medical care, elected representation, free speech (with the usual exceptions such as "Fire!" in crowded theatres) and of course operation of the shift key; they don't include subservience to personal whims of orthography. You're welcome to write "Jayron" without a capital or in blue; I'll write it as I write the other names of other people/users. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to use someone's own chosen form of address seems highly disrespectful. If someone introduced themselves to you as "Andy" and you called them "Andrew", and then they politely asked you to call them "Andy" and you continue to insist to call them a name that they don't wish you to, because of your own personal beliefs about what their name should be, then that's not respect. That's you intruding on their own personal choices of self-identification. That's highly disrespectful. --Jayron 32 23:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have I got news for you, Hoary!. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well . . . damn, now I need a new excuse for not joining in the "fun" at MoS. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for a most interesting but not entirely conclusive discussion :) I think the point made about "e. e. cummings" is quite relevant. If he could be referred to in lower case, and I've seen that in reputable print, then why not anyone else? Sandman1142 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unfortunate choice of example, though, given that he did not refer to himself that way, and the popular idea that he did appears to have been created out of whole cloth by a critic named Harry T. Moore. (At least, that's the impression I get from our article.) There are multiple examples of more recent folks who really did request to be referred to in minuscule, and respected newspapers that complied, so no need to pick on poor Estlin. --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the bye, I recall that there was a person in the news a few years ago, maybe the Eighties or so, who was nominated in lowercase at his own request. He was not one you would normally think of in the company of danah boyd or bell hooks — some sort of Wall Street figure I think, who may or may not have been involved in some sort of financial or political scandal. I want to say "robert walden" or "robert walpole" but both those names seem to belong to more famous people. Does this ring a bell with anyone? I remember the WSJ referring to him in lowercase, which surprised me a tiny bit. --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This talks about what lowercaseness and uppercaseness may have meant to the poet: [2]. (But what is with his [titles]?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia suffers from a self-contradiction in cases like this. We require valid sourcing, especially for persons - yet we insist that our manual of style overrides those sources. The usual compromise would be to say "Danah Boyd, styled as danah boyd". Having an article title in lower case is non-standard here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a MOS entry on this? There should be. I'm all for MOS overriding eccentric stylings. Bhny (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Arabic inquiry

What is the Arabic in http://www.lfkuwait.net/content/images/stories/french2c.png ? It is for Lycée Français de Koweït.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

مدرسة الکویت الفرنسیة - Omidinist (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]