Talk:U. L. Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reason for unusual first name[edit]

As Washington is the only major league player to have initials as a first name, I think it would be useful if the reason for this was included in the article. Asd36f (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — MaterialWorks 17:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U L Washington → U. L. Washington – Known as "U. L. Washington" in reliable secondary sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. Looking at those autographed baseball cards, he signs his own name with the dots after "U" and "L". I don't see a good reason to deviate from MOS:INITS here. 162 etc. (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Autograph[edit]

Regarding this edit, the fact that his autographs have periods seems trivial and is WP:OR unless reliable sources are cited that make note of it, lending credence to its significance. —Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This more recent edit just adds pictures of his autograph, the source themselves don't make any observation about his use of periods. This is WP:OR at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the form of his signature is significant in itself; it's just a style choice, much like how this article uses periods after the letters. From what I've seen in a quick look at the cited sources and a very brief search, his quotes about his name trace from an Oklahoma newspaper, and there's a note in the Kansas City Star obituary about the Royals asking him about it. (The citation in the SABR bio about a relative with the same name points to an obituary in the Atoka County Times where the family member's name is shown with periods, but again that's probably a newspaper style decision rather than a direct copy from an authoritative source.) Thus I would suggest rewording the sentence to say that Washington stated the letters didn't stand for anything, but were his given name. isaacl (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTEXT attribution is needed if there is some doubt. But I don't think any sources contest that the initials mean nothing. In fact this 1978 SI piece just says matter of factly: As for U. L. Washington (the initials don't stand for anything), nobody ever worshipped before his talent. —Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current text, The U and L are Washington's legal given name, goes beyond what the sources say. Thus I think it would be more accurate to just state that the letters didn't stand for anything. isaacl (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, his Baseball Almanac profile lists it as his "birth name", and WP's lead sentence format implies it's his legal name. I'm neutral to keeping or removing the "legal given name", but I suppose removing it is the most conservative route. —Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead sentence isn't sourced; someone writing the name in the lead sentence doesn't mean they found a source for the legal name. I would prefer to skip using terms that imply more formal sources have been used. isaacl (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know that he used periods, that people asked about it, and he explained that they were not an abbreviation. It is decidedly unlikely that the periods are part of his legal name, but we don't know. It's reasonable to point at that using periods when the name is not an abbreviation is unusual! How about, "Washington's given name was U.L. While he used periods between the letters, they were not an abbreviation." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most people would wonder what the letters stand for, whether or not there are periods. And the article already explains that they dont stand for anything. —Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why is it so important to omit the mention? The dots are unquestionably there. Mentioning them is not trivial. Insisting that they not be mentioned is trivial. It does not matter either way. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that my judgement that it might not be "unusual" to sign with dots might be considered OR. But I don't think that makes my edit OR. All I did was change to what the RS's said at that point, which was that U and L do not stand for anything, and are his given legal name. The two sources now being used to source the claim look to me to be OR. Specifically, don't we need a RS to interpret the photographs, if we are trying to determine if they have dots after U and L? Gödel2200 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is doubting that the dots are there, we don't need an RS to tell us that. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's true that no one is doubting the dots are there. But I think that we do need an RS to tell us that there are dots there. Specifically, WP:PRIMARY states: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The pictures themselves count as primary sources, and deducing that the U and L are followed by dots, and that this is his signature, requires analysis, which we need a secondary source for. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of general linguistic orthography and not of any particular study of this one man that periods have a received meaning that he apparently ignored.71.105.190.227 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really disturbing interpretation. WP policies exist to guide us through questionable situations, not to create questionable situations where absolute certainty exists. See WP:5P5, WP:IAR, & WP:BURO. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was confusing statements of fact with "analysis" for the simple fact of him signing with dots after U and L. But saying "he nonetheless" signed his name in that way is certainly an interpreation, and we need an RS for that. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any source relating to the universally understood meaning of having dots would suffice then.
Refusal to interpret the dots strikes me as utterly bizarre.
71.105.190.227 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine simply saying he signed his name with dots after U and L (we have sources for that), but we don't have a source that indicates we should say "nonetheless". Gödel2200 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I once again affirm that the extraordinary strangeness of using dots whose only meaning understood by anyone is that they define what they follow as an abbreviation after something that is not an abbreviation absolutely must be observed. If you think something so basic needs a "source" then pick any guide to English orthography that gives this universally accepted definition of why dots are used in the context of names for anything or anyone.71.105.190.227 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will once again affirm that "nonetheless" is an interpretation. Regardless of whether how "extraordinary" we think this practice is, it does not change the fact that this is an analysis of the photographs. None of our sources say "nonetheless", and, per my comments above, we need a source to say this, or else this is OR. This is not something "basic", as there is no area we are getting this information from, other than our own interpretations. The dots themselves are clearly visible on the picture, so we can say that they are there. Saying "nonetheless", however is in no way obvious or "basic", as it does not appear in any of the sources.Gödel2200 (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:Bagumba, I believe that the text ("He nonetheless signed his name with periods after the letters", as the article reads today) should be deleted. This is WP:SYNTH and not something that needs to be in the article. 162 etc. (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is blatantly ridiculous for anything as bizarre as writing what is not an abbreviation as if it were an abbreviation to be allowed to pass without comment,as is any Wikipedia policy that excuses such a practice. Cite linguistic sources for abbreviation practices all you want but don't pretend the dots are anything close to expected in the circumstances. Harry Truman put a dot after his S that was nonetheless never expanded to either the "Shippe" or "Stone" different factions of his family wanted it to stand for, because he wanted them each to feel it could stand for what they wanted; Washington openly stated that the letters were his entire first and middle names, yet included the dots for no orthographically defensible reason.71.105.190.227 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote his name as "U. L. Washington" because his name was U. L. Washington. If you have any sources that go deeper into this (and I don't mean pictures of autographed baseball cards), please cite them. 162 etc. (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go again!
His entire name was "U L Washington"...he specifically affirmed that the U and L were his names and NOT abbreviations as any use of dots after the letters would automatically signify.
He nonetheless WROTE his name as "U. L. Washington".
Periods are NEVER part of a name itself...only letters themselves can be.
Do YOU have any sources to the contrary? 71.105.190.227 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source cited in the article. "People used to always ask me what the initials U.L. stood for," Washington said. "I'd tell them, "U.L. That's it. They don't stand for anything.' "
I agree. That's it. 162 etc. (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And by the standard rules of orthography (cite all the sources you like) "not stand for anything" means "do not use dots".71.105.190.227 (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. 162 etc. (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Full stop and its sources...allowance is made for abbreviations not always being indicated by dots but not for dots being used for something that is not an abbreviation.71.105.190.227 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal for "nonetheless"[edit]

The text in question currently reads:

The U and L are Washington's legal given name and were not initials of other names.[1][2] He nonetheless signed his name with periods after the letters.[3][4]

It seems that a major disagreement stems from the use of nonetheless. Per MOS:EDITORIAL:

More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

I propose to:

  1. Remove nonetheless.
  2. Move He signed his name with periods after the letters from "Early life" to "Personal life", as he presumably wasn't signing autographs in his early years, nor do we have samples of those to observe.

These changes would remove the concern or WP:OR/editorializing about the dichotomy of "U. L." not standing for anything and Washington's use of periods.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Baldwin, Mike. "The Toothpicks Always Stuck Out U.L. Wants Fans to Remember His Playing". The Oklahoman.
  2. ^ Muder, Craig (March 5, 2024). "#CARDCORNER: 1986 TOPPS U L WASHINGTON". National Baseball Hall of Fame. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  3. ^ SABR biography showing his signature with periods after the letters that do not in fact abbreviate anything (as dots would always be expected to signify)
  4. ^ Baseball Almanac trades page showing his signature with periods after the letters that do not in fact abbreviate anything (as dots would always be expected to signify)
  • Delete all mentions of the signature I'm changing my stance, as I simply don't see the importance of mentioning how he signed his name. His name was "U. L. Washington", and he signed baseball cards with "U. L. Washington". I can't see how signing a baseball card with your real name is anything noteworthy (though his name certainly is). Support as this would limit the information to what the sources definitively say: that he signed his name with dots after U and L. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also question the need to include this information in the first place. If I am understanding things correctly (correct me if I am wrong), his first name was U. L. So this is a very unusual name, and we can mention that. But I would hardly think it is unusual to sign a baseball card with your given name. He signed cards with U. L., which was his name, so I really don't see a need to mention this in the first place. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:SYNTH. The only cited sources referring specifically to his signature are pictures of baseball cards. 162 etc. (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grudging support as I think it a responsibility to "editorialize" but making clear that he used abbreviation symbols despite not abbreviating is better than letting this pass without comment.71.105.190.227 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to remove "nonetheless" as MOS:EDITORIAL/WP:NPOV issues without sourcing that demonstrates WP:DUE. Prefer to delete signature per WP:OR, otherwise support move to "Personal life" as it's unrelated to his "Early life".—Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned previously, I feel discussion of Washington's signature isn't sufficiently significant to include in the article. I agree it's not an aspect of Washington's early life. I would also support rewording the sentence on Washington's given name to avoid the use of "legal", as it goes beyond what Washington's quotes state. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, it seems that much of this argument stems from the idea that his legal name was "U L Washington", and that has not been supported by any reliable source thus far. 162 etc. (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary,since "U L Washington" can be a legal name while "U. L. Washington" can NOT, since periods are not part of spelling and can not be alphabetized.71.105.190.227 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that it is not possible for "U. L. Washington" to be a legal name certainly needs a source, and is highly questionable, given that many of the sources refer to Washington as "U. L. Washington", not "U L Washington". Gödel2200 (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That he signs it a way that it is not legal to spell it does not change what names can and can not include.71.105.190.227 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Cite. Reliable. Sources. 162 etc. (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any explanation of the standard rules of orthography should suffice.(Look at how California would not allow Elon Musk to use non-alphabetic characters in his son's name.
Logic and language and law absolutely prohibit treating the periods that must mean something is an abbreviation used to follow something that the man himself says are NOT an abbreviation as part of an unabbreviated name.71.105.190.227 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Delete all. Are we done here? 162 etc. (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're done when we agree on a way of pointing out the discrepancy between the two letters being his legal first and middle names and his shockingly anomalous use of periods after them which is completely inconsistent with this.71.105.190.227 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. Anything that goes in the article has to be supported by a reliable source. I and other editors have already asked you to support your assertion that his legal name is "U L Washington" with citations to reliable sources. Not once in any of your replies in these threads have you done so. Please read WP:V and WP:OR very carefully. 162 etc. (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Around and around we go.
Washington's own claim that the letters do not stand for anything constitutes a reliable source that his own use of dots after them is necessarily incorrect.
71.105.190.227 (talk) 71.105.190.227 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. Clearly, you did not read the core Wikipedia policies which I just linked, or are choosing to ignore them.
You are right, however, that this is going in circles. I have nothing more to add here, and neither do you. I'll leave it to the Wikipedia community to determine what's best for the article based on the discussion here. 162 etc. (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harry S. Truman example: The "S" didn't stand for anything. His signing is mentioned in his article, but only in a footnote, and even then there is a reliable source cited that discusses his specific situation.[5]—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U._L._Washington&oldid=1213555769"